|
Post by itstwentybelow on Jan 12, 2009 4:45:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Jan 12, 2009 4:53:33 GMT
Wow, very cool. I can't wait for more to come out! I wonder if there were any theris....
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Jan 12, 2009 6:33:21 GMT
Wow, a Tyrannosaur? Impressive indeed.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 12, 2009 10:01:21 GMT
I have a theory that in China should have lived some Tyrannosaurid bigger than the rex.
Tyrannosaurids normally have the same size than its prey. Albertosaurus was so large than Hypacrosaurus or Saurolophus, and T.rex and Anatotitan were around the same size, too (12 m.) . In China we have the 15 m. Shantungosaurus, so... ;D. Hope this will be proved soon.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 13, 2009 0:46:12 GMT
Ehm...saying 12 meters and saying 15 meters,well,it's not a big difference you know,considering reptiles tend to grow on as they age...I believe,for example,that older Tyrannosaurs could easily reach 14-15 meters,either in Asia and North America
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 13, 2009 1:01:22 GMT
Is the difference between T. Rex and Giganoto. A lot of people have enough with that to annoy about who is the true King of dinos. That discovery could close this debate. ;D
Dinos are not exactly reptiles...and till we dont obtain fossil proof, we cant know how much they grow. The bigger rex we have is in 12 meters. And nothing refute he was adult.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 13, 2009 3:43:02 GMT
Now they aren't reptiles? The magic of cladistics again?
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 13, 2009 10:04:59 GMT
Is that sarcasm, my distrutful friend? ;D
They are within reptilia (like birds), but that doesnt mean they were like modern reptiles, because warm blood and straight legs under the body make some difference between reptilian dinos and true reptiles, apart from other factors (birds ressemblances in theropods and all). Dinosaurs are reptiles in the same way that birds. See? A semantic misunderstanding. I prefer think you didn´t said it to hurt my feelings. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tetonbabydoll on Jan 13, 2009 10:39:12 GMT
Is Sue the largest rex or just the most complete? Or neither? I know we have found more since then. Is Stan new? Also, I understood that there was some debate about whether Jane was a Nannotyrano, or a juvie rex? I thought that they had found some significant differences in skull structure that were a bit outside of the adult-juvie range? Just curious, She is displayed in my hometown, Rockford, Il. So on a trip home, I can visit both Jane and Sue. Coooollll. And my mom, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 13, 2009 10:44:41 GMT
Now they aren't reptiles? The magic of cladistics again? That put a smile on my face ;D
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 13, 2009 12:17:29 GMT
Now they aren't reptiles? The magic of cladistics again? That put a smile on my face ;D And a paternal smile in mine.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 13, 2009 18:00:57 GMT
Is that sarcasm, my distrutful friend? ;D They are within reptilia (like birds), but that doesnt mean they were like modern reptiles, because warm blood and straight legs under the body make some difference between reptilian dinos and true reptiles, apart from other factors (birds ressemblances in theropods and all). Dinosaurs are reptiles in the same way that birds. See? A semantic misunderstanding. I prefer think you didn´t said it to hurt my feelings. ;D And where's the irrefutable proof that they had warm blood? Cladistics? The way I see the proof for ectothermy is more solid.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 13, 2009 18:46:28 GMT
Is that sarcasm, my distrutful friend? ;D They are within reptilia (like birds), but that doesnt mean they were like modern reptiles, because warm blood and straight legs under the body make some difference between reptilian dinos and true reptiles, apart from other factors (birds ressemblances in theropods and all). Dinosaurs are reptiles in the same way that birds. See? A semantic misunderstanding. I prefer think you didn´t said it to hurt my feelings. ;D And where's the irrefutable proof that they had warm blood? Cladistics? The way I see the proof for ectothermy is more solid. Well said...For me only the small/medium sized dinosaurs were ACTUALLY warm blooded...The bigger ones were probably ectothermic but,due to their size,they were able to retain the energy like the warm blooded ones...It's called "brontothermy" if i remember well (it was well explained in the amazing BBC documentary "Life in Cold Blood"). And then...If they were ALL endothermic,why Spinosaurus,Stegosaurus and even some large-frilled Ceratopsids had such structures?
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 13, 2009 19:44:35 GMT
Is that sarcasm, my distrutful friend? ;D They are within reptilia (like birds), but that doesnt mean they were like modern reptiles, because warm blood and straight legs under the body make some difference between reptilian dinos and true reptiles, apart from other factors (birds ressemblances in theropods and all). Dinosaurs are reptiles in the same way that birds. See? A semantic misunderstanding. I prefer think you didn´t said it to hurt my feelings. ;D And where's the irrefutable proof that they had warm blood? Cladistics? The way I see the proof for ectothermy is more solid. Obviously, the answer to the debate of warm /cold blood is not in the phylogenetic classification system, don´t be so...wathever you´re being. Though we can infer some data depending on the proximity between the clades and morphologic similarities. I don´t have patience to defend something that the whole scientist community see as a fact. Sorry. And why do you hate cladistic? are you creationists or...? oh, i should have guessed....
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 13, 2009 22:22:42 GMT
And where's the irrefutable proof that they had warm blood? Cladistics? The way I see the proof for ectothermy is more solid. Obviously, the answer to the debate of warm /cold blood is not in the phylogenetic classification system, don´t be so...wathever you´re being. Though we can infer some data depending on the proximity between the clades and morphologic similarities. I don´t have patience to defend something that the whole scientist community see as a fact. Sorry. And why do you hate cladistic? are you creationists or...? oh, i should have guessed.... Paleontology is NOT an exact science...Because,as all the science itself,it's not based on dogmatic beliefs,and its most accepted theories change through time,even if,as time passes,an old theory can come to the surface again,shining in the light of truth... ...The most common theory now in paleontology is that ALL Dromeosaurids must be feathered,right? That's based on cladistics,educated guesses,hypotesis based on the ancestors of said animals...But we have REAL evidence for that? No. so,because this is actually ONLY a theory (even if widely accepted),everyone has the right to agree or disagree with it.
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jan 14, 2009 0:53:52 GMT
Yeah, we have evidences. Reality doesn´t change even if you don´t want open the eyes. Let me say your attitude is quite dogmatic, you idolize the JP "raptors" and you won´t accept that they were no scaly and lizard-like, no matter what expert say, its obvious. But its alright. ;D
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 14, 2009 1:01:04 GMT
Now they aren't reptiles? The magic of cladistics again? He means they aren't like traditional reptiles. Like, if an uneducated person were to see a large dinosaur (like a sauropod or something), they would probably think it looks like a large mammal and not like a "reptile".
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 14, 2009 1:05:22 GMT
Is that sarcasm, my distrutful friend? ;D They are within reptilia (like birds), but that doesnt mean they were like modern reptiles, because warm blood and straight legs under the body make some difference between reptilian dinos and true reptiles, apart from other factors (birds ressemblances in theropods and all). Dinosaurs are reptiles in the same way that birds. See? A semantic misunderstanding. I prefer think you didn´t said it to hurt my feelings. ;D And where's the irrefutable proof that they had warm blood? Cladistics? The way I see the proof for ectothermy is more solid. Where's the irrefutable proof that they had cold blood? And I think studies on fossils show blood vessels in bones similar to mammals and birds, suggesting endothermy. And sid, why did animals such as spinosaurus, stegosaurus, and ceratopsians have those structures? Display! A stegosaurus flushing its plates would surely scare off an allosaur, a spinosaurus who is very colorful in the breeding season would probably attract more females than a duller male, and there were small ceratopsians that had no "frills 'n things". ;D
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 14, 2009 11:06:35 GMT
And where's the irrefutable proof that they had warm blood? Cladistics? The way I see the proof for ectothermy is more solid. Where's the irrefutable proof that they had cold blood? And I think studies on fossils show blood vessels in bones similar to mammals and birds, suggesting endothermy. And sid, why did animals such as spinosaurus, stegosaurus, and ceratopsians have those structures? Display! A stegosaurus flushing its plates would surely scare off an allosaur, a spinosaurus who is very colorful in the breeding season would probably attract more females than a duller male, and there were small ceratopsians that had no "frills 'n things". ;D In the aforementioned BBC documentary hosted by Sir David Attenborough they said that,after analyzing bones of two separate Tyrannosaurs (a juvenile and an adult) they found it that the younger one had bird-like blood vessels,while the adult had clearly crocodile-like blood vessels,so they concluded that,at least regarding bigass dinosaurs,when they were young they probably were endothermic,while grwoing up they become ectothermic...It's a fascinating theory and,frankly,i tend to agree with it Regarding the function of the various plates,sails and frills nature gave to such a great array of dinosaurs...You say display and,granted,it's quite possible,but for me that doesn't rule out the possibility that they used them ALSO to store and lose heat
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jan 14, 2009 19:27:53 GMT
And why do you hate cladistic? are you creationists or...? oh, i should have guessed.... If I were you I'd be more careful with what I say. My opinion has nothing to do with creationism.
|
|