|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 10, 2008 14:14:12 GMT
/\ Certainly yes - it's a practice to keep the process of sytematics and taxonomy sound and sensible. You seem to presume that the new rule was introduced for dinosaurs, rather than rats or worms - actually, every specialist field has their own taxonomic minefields to traverse and the rule is a result of this, rather than due to some whiney palaeontologists insisting that "T.rex is a cool name!".
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 10, 2008 15:53:36 GMT
/\ Certainly yes - it's a practice to keep the process of sytematics and taxonomy sound and sensible. You seem to presume that the new rule was introduced for dinosaurs, rather than rats or worms - actually, every specialist field has their own taxonomic minefields to traverse and the rule is a result of this, rather than due to some whiney palaeontologists insisting that "T.rex is a cool name!". But why did it only seemto get put through after the Manospondylus issue was brought to the fore--this issue must have come up much sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Apr 10, 2008 16:10:01 GMT
To my knowledge, there was no big media hullabaloo or scientific debate concerning the Mano/T.rex issue, let alone one that coincided with publishing of the new ICZN rule. Maybe there was and I missed it? If so, who brought the issue up and when?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinowight on Apr 10, 2008 21:23:43 GMT
Dinowight - would you say that your fifth favorite dinosaur is Neovenator? ;D Probably sixth, after Eotyrannus  |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 11, 2008 3:01:09 GMT
No, you've got to be kidding! seriously?! you?!  1.- Tyrannosaurus 2.- Argentinosaurus 3.- Deinonychus 4.- Triceratops Prehistoric reptiles Quetzatcoatl Liopleurodon Megalodon |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Apr 11, 2008 3:12:41 GMT
^^^ Therizinosaurus renditions have not always been feathered. It was discovered decades ago. The Megalodon is not exactly a reptile, is it?  |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 11, 2008 3:57:14 GMT
^^^ Therizinosaurus renditions have not always been feathered. It was discovered decades ago. The Megalodon is not exactly a reptile, is it? It's not even Mesozoic. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 11, 2008 22:56:57 GMT
yeah sorry, I changed the title, I was going to say "prehistoric creatures" But then I changed to reptiles and did not notice that. So Instead of Megalodon, I'm going to say Deinosuchus
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 12, 2008 3:10:09 GMT
yeah sorry, I changed the title, I was going to say "prehistoric creatures" But then I changed to reptiles and did not notice that. So Instead of Megalodon, I'm going to say Deinosuchus Sarcosuchus is still more awesome (in the traditional sense of the word). |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 13, 2008 19:56:46 GMT
deinosuchus was larger
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 14, 2008 3:02:47 GMT
A) Larger doesn't mean better. B) Estimates for Deinosuchus have been reduced to around 40ft (possibly less), similar to the estimates for Sarcosuchus. So if favourites are determined by size, it doesn't really help much. On the other hand, comparisons between the two are like comparing T rex and Spinosaurus--similar in size, very different build, possibly different habits. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 16, 2008 1:54:17 GMT
uh it is different but you are right that larger doesn't mean beatter, but wasn't sarcosuchus thinner than deinosuchus? I mean more, powerful, a better hunter?
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 16, 2008 12:52:13 GMT
uh it is different but you are right that larger doesn't mean beatter, but wasn't sarcosuchus thinner than deinosuchus? I mean more, powerful, a better hunter? They are both estimated to be enormous and heavy animals--although the snout of Sarcosuchus is more narrow. The jury is still out on whether it specialized on the local dipnoan fish (which were a couple metres long) or could have taken dinos. To me, it's more important that it looked unusual, compared to a scaled up (and not by much) version of a modern croc. |
|
gus
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by gus on Apr 17, 2008 1:20:59 GMT
I love all Dinosaurs.......................... thats the ans
|
|
|
|
Post by infernosaurus on Apr 23, 2008 9:10:44 GMT
uh it is different but you are right that larger doesn't mean beatter, but wasn't sarcosuchus thinner than deinosuchus? I mean more, powerful, a better hunter? They are both estimated to be enormous and heavy animals--although the snout of Sarcosuchus is more narrow. The jury is still out on whether it specialized on the local dipnoan fish (which were a couple metres long) or could have taken dinos. To me, it's more important that it looked unusual, compared to a scaled up (and not by much) version of a modern croc. From what I read about Sarco, it had quite weak jaws in comparsion to Deinosuchus, so it was rather fish-eater which completed its diet sometimes with dinos. My favourite dinos (not the full list, but it looks more or less so): Tyrannosaurus (obviously) Spinosaurus Diplodocus (favourite dinosaur of my early childhood) Giganotosaurus (occasionaly Carcharodontosaurus instead of it) Allosaurus Triceratops Pentaceratops Parasaurolopus (the only hadrosaur among my favourites) Acrocanthosaurus (he joined this group not long time ago) Brachiosaurus Daspletosaurus (other mesosoic reptiles: Kronosaurus Tylosaurus Pteranodon - strenbergi is the best Quetzalcoatlus Deinosuchus Sarcosuchus) |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Apr 23, 2008 12:45:15 GMT
They are both estimated to be enormous and heavy animals--although the snout of Sarcosuchus is more narrow. The jury is still out on whether it specialized on the local dipnoan fish (which were a couple metres long) or could have taken dinos. To me, it's more important that it looked unusual, compared to a scaled up (and not by much) version of a modern croc. From what I read about Sarco, it had quite weak jaws in comparsion to Deinosuchus, so it was rather fish-eater which completed its diet sometimes with dinos. That is where the jury is still out; some researchers figure that the jaws would indeed be strong enough for a medium sized dino, while others claim otherwise, since the structure of their jaw is not quite that of a gavial; in larger specimens the rostrum is wider and heavier, plus there is the strange expansion on the tip of the upper jaw also in larger specimens. The thing is, the local 'fish' were not exactly your typical trout and minnows--we are talking 2 metre lungfish here, and from my experience with similar fish (mainly polypterids, who might have also been there) they are very heavy, muscular fish, and they would be in their environment. So why couldn't a large Sarcosuchus grab a medium sized dino that came near the water? Once out of its element, plus the element of surprise, would render many animals far more vulnerable (I am not saying that a full grown sauropod would be going down, but why couldn't a juvenile Iguanodon be fair game?). As probable ambushers, I would guess that Sarcosuchus, like many crocs, would try to eat almost anything. |
|
|
|
Post by joshwennes on Jun 9, 2008 21:27:52 GMT
Favorite dinos:
Barosaurus
Diplodocus
Apatosaurus
Brachio-
Oh what the heck, all sauropods(they're what I've been studying)
Pachycephalosaurs-fellow student studying them, we might have some ground breaking finds about these fellas
Spinosaurids-Spinosaurus, Baryonyx, Suchomimus, even the little known Irritator
Those are the above and beyond favs, but I truly do love all dinosaurs, always have.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 10, 2008 2:06:57 GMT
My favorite dinosaur as a child was ankylosaurus because it seemed invulnerable. I'm not sure that was the case but since then I don't really have a favorite though I'm often drawn to sauropods I think because they have this long flowing line. They look great in a big group. I wish like T-Rex they would have left the name Brontosaurus. Thunder Lizard. I mean you get used to something and they change it to Apatosaurus. They might as well just go ahead and put feathers on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jun 10, 2008 2:28:30 GMT
I wish like T-Rex they would have left the name Brontosaurus. Thunder Lizard. I mean you get used to something and they change it to Apatosaurus. They might as well just go ahead and put feathers on it. Shhh, don't give them any ideas  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 10, 2008 4:06:31 GMT
My favorite dinosaur as a child was ankylosaurus because it seemed invulnerable. I'm not sure that was the case but since then I don't really have a favorite though I'm often drawn to sauropods I think because they have this long flowing line. They look great in a big group. I wish like T-Rex they would have left the name Brontosaurus. Thunder Lizard. I mean you get used to something and they change it to Apatosaurus. They might as well just go ahead and put feathers on it. Brontosaurus didn't even refer to the animal you are thinking of--it had the high, domed head of a camarasaur. Apatosaurus had the long, low head of a diplodocid. |
|
;D