Zegh's Dinosaur Thread
- Thread starter zegh8578
- Start date
Morgan_
Duckerz
Please refrain from shitposting in the dino thread. 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220211102724.htm
Dino-sore throat discovered.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220211102724.htm
Dino-sore throat discovered.
Last edited:
TJQKA
Boomer Anarchist
Please refrain from shitposting in the dino thread.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220211102724.htm
Dino sore throat discovered.
I'm taking a shit as I post this.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Cool, and I bet if I knew mesozoic crocs, I'd probably be able to identify the species based on the anatomy in the illustration, looks like a good detail type of work. It's not either of the few I know, maybe a new awesome species or something.
In its jaws looks like a small iguanodontid, maybe a Dryosaurus - putting the scene in the late Jurassic, or maybe a Thescelosaurid of some sort, making it late cretaceous. Those are my final answers!
In its jaws looks like a small iguanodontid, maybe a Dryosaurus - putting the scene in the late Jurassic, or maybe a Thescelosaurid of some sort, making it late cretaceous. Those are my final answers!
"THE LAST GUARD"
Probably one of the most fascinating fossils found and in my opinion one of the saddest.
Several fossils of psitacossaur puppies found by paleontologist Dean Lomax under the protection of what appears to be an older brother who took care of them temporarily before being killed by a stream of volcanic debris. In Dean's own words:
“The biggest fossil does not have the dimensions of a sexually mature adult, so it couldn’t be the father and probably was an older brother of the little puppies.” The discovery is exceptionally well-preserved and featured in her book: Locked in Time - Animal Behavior Unearthed in 50 Extraordinary Fossils, art: Bob Nicholls.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
What if it was a smaller dinosaur eating some hatchlings?
Their anatomy fits, but foreign dinosaur hatchlings are found as food in different nests
Unlikely.
Diet
Psittacosaurs had self-sharpening teeth that would have been useful for cropping and slicing tough plant material. Unlike later ceratopsians, they did not have teeth suitable for grinding or chewing their food. Instead, they used gastroliths—stones swallowed to wear down food as it passed through the digestive system. Sometimes numbering more than fifty, these stones are occasionally found in the abdominal cavities of psittacosaurs, and may have been stored in a gizzard, as in modern birds
There's the particularily convoluted story about Oviraptor:
It was found and named in the 1920s, a front half of a skeleton of a toothless, beaked theropod, closely associated (lying next to) a rounded nest full of elongated, fossilized eggs.
It was thought to be plundering the nest, when covered by a sandstorm, and killed - thus earning the name Oviraptor, and forming the families and groups Oviraptoridae and Oviraptorosauria.
The nest was at the time - and for many decades to follow - to belong to Protoceratops, a relative of the above Psittacosaurus.
NOW - in the 90s, they found TWO more - very similar, sitting on top of *even more* strikingly similar nests and eggs - these ones were clearly brooding on the nests, covering them symmetrically with both wings, and preserved embryos were *clearly* oviraptorines: The entire time, Oviraptors had been found near their own eggs.
Their diet? Well - probably eggs, but most predators love eggs, but IN the nest was found a small partial hatchling, a loose head actually, of another theropod, a tiny raptor.
Since the brooding Oviraptor had not moved from the nest, even to the point of dying to a sandstorm, it is unlikely the individual left the nest for any reason at all, and so the food delivery must have been done by a mate.
Incidentally, other Oviraptorids have been found huddled together, also covered by sandstorms.
It was found and named in the 1920s, a front half of a skeleton of a toothless, beaked theropod, closely associated (lying next to) a rounded nest full of elongated, fossilized eggs.
It was thought to be plundering the nest, when covered by a sandstorm, and killed - thus earning the name Oviraptor, and forming the families and groups Oviraptoridae and Oviraptorosauria.
The nest was at the time - and for many decades to follow - to belong to Protoceratops, a relative of the above Psittacosaurus.
NOW - in the 90s, they found TWO more - very similar, sitting on top of *even more* strikingly similar nests and eggs - these ones were clearly brooding on the nests, covering them symmetrically with both wings, and preserved embryos were *clearly* oviraptorines: The entire time, Oviraptors had been found near their own eggs.
Their diet? Well - probably eggs, but most predators love eggs, but IN the nest was found a small partial hatchling, a loose head actually, of another theropod, a tiny raptor.
Since the brooding Oviraptor had not moved from the nest, even to the point of dying to a sandstorm, it is unlikely the individual left the nest for any reason at all, and so the food delivery must have been done by a mate.
Incidentally, other Oviraptorids have been found huddled together, also covered by sandstorms.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...aurus-rex-into-3-species-sparks-fierce-debate
Take with grain of salt, Gregory S. Paul is known to be a bit of a controversial figure. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with this proposal. The only thing that will settle it is - - - more fossils!
Thaaat said, this is not the first time Tyrannosaurus has been suggested to contain more species than "rex", Tyrannosaurus zhuchengensis is based on a jaw-fragment that prooooooooooobably belongs to Tarbosaurus bataar instead, BUT - Tarbosaurus bataar itself has been proposed to be lumpable as Tyrannosaurus bataar. I see no point in this sort of lumping, since it is entirely subjective (contrary to species definitions, which are fiercely objective!)
Other lesser known ones is "Tyrannosaurus" turpanensis, the quotations indicate the species has not recieved a proper examination, and afaik it is based on teeth that, again, prolly just come from Tarbosaurus.
If crazy ol Paul is correct though, there would have been a whole 3 species of Tyrannosaurus competing *in the same fauna* which... is intense.
It would also remove FAMOUS specimens such as Sue and Stan from T. rex, being T. imperator and T. regina respectively - while T. rex is relegated to a much more fragmentary and less known scrap of bones. Which can be... sad to deal with.
(and final word on the matter is leading foremost tyrannosaur expert Tom Holtz - while saying nothing outright, cannot seem to stop huffing and puffing, even though he is trying to hide it. Most likely, we're dealing with overzealous separation of what's still more safely regarded as individual differences within the same species, namely the one and only T. rex)
((okay, from what little I can tell so far, the definitions of each species are paper thin. This isn't going down well with the community
at least mass-media jumped on it, maybe paleontological institutions can get a rare little bost in funding as a result :'D))
Take with grain of salt, Gregory S. Paul is known to be a bit of a controversial figure. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with this proposal. The only thing that will settle it is - - - more fossils!
Thaaat said, this is not the first time Tyrannosaurus has been suggested to contain more species than "rex", Tyrannosaurus zhuchengensis is based on a jaw-fragment that prooooooooooobably belongs to Tarbosaurus bataar instead, BUT - Tarbosaurus bataar itself has been proposed to be lumpable as Tyrannosaurus bataar. I see no point in this sort of lumping, since it is entirely subjective (contrary to species definitions, which are fiercely objective!)
Other lesser known ones is "Tyrannosaurus" turpanensis, the quotations indicate the species has not recieved a proper examination, and afaik it is based on teeth that, again, prolly just come from Tarbosaurus.
If crazy ol Paul is correct though, there would have been a whole 3 species of Tyrannosaurus competing *in the same fauna* which... is intense.
It would also remove FAMOUS specimens such as Sue and Stan from T. rex, being T. imperator and T. regina respectively - while T. rex is relegated to a much more fragmentary and less known scrap of bones. Which can be... sad to deal with.
(and final word on the matter is leading foremost tyrannosaur expert Tom Holtz - while saying nothing outright, cannot seem to stop huffing and puffing, even though he is trying to hide it. Most likely, we're dealing with overzealous separation of what's still more safely regarded as individual differences within the same species, namely the one and only T. rex)
((okay, from what little I can tell so far, the definitions of each species are paper thin. This isn't going down well with the community
at least mass-media jumped on it, maybe paleontological institutions can get a rare little bost in funding as a result :'D))
Last edited:
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
Name some potential dinosaurs that can be used as war beast, like warhorses, war elephants, camels equivalent. Perhaps something with enough brain mass to be like them. You know, can receive orders and be stubborn about it and be ridden easily.
That is very difficult cus - lions and tigers are significantly smarter than horses, but we still don't consider that a sign of a good tool of war. They are extremely unpredictable, panic, and fight everybody they see.
I bet one could find small theropods that would behave like war-dogs, I bet you could teach some hadrosaur to take you into battle, similar to a horse - but beyond that, there's just no way of telling from long since mineralized organisms, sorry
Everybody wants to ride a giant raptor, but I don't think that would really work out. Birds don't generally like to be ridden!
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
Ah good to knowThat is very difficult cus - lions and tigers are significantly smarter than horses, but we still don't consider that a sign of a good tool of war. They are extremely unpredictable, panic, and fight everybody they see.
I bet one could find small theropods that would behave like war-dogs, I bet you could teach some hadrosaur to take you into battle, similar to a horse - but beyond that, there's just no way of telling from long since mineralized organisms, sorry
Everybody wants to ride a giant raptor, but I don't think that would really work out. Birds don't generally like to be ridden!
I was thinking if what Exodite Eldar ridden are possible.
Or Xeno Cavalry from Beyond Earth, which seem to consist of a mix of mounted riflemen and actually energy lance wielding cavalry.
Well - think of all the mammals that exist *right now* and what weird and unpredictable creatures we choose to ride. None of them are carnivores, so... that's one thing to consider. We DO use carnivores, dogs for guards, cats for vermin.
We do not ride birds, except ostriches CAN be ridden for sport. Other than those, most birds around us are simply to small, so we just cannot know how a large rideable bird would react - since we only have ONE species to test on, and ostriches are... well... special! They are oddball birds, not exactly representative of the whole group.
Dinosaurs are "all animals in the world" - multiplied by 180 million years of continued existence, so... you would be *guaranteed* to find lots and lots of dinosaur species to ride, that would do what you'd like it to do, but which one that would be... I've no clue!
Remember, dinosaurs were just ordinary animals - they didn't fight "more than usual" or bite or claw "more than usual" - most of them would simply just flee from anything that frightened them - and as with most animals - most things would probably just frighten them.
We do not ride birds, except ostriches CAN be ridden for sport. Other than those, most birds around us are simply to small, so we just cannot know how a large rideable bird would react - since we only have ONE species to test on, and ostriches are... well... special! They are oddball birds, not exactly representative of the whole group.
Dinosaurs are "all animals in the world" - multiplied by 180 million years of continued existence, so... you would be *guaranteed* to find lots and lots of dinosaur species to ride, that would do what you'd like it to do, but which one that would be... I've no clue!
Remember, dinosaurs were just ordinary animals - they didn't fight "more than usual" or bite or claw "more than usual" - most of them would simply just flee from anything that frightened them - and as with most animals - most things would probably just frighten them.
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
Well if you can't ride them then drive them to pull a wagon or two.Well - think of all the mammals that exist *right now* and what weird and unpredictable creatures we choose to ride. None of them are carnivores, so... that's one thing to consider. We DO use carnivores, dogs for guards, cats for vermin.
We do not ride birds, except ostriches CAN be ridden for sport. Other than those, most birds around us are simply to small, so we just cannot know how a large rideable bird would react - since we only have ONE species to test on, and ostriches are... well... special! They are oddball birds, not exactly representative of the whole group.
Dinosaurs are "all animals in the world" - multiplied by 180 million years of continued existence, so... you would be *guaranteed* to find lots and lots of dinosaur species to ride, that would do what you'd like it to do, but which one that would be... I've no clue!
Remember, dinosaurs were just ordinary animals - they didn't fight "more than usual" or bite or claw "more than usual" - most of them would simply just flee from anything that frightened them - and as with most animals - most things would probably just frighten them.
While having herbivores/omnivores being beast of burden would be the ideal, i don't see having carnivores as exclusive war beasts for miniscule percentage of a band of warriors would be far from applicable.
But yeah, it's very hard to judge from fossils alone.
Well you can probably say the same with horse ancestors during late bronze age. Yet we did not use them to charge headlong, just being useful taxi or vehicles for skirmishing. Then retreat.
So is that yes or no to Raptor Squad?
Imho, firm no.
Also imho - I've listed both T. imperator and T. regina as = T. rex in my own personal databases
Also imho - I've listed both T. imperator and T. regina as = T. rex in my own personal databases
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
What a non sexist move! Finally both can be termed as T. King, without male being 'emperor' but female being just a 'queen' /sImho, firm no.
Also imho - I've listed both T. imperator and T. regina as = T. rex in my own personal databases
Well, isn't there also the term Empress?
But, wouldn't it be eventually possible to at the very least train raptors so that they might at least tolerate you? Kinda like Kevin Richards does with Lions.