|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Sept 18, 2011 16:19:35 GMT
But not random speculative. We know about modern avian dinosaurs or other archosaurs behaviour. Taking in account all the anatomical divergence, that´s a reliable pattern to follow. It would be enough with making them act (and sound) like archosaurs rather than any kind of mammals though. Heck, let them act like mere animals would be enough, thats what I meant with the way PD depict them . I believe we can learn a lot about dinosaurs from extant archosaurs but sometimes it seems people rely on them too much. Saying we can infer what dinosaurs were like based on the behavior of birds and crocodiles is like saying we could learn everything we need to about mammals by studying bats and monotremes. I think PD did succeed on some level in making them behave realistically but you're right, they were greatly anthropomorphized. In a way this is why PD is better than other dino docs. It does only show them fighting and eating--stuff we can infer directly from fossils without much speculation. The show doesn't imply that's all they did, and it's not a WWD style attempt to show day to day life. It's a series of basically short animated illustrations strung together with explanations, like captions in a book. It's really more like an animated dinosaur book than a pseudo-documentary (WWD) or Raptor Red style wok of fiction (DR). I'm pretty impressed by the overall presentation so far. |
|
|
|
Post by crackington on Sept 18, 2011 23:26:38 GMT
1) the claim that Spinosaurus was the largest land predator ever. Given the lack of fossil evidence for that species, which the prog did mention, isn't that a claim too far? Doesn't the fossil evidence for Giganotosaurus indicate that that was bigger? No, and not only that, the largest Giganotosaurus specimen is only the tip of the lower jaw, far more fragmentary than the largest Spinosaurus specimens. I stand corrected, so they're right (until something else is discovered)? |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 18, 2011 23:49:50 GMT
Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus is, being conservative twice heavier and 1/3 longer than any of the carnivores in the range of T.rex and Giganotosaurus, so is pretty fair to assume that Spino is the hugest theropod by far. Well, until we find more remains of Deinocheirus, maybe...  But not random speculative. We know about modern avian dinosaurs or other archosaurs behaviour. Taking in account all the anatomical divergence, that´s a reliable pattern to follow. It would be enough with making them act (and sound) like archosaurs rather than any kind of mammals though. Heck, let them act like mere animals would be enough, thats what I meant with the way PD depict them . I believe we can learn a lot about dinosaurs from extant archosaurs but sometimes it seems people rely on them too much. Saying we can infer what dinosaurs were like based on the behavior of birds and crocodiles is like saying we could learn everything we need to about mammals by studying bats and monotremes. In what else could we rely? they´re their only living relatives. I never implied that we can deduce their whole behaviour and biology observing living archosaurs, but they provide a solid basis for work over. Thats better than taking mammals of any kind as a model, even if they´re filling a similar niche...don´t you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 19, 2011 0:18:31 GMT
In what else could we rely? they´re their only living relatives. I never implied that we can deduce their whole behaviour and biology observing living archosaurs, but they provide a solid basis for work over. Thats better than taking mammals of any kind as a model, even if they´re filling a similar niche...don´t you agree? We actually agree on this more than you may think. When watching the crylo scene on DR I thought to myself "why would they model the behavior of this animal on that of lions rather than that of living birds" so I totally understand what you're saying. I sometimes feel however that people rely a bit too much on the behavior of birds to try and infer how dinosaurs acted, that includes myself. When I first joined this place I remember having a heated debate on whether dromaeosaurs were pack hunters or not. I argued that no living archosaur is a true pack hunter so dromaeosaurs likely weren't either. Still, there are no living archosaur analogies quite like dromaeosaurs so to say they couldn't be pack hunters because modern archosaurs aren't sounds like an easy excuse to discount it all together. Dinosaurs like the ceratopsians and sauropods are a far cry from birds and an even further cry from crocodiles but there are living mammals who share similar niches. I'm sure the daily life of a triceratops was more like a large herd dwelling mammal than it was like that of a chickadee or alligator just like the daily life of a whale is more like that of a basking shark than that of a rabbit despite the whale and rabbit both being mammals. Again I state that we can learn a lot about dinosaurs from living archosaurs but the fact that archosaurs may or may not do something behaviorally does not mean the same is true for dinosaurs. Just so we're clear, there is no need to get defensive. I never specified that you Arioch thought that the behavior of dinosaurs was limited to what we find in extant archosaurs. I said some people, never dropped any names. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 19, 2011 5:20:30 GMT
"Thats better than taking mammals of any kind as a model, even if they´re filling a similar niche...don´t you agree?"
No. Nonavian dinosaurs were unique in lots of ways. That should be taken into account. convergent evolution.
"Dinosaurs like the ceratopsians and sauropods are a far cry from birds and an even further cry from crocodiles but there are living mammals who share similar niches. I'm sure the daily life of a triceratops was more like a large herd dwelling mammal than it was like that of a chickadee or alligator just like the daily life of a whale is more like that of a basking shark than that of a rabbit despite the whale and rabbit both being mammals."
I agree with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 19, 2011 11:12:18 GMT
Convergent evolution rarely affects behaviour to a great extent beyond the feeding habits, more than it affects morphology or biology. Dolphins and sharks as an example are as valid as basking sharks & some whales, arent they? Also while we know than non avian dinosaurs shared some traits with living archosaurs thanks to the phylogenetic default, all what they could have in common with "analogue" mammals is just highly speculative.
We´re going on the pack hunting thing again? *Sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Sept 19, 2011 20:39:41 GMT
]Dinosaurs like the ceratopsians and sauropods are a far cry from birds and an even further cry from crocodiles but there are living mammals who share similar niches. I'm sure the daily life of a triceratops was more like a large herd dwelling mammal than it was like that of a chickadee or alligator just like the daily life of a whale is more like that of a basking shark than that of a rabbit despite the whale and rabbit both being mammals. Great point, good examples. I finally got around to seeing the first two episodes of Dinosaur Revolution incidentally. It had its moments, but it's combination of extreme violence and slapstick comedy reminded of Itchy and Scratchy from the Simpsons. Plus the storylines were reminscient of Ice Age or a Disney movie. Still, keep an open mind and all.  But for now I think I'll stick to the BBC. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 19, 2011 21:50:06 GMT
Convergent evolution rarely affects behaviour to a great extent beyond the feeding habits, more than it affects morphology or biology. Dolphins and sharks as an example are as valid as basking sharks & some whales, arent they? Also while we know than non avian dinosaurs shared some traits with living archosaurs thanks to the phylogenetic default, all what they could have in common with "analogue" mammals is just highly speculative. Pretty much anything involving the behavior of animals that have been extinct for 65 million years is speculative. Did someone say we were? I was just using it as an example. Why? Do you want to? I finally got around to seeing the first two episodes of Dinosaur Revolution incidentally. It had its moments, but it's combination of extreme violence and slapstick comedy reminded of Itchy and Scratchy from the Simpsons. Plus the storylines were reminscient of Ice Age or a Disney movie. I totally get what you're saying and agree. Truth is if you read my posts from before I saw DR I was completely turned off by the slapstick and feared the entire documentary was going to be that way. Perhaps I see it as better than it was because my hopes were so low. I dunno, I read a lot of dinosaur books so when I see shows telling me what I already know I get kinda bored, DR didn't teach me anything but it really did entertain me. I did learn a couple things from PD though so that was nice. I'll withhold additional comments until I've actually seen them both in their entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 19, 2011 22:22:59 GMT
Convergent evolution rarely affects behaviour to a great extent beyond the feeding habits, more than it affects morphology or biology. Dolphins and sharks as an example are as valid as basking sharks & some whales, arent they? Also while we know than non avian dinosaurs shared some traits with living archosaurs thanks to the phylogenetic default, all what they could have in common with "analogue" mammals is just highly speculative. Pretty much anything involving the behavior of animals that have been extinct for 65 million years is speculative. But there are some stuff which is WAY more likely than other. I hate to repeat myself but this doesn´t work with random speculations. It´s not "anything goes". Nothing in paleontology is 100% certain unless there is direct evidence of it (soft tissue impressions and bones), so the most plausible - which here is the philogenetic position- make up the "fact" until proven otherwise (with an evidence solid enough) |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 19, 2011 22:41:34 GMT
But there are some stuff which is WAY more likely than other. I hate to repeat myself but this doesn´t work with random speculations. It´s not "anything goes". Nothing in paleontology is 100% certain unless there is direct evidence of it (soft tissue impressions and bones), so the most plausible - which here is the philogenetic position- make up the "fact" until proven otherwise (with an evidence solid enough) I'm aware of all this. Did I not express my frustrations with regard to the crylo scene in DR? I agree with you all the way, I just think some people take it too far, you don't need to convince me. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 19, 2011 23:06:04 GMT
Hope you dont think I´m one of those. Anyway, I was adressing Griffin too.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 19, 2011 23:30:53 GMT
Hope you dont think I�m one of those. Anyway, I was adressing Griffin too. Couldn't say for certain but I don't believe you are. Even if you were it's not like you don't have a good argument to back yourself up on.  I know I can be one of those myself...again I reference the pack hunting dromaeosaur argument. I have a tendency to argue against the opposite of someone even if I do in fact agree with them, I'm not sure why. That crylo scene in DR though...really bugged me. What animal destroys the display structure of another and what female already invested in a nest lets it get destroyed? Even female lions will defend their cubs. Birds are the better analogy here, once the egg laying and nesting are underway females don't just leave their mate, they help them defend the territory...unless there is a bird that goes against this that I'm not aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 4:20:12 GMT
I don't think your over doing it i just don't see anything wrong with giving a dinosaur some mammalian tendancies as long as it makes sense. Sauropod browsing the tops of trees...giraffe. Stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Sept 20, 2011 7:53:42 GMT
OK, just finished watching the first episode of PD on YouTube. I loved it! I thought the dinos in general looked more life-like than in DR. I think it's the eyes. Their eyes in PD look sooooo real! Although, I have to say their skin details and such looked pretty impressive too. Their colorations and patterns were very nice, maybe not as bold and imaginative as in DR, but at least they're continuing the trend of more diversity. The backgrounds, at least in this first one, weren't always realistically convincing. But in some of the other 2 minute or so behind-the-scenes shorts I also found, there were some landscapes in upcoming episodes that looked pretty good. BTW, I really enjoyed those "making-of" shorts. And, I also picked up some new tidbits here and there during this first episode. The animation I thought in general was pretty good and fluid. And the match-ups of the animal-on-animal looked pretty convincing too. Sometimes with CGI, for example, it doesn't always look exactly like the teeth of one are on or into the other's flesh. You know what I mean? Probably my only gripe is, except for the few obvious aforementioned pronation problems, I wish they wouldn't freeze-frame as much during an action seen. I like the info I'm getting, but would much rather them let the scene play out in full, then give me the info at the end of the sequence. They could then go back and refer to certain things in a freeze-frame. Other than that, I think I'm going to like this series! ALOT! |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 10:20:03 GMT
Hope you dont think I�m one of those. Anyway, I was adressing Griffin too. Couldn't say for certain but I don't believe you are. Even if you were it's not like you don't have a good argument to back yourself up on. I know I can be one of those myself...again I reference the pack hunting dromaeosaur argument. I have a tendency to argue against the opposite of someone even if I do in fact agree with them, I'm not sure why. That crylo scene in DR though...really bugged me. What animal destroys the display structure of another and what female already invested in a nest lets it get destroyed? Even female lions will defend their cubs. Birds are the better analogy here, once the egg laying and nesting are underway females don't just leave their mate, they help them defend the territory...unless there is a bird that goes against this that I'm not aware of. I wouldn´t think too much about it, really, DR is just slapstick behaviour wise. Only the last episode makes more sense in that regard. That tendency of questioning the stablished is a healthy habit, I often do the same. The dinosaur renaissance couldnt ever happened without that. And its ok, we actually agree in a lot of things but still I disagree on an hervibore ornitischian (actually most likely an omnivore) like a ceratopsid behaving more like a buffalo rather than any other known reptile, like you said. Just to clarify my point.... Why not like another hervibore reptile like iguanas or turtles instead? Most ornitischians just lack the brain capacity to be smarter than those, and way less than most medium sized dwelling mammals. There´s no way than they could emulate the latter even if they tried ( yes, they feed on the same , but same goes for komodos and wolves)...and some myths about paternal caring, for example turned out to be false those last years. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 20, 2011 13:21:05 GMT
and some myths about paternal caring, for example turned out to be false those last years. Exactly WHEN they debunked the "parental care" hypotesis in dinosaurs? As far as i'm aware, it's still considered a valid hypotesis, obviously depending on the species. Then again, as Griffin, i don't see why some dinosaurs couldn't behaved at least in some cases in a manner somewhat similar to those of certain modern day mammals (as long as it makes sense, of course)... And then, seriously, enough with that "dinosaurs are stupid" stereotype; the size of the brain relative to the body associated with intelligence is not taken so seriously nowadays among some ethologists, plus birds and crocs can be as clever as any mammal, if not even more (obviously taking into account that "intelligence" is a VERY relative term).  |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 13:34:27 GMT
I wouldn´t think too much about it, really, DR is just slapstick behaviour wise. Only the last episode makes more sense in that regard. Oh I don't, I know a lot of the behavior was very anthropomorphized and made humorous for the audience but there were convincing behaviors as well. I liked that the dinosaurs were heavy on display. The Eoraptor, Gigantoraptor (thought a bit silly), Tyrannosaurus and even the a Torvosaurus and Allosaurus all displayed to each other before roaring and jumping into combat, it was very bird-like and refreshing to see. DR scores on subtle behaviors like these. It isn't all about intelligence and brain size. I could totally see an omnivorous triceratops running small predators away from a kill; a behavior more like that of hogs than turtles or iguanas. I can also see triceratops traveling in herds, something turtles and iguanas do not do. Obviously ceratopsians were heavy on display, display structures not too far off from those of deer or antelope. I find it odd that you say dinosaurs cannot be compared to mammals due to their brain size. What about birds? People are constantly comparing birds to dinosaurs in terms of behavior but birds have far larger brain to body ratios than dinosaurs do. Based on your argument no comparisons can be made between the two because of this. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 14:19:33 GMT
Long term parental care theories are largely debunked since some years ago. Skeletons and trackways of adults and juveniles ornitischians are mostly found in different zones, which means that they didnt lived together and fed in different zones. Most young ones were probably precocious and had to take care of themselves after hatching, and that also apply to pterosaurs. Maybe in some non avian theropods the care would extend a bit more, but not for much, since there isnt any evidence supporting it. There are some trackways of sauropods which include some young ones prints, but they are rare. It isn't all about intelligence and brain size. I could totally see an omnivorous triceratops running small predators away from a kill; a behavior more like that of hogs than turtles or iguanas. I can also see triceratops traveling in herds, something turtles and iguanas do not do. Obviously ceratopsians were heavy on display, display structures not too far off from those of deer or antelope. I find it odd that you say dinosaurs cannot be compared to mammals due to their brain size. What about birds? People are constantly comparing birds to dinosaurs in terms of behavior but birds have far larger brain to body ratios than dinosaurs do. Based on your argument no comparisons can be made between the two because of this. Marine iguanas live in social groups. Reptiles and other archosaurs use a LOT of display, based in both colours and shapes. Nothing tell us that ceratopsians used the horns more than the frills for display, although is possible, and frills are way more basal than horns. I dont see why that way of obtaining food that you mentioned couldnt happen in a reptile. And the braincase size is everything, my friend! An animal with the brain of the size an structure ( archosaur brain structure) of a duckbill just lacks the cognitive habilities to behave like a giraffe or even a donkey . Is that simple. Croc can be quite smart. The only non avian dinosaurs that can compare to them in terms of brain capacity are those considered the smartest ones, the deinonychosaurs and specifically troodontids. Ratites are the only kind of birds with a similar brain capacity, and all the other dinos capacity are way below those. And despite their very highest level of cognition other birds are still dinosaurs, so why shouldn´t they exhibit analogue behaviour to others dinosaurs? There is 0 evidence supporting the mammal like behaviour on the other hand, smaller as it could be. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Sept 20, 2011 15:17:42 GMT
Long term parental care theories are largely debunked since some years ago. Skeletons and trackways of adults and juveniles ornitischians are mostly found in different zones, which means that they didnt lived together and fed in different zones. Most young ones were probably precocious and had to take care of themselves after hatching, and that also apply to pterosaurs. Maybe in some non avian theropods the care would extend a bit more, but not for much, since there isnt any evidence supporting it. There are some trackways of sauropods which include some young ones prints, but they are rare. You really want to keep this going? I thought I gave you a good out last night? Anyway, I never brought parental care into this so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Don't we have enough on our plates already? You didn't specify. What do ceratopsian horns have to do with anything? I just said they were heavy on display. It can but you specifically mentioned turtles and iguanas which I'm fairly certain don't chase predators from their kills. You say brain size has to do with everything and then say crocodiles are quite smart but crocodiles don't have big brains. Hmmm. I bet if crocodiles were extinct you would say they were too dumb to behave like mammals despite the fact that they exhibit complex social behavior, even parental care. You've contradicted yourself here. The truth is, brain size does not equate intelligence. Fish are never considered intelligent by any means and yet many form long lasting pair bonds and also care for their young yet for some reason ornithischians are incapable of parental care because by your reasoning they're too dumb. Some fish even use tools! You should stick to the argument that dinosaurs behave like birds and crocodiles because they're related to them, probably best to leave intelligence out of this as we don't even fully understand it in extant animals, let alone dinosaurs. Birds diverged from dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago and have had 65 million years to further evolve that other dinosaurs did not. I can only come to the conclusion after all this that you are indeed one of those people that rely too heavily on extant archosaurs in order to discern how dinosaurs behaved. When it comes to dinosaurs we just don't know, anything goes! Birds and crocodiles are our best reference for learning about how they lived but dinosaurs were unique animals that lived for 160 million years and we really don't know how they behaved. A triceratops is not a chickadee and sauropods aren't crocodiles no more than a bat is an elephant. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 15:25:31 GMT
Don't we know duckbills had parental care??? Thought they found yearlings still near the nest.
Crocodiles are indeed smart. At my work our nile croc learns exactly where your head is when she lunges at the door when you go in to feed her. O.o Trust me they are much smarter than their puny brains would lead some people to believe.
Another thing to take into consideration is that in the mesazoic, we had extant reptiles and for the last part birds living alongside nonavian dinosaurs. They were all filling different niches and therefore had to have behaved differently to some extent. Mammals mostly took over the niches dinosaurs were filling then, there is no way they couldn't have shared at least some behaviors. The game doesn't change, just some of the players.
|
|
But for now I think I'll stick to the BBC. 
I know I can be one of those myself...again I reference the pack hunting dromaeosaur argument. I have a tendency to argue against the opposite of someone even if I do in fact agree with them, I'm not sure why.
