|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 15, 2011 2:27:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Dec 15, 2011 2:33:26 GMT
very possible
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Dec 15, 2011 3:00:14 GMT
There, fixed--just needed to move the URL tags around it. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Dec 15, 2011 3:34:15 GMT
I was just about to post this myself. Brings to mind that discussion we had over a year ago about the hunting habits of Dromaeosaurs when Balaur was described. I've long supported the notion that Dromaeosaurs were primarily hunters of small to mid-sized game.
I've only read the Abstract so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinohunter0000 on Dec 15, 2011 5:25:22 GMT
It is interesting to note, as I think mentioned in the article, that Dromaeosaurs differ in sickle-claw size. I know that Dromaeosaurus itself has a relatively small sickle-claw yet boxier skull, whereas Velociraptor has a narrower skull and proportionately slightly larger sickle-claw.
|
|
|
|
Post by fooman666 on Dec 15, 2011 10:30:39 GMT
it's an interesting concept. the claw certainly doesn't seem to be designed for slashing. and the article makes some interesting points about the design of the foot. so this theory certainly seems possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Dec 15, 2011 15:54:59 GMT
It would also explain the arms and hands being fixed the way they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 15, 2011 17:49:06 GMT
I know that Dromaeosaurus itself has a relatively small sickle-claw yet boxier skull Has a sickle-claw from a Dromaeosaurus actually been found then? I knew that a few parts of the feet had been found, but not which parts. Basically, the genus is only known from skull and foot bits. |
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Dec 16, 2011 5:16:18 GMT
Very interesting and very probable. I always found it strange that dromeosaurs' killer-claws were typically thought of as devices used for slashing, and yet they lacked serrations. What the article said about "prey riding" Golden Eagles was cool. I've seen footage of Galapagos Hawks doing it while attacking Marine Iguanas; just imagine seeing a Utahraptor "prey riding"!  Come to think of it, wasn't that how they hunted in WWD? |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Dec 20, 2011 11:04:14 GMT
I know that Dromaeosaurus itself has a relatively small sickle-claw yet boxier skull Has a sickle-claw from a Dromaeosaurus actually been found then? I knew that a few parts of the feet had been found, but not which parts. Basically, the genus is only known from skull and foot bits. Correct, no claws of Dromaeosaurus other than a piece of the third toe claw have ever been found. home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Dromaeosaurs.htm#DromaeosaurusalbertensisThe second toe itself is known, so it may be possible to infer something about the size of the claw from that. As the new paper notes, Dromaeosaurus was different in the the teeth had finer serrations and were more blade like than other dromies, so it may have had a different hunting or at least feeding style. The teeth of most deinonychosaurs were not very sharp, more like little hooks useful for pulling bits of meat off of carcasses like the bills of hawks. |
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Dec 21, 2011 20:16:56 GMT
Well, we have Deinonychus supposedly having a very powerful bite...
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Dec 21, 2011 21:01:24 GMT
Well, we have Deinonychus supposedly having a very powerful bite... According to whom? (I think I can find the paper you're talking about, but...laziness...I plead guilty...) |
|
weaver
Full Member
Icon by the great Djinni!
Posts: 156
|
Post by weaver on Dec 22, 2011 6:54:17 GMT
Neat article and it's entirely plausible. I mean, I like this. It brings up a lot of really interesting points in the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pachyrhinosaurus on Jan 12, 2012 20:19:33 GMT
Something I didn't like about this article is the fact that these people still think archaeopteryx was the 'first bird'. I remember an article from this summer in which archaeopteryx was reclassified as a deinonychosaur and epidexipteryx was considered a basal avian. I'm not sure if the 'evolution of flight' part of the articke is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 12, 2012 20:51:27 GMT
That doesn't seem like something worth getting hung up on. The authors of the Archeopteryx article may discount it as the first bird but there are surely those who think otherwise, as far as I can tell Archeopteryx is still classified as a bird regardless of what the paper said. For all we know all of Deinonychosauria as a group should be classified as birds rather than Archeopteryx re-classified as not being a bird. Tomato, tomahto. The article is still good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 12, 2012 21:26:23 GMT
Something I didn't like about this article is the fact that these people still think archaeopteryx was the 'first bird'. I remember an article from this summer in which archaeopteryx was reclassified as a deinonychosaur and epidexipteryx was considered a basal avian. And then other papers switched Archaeopteryx back. It really doesn't matter too much. The earliest birds would have looked very much like Archaeopteryx, and in fact very much like the earliest dromaeosaurs. Of course, 'bird' is not a technical term, and its definition is therefore flexible. |
|
|
|
Post by Pachyrhinosaurus on Jan 12, 2012 22:16:54 GMT
That doesn't seem like something worth getting hung up on. The authors of the Archeopteryx article may discount it as the first bird but there are surely those who think otherwise, as far as I can tell Archeopteryx is still classified as a bird regardless of what the paper said. For all we know all of Deinonychosauria as a group should be classified as birds rather than Archeopteryx re-classified as not being a bird. Tomato, tomahto. The article is still good. So now its like that paper was never published? |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Jan 13, 2012 3:30:01 GMT
That doesn't seem like something worth getting hung up on. The authors of the Archeopteryx article may discount it as the first bird but there are surely those who think otherwise, as far as I can tell Archeopteryx is still classified as a bird regardless of what the paper said. For all we know all of Deinonychosauria as a group should be classified as birds rather than Archeopteryx re-classified as not being a bird. Tomato, tomahto. The article is still good. So now its like that paper was never published? The paper just present the idea that Archeopteryx should be reclassified but that does not make it official. Someone cannot just write a paper and say "I think this should change to that" and then it happens. If that was the case than chimpanzees would have been moved over the the Homo genus in 2003 when a paper was published saying they should. Name and classification changes are a big deal, it requires a committee in order to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 13, 2012 4:51:39 GMT
Yes, the article is perfectly valid. Just lump the whole maniraptora into Aves and get done with it! Problem solved.  And that will be a hard blow for the BANDits, for sure. I don´t understand the hesitation.. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 13, 2012 9:05:05 GMT
Glad someone beat me to posting it  |
|
Come to think of it, wasn't that how they hunted in WWD?
And that will be a hard blow for the BANDits, for sure. I don´t understand the hesitation..
