The actual detonation is basically a rapidly expanding ball of plasma that radiates a crapton of energy over the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
Here's a picture one millisecond after the triggering:
Zegh's Dinosaur Thread
- Thread starter zegh8578
- Start date
Here's a picture one millisecond after the triggering:
Is that a fancy way of saying light and heat?
By the way, it looks like something straight from a Cthulhu mythos or something.
By the way, it looks like something straight from a Cthulhu mythos or something.
Well, even with 30 000 metres per second
its 30 kilometres per second
with 80 kilometres of enough friction to cause a flame, thats ALMOST 3 seconds of "FWWWOOOOM"
sure, 3 seconds is, again, too short a time-span to pose up for the selfie, but it IS long enough to go "HOLY SHIT!"
I like the significance of these details! Again, I dream of a moment like this :0
That said, it being close enough to see, on our end of the horizon, the impact itself, I imagine would cause such an immediate tectonic ripple, we would be jolted right to death at that very moment, but that's just... puuure speculation on my part. As well as wet dreaming
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Bit off topic but about exactly year ago I saw a fireball, meaning a much larger then average 'shooting star'. It looked like the one in the picture below, white in the middle with turquise on the edges. It was cloudy so it first lit up the clouds and then came through them, was clearly visible for a second or two and then disappeared behind the trees and bushes blocking my view of the horizon.
No idea how close it was or if it impacted land, probably not. It was compeletely silent. At first I thought it was a firework left over from the new year someone decided to shoot very late but it was completely silent. It came down almost vertically. It made me eerily aware of the fact that big hunks of matter are impacting the earth's atmospere all the time.
Imagine this at winter, it's dark and you're jogging along in a forest path, trees everywhere and cloudy, that thing streaks from the clouds behind the trees directly in front of you in the sky.Winter might be the best time to find the place where a meteorite-fireball lands, it might make a 'ashmarker' in the snow.
No idea how close it was or if it impacted land, probably not. It was compeletely silent. At first I thought it was a firework left over from the new year someone decided to shoot very late but it was completely silent. It came down almost vertically. It made me eerily aware of the fact that big hunks of matter are impacting the earth's atmospere all the time.
Imagine this at winter, it's dark and you're jogging along in a forest path, trees everywhere and cloudy, that thing streaks from the clouds behind the trees directly in front of you in the sky.Winter might be the best time to find the place where a meteorite-fireball lands, it might make a 'ashmarker' in the snow.
Last edited:
Most of that stuff never lands tho, it just burns up in the atmosphere. I've never seen one so bright, but I've seen some meteors which fell apart to smaller pieces during their entry before completely vaporizing and leaving only a faint trail in the sky for a short time. Beautiful, if somewhat scary.
Also:
Also:
That's the one I was talking about, you see how bright it gets, and it's only a lil baby!
Edit: Speaking of phylogenetic bracketing and feathers, two more I remember: Yutyrannus and Kulindadromeus. Yutyrannus shows thick feather/fur-growth on basal Tyrannosaurids, including large bodies, showing this lineage this have genes for body-covering.
Kulindadromeus is more interesting, because it shows both fur as well as scales on an ornithopod (ancestors to duck-billed dinosaurs and iguanodons). It had especially large tufts of fur around its knees and ankles, and on its shoulders, while having a scaly tail. Puffyness like this is more than likely related to sexual selection, rather than insulation.
Last edited:
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
That thing is really amazing. It's going horizontally for that long. That trail it leaves after it that seems to be like on fire? Like 'chariots of fire' or some biblical ish like that. I'm pretty sure meteorites and fireballs etc. are behind many of the biblical and other religious stories and myths.
Edit. Some new dinosaur - discovery in Romania. Transylvania, eh? Wonder if Dracula is somehow involved. Pretty big suckers.
https://peerj.com/articles/2908/
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-fossils-giant-pterosaurs-transylvania.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-fossils-giant-pterosaurs-transylvania.html
Last edited:
What's up, the Trump topic has like 20+ pages and this one like just 5 even though it is a better discussion.
Com on, post some Dino porn or something, or what ever, no clue. Just do something guys.
Com on, post some Dino porn or something, or what ever, no clue. Just do something guys.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Some random facts then
Here's an Oviraptor philoceratops, the only species of the genus Oviraptor, and the namesake of the family Oviraptoridae and larger group Oviraptorosauria - the Oviraptorosaurs!
Specimen cataloged as AMNH 6517 (American Museum of Natural History, object # 6517)
Because of its fragmentary nature, it was always kind of put aside, in favor of:
GI 100/42 (Geologic Institute - of somewhere, China or Mongolia. It was found in Mongolia, same as Oviraptor philoceratops)
Much more complete, and a much better representative, and the "placeholder" for the name Oviraptor for several decades, untill this baby was found:
GI 100/979 and 100/978 respectively, the Holotype is the specimen that first recieve the name, which is as following: Citipati osmolskae.
Upon discovering this, Oviraptorids (including several species and specimens not depicted here) recieve a rehash, and Oviraptor philoceratops is understood to be a much more basal form, and GI 100/42 is understood to not at all represent it, and instead represent an individual or species of Citipati - thus recieving a temporary name of "Citipati sp.", the sp. indicating that the exact species is undetermined, or, if new, unnamed. The quotation marks, which are official, indicate that it has never officially recieved this designation, and is therefore pending a complete redescription. Something that will happen whenever some paleontologist has a free weekend or something. Some dinosaurs have been waiting over 40 years for formal descriptions and names.
In other words - the most recognizeable and iconic Oviraptor turned out to be "unnamed", and Oviraptor itself turned out to be obscure, fragmental and basal, and Citipati is a weird name that will take a long time to get into normal layman conciousness, if it ever does.
Paleontology is FULL of little conundrums like these... as well as an obsession around catalog numbers, since they are always static and reliable.
UNLESS... a museum or institute decides to do a spring cleanup, and just re-shuffle names and numbers. Which happens now and then.
(All illustrations by Jaime Headden)
/
Another interesting aspect of this science, as well as normal zoology is naming, in itself.
This is not Tyrannosaurus
Or, it IS Tyrannosaurus.
You actually can choose. According to the guidelines of the ICZN (International Commision/Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commision publishes the Code)) a genus-level name (the first of the binominal names) is kind of subjective. It kind of depends on your personal opinion, mood, and how many people go with your flow.
Species-level name, does not. Species is entirely objective.
So, this skull can be either: Tarbosaurus bataar OR Tyrannosaurus bataar.
It can not be Tyrannosaurus rex, because too many diagnostic differences are recorded. It is, however, so similar, and so closely related, that there is no real problem with regarding it as a second species of Tyrannosaurus, the same way both lions and tigers belong to Panthera, despite them being different species: P. leo and P. tigris
Tyrannosaurus rex can NOT be Tarbosaurus rex though, because the name Tyrannosurus has priority due to time of publishing.
There are some small exceptions to this rule, and that is when a name has gotten hold in public conciousness, which is the case with Tyrannosaurus.
The very first remains belonging to what we today call Tyrannosaurus, were named Manospondylus gigas, and further remains Dynamosaurus imperiosus. The name Tyrannosaurus rex were given to remains found at a later point, and should have been de-prioritized once all 3 genera were concluded to be one and the same (Manospondylus should have recieved priority)
However, by that time Tyrannosaurus rex was a house-hold name, and was granted status as Nomen protectum, and the two prior names Nomen oblitum (forgotten name).
Other "nomens" are Nomen nudum (a naked name, this happens when you publish a dinosaur name, without offering any kind of solid evidence for the existence of this dinosaur. There is a mindboggling ammount of these, but mostly innocent, as they are named "preliminary", by over-eager researchers, before their research has been formalized), as well as Nomen dubium, typically assigned scrap fossils whos diagnostic value is questionable at best.
Diagnostic value means - what traits on this piece of bone helps us identify it with certainty, or determine that we have a new and undiscovered species?
Good examples of undiagnostic fossils are eroded bones, broken ribs, loose claws - and teeth.
Teeth are in fact so bothersome, naming them is, as of late, kind of frowned upon. In early days of paleontology, teeth were named left and right, and to this day, hundreds of pointless teeth-taxa marr dinosaur name lists, since they can never be proven-or-disproven to belong-or-not-belong to fully known species.
There, some good old theory for you to ponder on
Here's an Oviraptor philoceratops, the only species of the genus Oviraptor, and the namesake of the family Oviraptoridae and larger group Oviraptorosauria - the Oviraptorosaurs!
Specimen cataloged as AMNH 6517 (American Museum of Natural History, object # 6517)
Because of its fragmentary nature, it was always kind of put aside, in favor of:
GI 100/42 (Geologic Institute - of somewhere, China or Mongolia. It was found in Mongolia, same as Oviraptor philoceratops)
Much more complete, and a much better representative, and the "placeholder" for the name Oviraptor for several decades, untill this baby was found:
GI 100/979 and 100/978 respectively, the Holotype is the specimen that first recieve the name, which is as following: Citipati osmolskae.
Upon discovering this, Oviraptorids (including several species and specimens not depicted here) recieve a rehash, and Oviraptor philoceratops is understood to be a much more basal form, and GI 100/42 is understood to not at all represent it, and instead represent an individual or species of Citipati - thus recieving a temporary name of "Citipati sp.", the sp. indicating that the exact species is undetermined, or, if new, unnamed. The quotation marks, which are official, indicate that it has never officially recieved this designation, and is therefore pending a complete redescription. Something that will happen whenever some paleontologist has a free weekend or something. Some dinosaurs have been waiting over 40 years for formal descriptions and names.
In other words - the most recognizeable and iconic Oviraptor turned out to be "unnamed", and Oviraptor itself turned out to be obscure, fragmental and basal, and Citipati is a weird name that will take a long time to get into normal layman conciousness, if it ever does.
Paleontology is FULL of little conundrums like these... as well as an obsession around catalog numbers, since they are always static and reliable.
UNLESS... a museum or institute decides to do a spring cleanup, and just re-shuffle names and numbers. Which happens now and then.
(All illustrations by Jaime Headden)
/
Another interesting aspect of this science, as well as normal zoology is naming, in itself.
This is not Tyrannosaurus
Or, it IS Tyrannosaurus.
You actually can choose. According to the guidelines of the ICZN (International Commision/Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Commision publishes the Code)) a genus-level name (the first of the binominal names) is kind of subjective. It kind of depends on your personal opinion, mood, and how many people go with your flow.
Species-level name, does not. Species is entirely objective.
So, this skull can be either: Tarbosaurus bataar OR Tyrannosaurus bataar.
It can not be Tyrannosaurus rex, because too many diagnostic differences are recorded. It is, however, so similar, and so closely related, that there is no real problem with regarding it as a second species of Tyrannosaurus, the same way both lions and tigers belong to Panthera, despite them being different species: P. leo and P. tigris
Tyrannosaurus rex can NOT be Tarbosaurus rex though, because the name Tyrannosurus has priority due to time of publishing.
There are some small exceptions to this rule, and that is when a name has gotten hold in public conciousness, which is the case with Tyrannosaurus.
The very first remains belonging to what we today call Tyrannosaurus, were named Manospondylus gigas, and further remains Dynamosaurus imperiosus. The name Tyrannosaurus rex were given to remains found at a later point, and should have been de-prioritized once all 3 genera were concluded to be one and the same (Manospondylus should have recieved priority)
However, by that time Tyrannosaurus rex was a house-hold name, and was granted status as Nomen protectum, and the two prior names Nomen oblitum (forgotten name).
Other "nomens" are Nomen nudum (a naked name, this happens when you publish a dinosaur name, without offering any kind of solid evidence for the existence of this dinosaur. There is a mindboggling ammount of these, but mostly innocent, as they are named "preliminary", by over-eager researchers, before their research has been formalized), as well as Nomen dubium, typically assigned scrap fossils whos diagnostic value is questionable at best.
Diagnostic value means - what traits on this piece of bone helps us identify it with certainty, or determine that we have a new and undiscovered species?
Good examples of undiagnostic fossils are eroded bones, broken ribs, loose claws - and teeth.
Teeth are in fact so bothersome, naming them is, as of late, kind of frowned upon. In early days of paleontology, teeth were named left and right, and to this day, hundreds of pointless teeth-taxa marr dinosaur name lists, since they can never be proven-or-disproven to belong-or-not-belong to fully known species.
There, some good old theory for you to ponder on
Last edited:
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Hatzegopteryx. Man look at this thing. Ate meat and could fly. And was huge. And looks like it's wearing a beret? Is it trying to pass off as a hipster, sneak into a Fish - concert? Dude in front is like a bouncer, "No dude, you're not allowed here. Just go away."
Hatzegopteryx. Man look at this thing. Ate meat and could fly. And was huge. And looks like it's wearing a beret? Is it trying to pass off as a hipster, sneak into a Fish - concert? Dude in front is like a bouncer, "No dude, you're not allowed here. Just go away."
A full blown azhdarchid pterosaur! In the same family is famous Quetzalcoatlus
After all the small-sized pterosaurs were competition-crushed by cute little birds - REAL birds, down to even ancestors of modern ducks, pterosaurs were on the brink of destruction. The ones that did survive, were the ones of a certain size that birds did not reach, and so they found a niche where they could persist for a while longer.
Azhdarchids looked really grotesque like that
Zhejiangopterus skeleton, by Mark Witton, who is also the artist behind the pic you posted.
//
More Theory!
The little bony ring inside the orbital opening, by the way, is a so called "sclerotic ring", and is preserved in a number of dinosaurs, while in most, it will simply have crumbled away, or simply dispersed. This bony ring is found in dinosaurs far separate in terms of relation, indicating that most - or all - had them, and unless I'm mistaken, all extant birds also have them.
They are also common in pterosaurs, as well as aquatic lizards. I do not think crocodiles have them, and mammals do not have them, but I do believe more primitive reptiles and lizards have them.
They are a good indication of the size of the eye-ball, where the orbital opening might not necesarily tell us much, such as in very large openings, or narrow, elongated ones, like in the Tarbosaurus skull above.
From a century old illustration by Gerhard Heilmann:
A. Aetosaurus (a pseudosuchid, not a dinosaur, but distant relative. Relative to crocodiles as well)
B. Euparkeria (a primitive archosaur, and representing the ancestors of dinosaurs)
C. Archaeopteryx ("der urvogel" traditionally considered "the first bird", but technically being just one of many small maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, and capable of powered fligth. Through secondary flightlessness, it might be ancestral to Velociraptor and Deinonychus)
D. A dove, as well as E a duck.
The mass of the eyeball would fit behind the sclerotic ring, while the pupil would jutt out of the center. In other words, the hole in the center of the ring indicates the size of the visible eye in the living animal.
As a general rule, large dinosaurs, such as sauropods, hadrosaurs and tyrannosaurs, any preserved ring suggest a visible eye much smaller than the orbital opening. On small dinosaurs, the ring fits the whole orbit much tighter, and the ring itself allows a big eye.
Big rings on big animals are sometimes an indication of nocturnal behavior, as has been noted with for example Velociraptor.
(note the ring here is in situ and has sunken into the skull. In life, it would have been situated at the top of the orbital opening. It would also slightly face forward, as dromaeosaurs had stereoscopic vision)
Last edited:
Let's see if this works:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx4Ui33ZNQl_VWtfOGZFX2hBRms
Click to download a ods file (Open Office), containing fauna lists of all tetrapod vertebrates from the Mesozoic
Couple of things:
1. Typos may occur
2. A few inacuracies may occur, but I have obviously done my best to avoid these. Some geological strata are also, quite simply, not adequately dated (or dated at all), meaning *nobody* knows exactly how old a few dinosaur species are. Here I have used deduction, to the best of my effort.
3. This was primarily made for me, to serve as a who-might-encounter-who-guide, for example, just because Albertosaurus and Dryptosaurus are late cretaceous North American, doesn't mean they could hang out. The continent was divided in two by the Western Interior Seaway. While Belgian Iguanodon could very probably hang out with British Baryonyx. European archipelago was difficult to deduct with acuracy, but should be fairly reliable
4. Place names are very tentative, and meant to be mere suggestions, such as Afro-America. Such names are not, afaik, used in serious litterature, so take these only as indications of geography in question.
5. I LOVE COLOR CODES =D
6. Faunas that are divided such as "north asia" and "south asia" are also meant to be rough approximations. Before human activity decimated their populations, tigers populated all of Asia, from Iran to Siberia. Lions roamed all of Africa and southern Asia, leopards had even wider a range, while wolves cover all of the northern planetary hemisphere.
Given any handful of months, a dinosaur could probably walk straight across the entire continent. They would not be confined by our modern understandings of countries and borders. However, I want to play it safe, and place them in the area where they are found.
7. That said, I have not taken into account fauna specialization, for example - forest-dwellers would be unlikely to venture across plains. Plain dwellers would not cross through deep forests. We have a rough idea what area had what type of vegetation, but trying to accurately list this would be too daunting, and I would be left with a majority of species that would simply be too difficult to determine beyond the country they're found it.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx4Ui33ZNQl_VWtfOGZFX2hBRms
Click to download a ods file (Open Office), containing fauna lists of all tetrapod vertebrates from the Mesozoic
Couple of things:
1. Typos may occur
2. A few inacuracies may occur, but I have obviously done my best to avoid these. Some geological strata are also, quite simply, not adequately dated (or dated at all), meaning *nobody* knows exactly how old a few dinosaur species are. Here I have used deduction, to the best of my effort.
3. This was primarily made for me, to serve as a who-might-encounter-who-guide, for example, just because Albertosaurus and Dryptosaurus are late cretaceous North American, doesn't mean they could hang out. The continent was divided in two by the Western Interior Seaway. While Belgian Iguanodon could very probably hang out with British Baryonyx. European archipelago was difficult to deduct with acuracy, but should be fairly reliable
4. Place names are very tentative, and meant to be mere suggestions, such as Afro-America. Such names are not, afaik, used in serious litterature, so take these only as indications of geography in question.
5. I LOVE COLOR CODES =D
6. Faunas that are divided such as "north asia" and "south asia" are also meant to be rough approximations. Before human activity decimated their populations, tigers populated all of Asia, from Iran to Siberia. Lions roamed all of Africa and southern Asia, leopards had even wider a range, while wolves cover all of the northern planetary hemisphere.
Given any handful of months, a dinosaur could probably walk straight across the entire continent. They would not be confined by our modern understandings of countries and borders. However, I want to play it safe, and place them in the area where they are found.
7. That said, I have not taken into account fauna specialization, for example - forest-dwellers would be unlikely to venture across plains. Plain dwellers would not cross through deep forests. We have a rough idea what area had what type of vegetation, but trying to accurately list this would be too daunting, and I would be left with a majority of species that would simply be too difficult to determine beyond the country they're found it.
You really like Dinosaurs, don't you? I mean like really.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
What dino games have you played? Let me rephrase. Have you liked? This is supposed to be really cool. And yes he does Crni. Like you do Aliens.
http://kotaku.com/the-japanese-predecessor-to-e-v-o-search-for-eden-now-1790689843
http://kotaku.com/the-japanese-predecessor-to-e-v-o-search-for-eden-now-1790689843
I'm too hardcore nerd for that, although it looks interesting in that they seem to have tried to keep it accurate, which is pretty rare.
Otherwise, I never did much dinosaur games, hell I didn't even like most toys, they always went for the monster-look, rather than realistic (boring) look.
My favorites, I think I've allready mentioned, were the Invicta Plastics British Museum dinosaur models. They were "rather boring", and never caught on as kids toys - but are to this day valued as rare collectibles. I have the complete collection
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I mean if you never Dino Crisis I don't even.
Kohno
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Well not from Dinosaurs, as far as I can tell.
I find human evolution fascinating as well, since the more we find, the more complicated the issue gets (no, not in the white-supremacist sense, that oh, hey, maybe we all come from Sweden! Germany? Austria? Come on, give us a white country!), but in the sense that there have been a lot of competition between many forms of stem-humans
I am convinced that the cultural significance of "others" in our myths and stories, originally come from ancient collective memories of having been at odds with semi-human competitors, such as neanderthals.
Also, did we fuck neanderthals? OR! Did we kill them? I am sick to death of these non-questions. We fucked them, we killed them, we invited them for dinner, we ate them for dinner, we told them jokes, they told us jokes, we insulted them, they insulted us back: Reality is complex, and takes a long time to explain. None of this is ever easily summarized!
Homo floresiensis was creepy as fuck tho.
I can totally understand if we exterminated every last one of those hobbit-wildlings
Australopithecus boisei (aka Paranthropus)
By John Gurche. I highly recommend image-googling this artist, as his hominid busts are always very real and alive looking, and he always builds them on top of skull replicas, for maximum accuracy. He even inserts every hair individually.
I am convinced that the cultural significance of "others" in our myths and stories, originally come from ancient collective memories of having been at odds with semi-human competitors, such as neanderthals.
Also, did we fuck neanderthals? OR! Did we kill them? I am sick to death of these non-questions. We fucked them, we killed them, we invited them for dinner, we ate them for dinner, we told them jokes, they told us jokes, we insulted them, they insulted us back: Reality is complex, and takes a long time to explain. None of this is ever easily summarized!
Homo floresiensis was creepy as fuck tho.
I can totally understand if we exterminated every last one of those hobbit-wildlings
Australopithecus boisei (aka Paranthropus)
By John Gurche. I highly recommend image-googling this artist, as his hominid busts are always very real and alive looking, and he always builds them on top of skull replicas, for maximum accuracy. He even inserts every hair individually.