Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Tyrannosaurs in top hats. My only weakness! How did you know? Reminds me of Tyrannosaurs in F-14s! The only thing that could more cool is a Tyrannosaurus Hero Dikiyoba in an F-14!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sylae Corell i remember hearing somewhere/reading that the Tyrannosaurus had little arms for better grip when it was...yeah. They may have still had a use in mating and/or in holding down prey, but that doesn't mean they weren't ridiculous looking. Originally Posted By: The Mystic I remember some dinosaur documentary a while back saying that the Tyrannosaurus's nearest modern relative was the chicken. If it's true, then the mighty have indeed fallen, and fallen far. Woo, more inaccuracies to pick apart. Scientists did in fact find a few proteins that survived intact in a Tyrannosaurus fossil, compared them against proteins found in chickens, and discovered that they were very similar. But. The chicken was the only bird they tested. So while it confirmed that Tyrannosaurus and birds are closely related, it certainly doesn't prove that the chicken itself is Tyrannosaurus' nearest living relative. There are lots of other possible candidates. (Also note that birds evolved a long time before tyrannosaurids did, so don't be getting any silly ideas in your head that Tyrannosaurus evolved into a chicken.) Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Tirien Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Triumph Reminds me of Tyrannosaurs in F-14s! The only thing that could more cool is a Tyrannosaurus Hero Dikiyoba in an F-14 wearing a top hat!!! FYT Hey Diki, while your still on Tyrannosaurs, why dont you pick apart some of the other inaccuracies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Triumph Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Tyrannosaurs in top hats. My only weakness! How did you know? Reminds me of Tyrannosaurs in F-14s! The only thing that could more cool is a Tyrannosaurus Hero Dikiyoba in an F-14!!! How, exactly, do you wear an F-14? Originally Posted By: Tirien Hey Diki, while your still on Tyrannosaurs, why dont you pick apart some of the other inaccuracies? Okay! "Your" is the possessive while "you're" is a contraction of "you are". You misspelled Tyrannosaurus. Don't is a contraction of "do not" and should therefore always have an apostrophe. ...or is that not what you wanted Dikiyoba to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Tirien Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Tyrannosaurus Originally Posted By: Tirien Hey Diki, while your still on Tyrannosaurs, why dont you pick apart some of the other inaccuracies? Okay! "Your" is the possessive while "you're" is a contraction of "you are". You misspelled Tyrannosaurus. Don't is a contraction of "do not" and should therefore always have an apostrophe. ...or is that not what you wanted Dikiyoba to do? Yup. You did a good job of it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Tyrannosaurus Originally Posted By: The Mystic I remember some dinosaur documentary a while back saying that the Tyrannosaurus's nearest modern relative was the chicken. If it's true, then the mighty have indeed fallen, and fallen far. Woo, more inaccuracies to pick apart. Scientists did in fact find a few proteins that survived intact in a Tyrannosaurus fossil, compared them against proteins found in chickens, and discovered that they were very similar. But. The chicken was the only bird they tested. So while it confirmed that Tyrannosaurus and birds are closely related, it certainly doesn't prove that the chicken itself is Tyrannosaurus' nearest living relative. There are lots of other possible candidates. (Also note that birds evolved a long time before tyrannosaurids did, so don't be getting any silly ideas in your head that Tyrannosaurus evolved into a chicken.) I thought it sounded a bit farfetched. I guess it's just more proof that you shouldn't believe everything you see on television; it didn't get the nickname "idiot box" without good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Tyrannosaurus How, exactly, do you wear an F-14? If you're a Tyrannosaurus, any way you want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Speaking of birds... 24. Mononykus Mononykus used to be considered a large, flightless bird. Actually: You've probably guessed by now that Mononykus was a non-avian theropod, not a bird. What you probably didn't guess is that it was specialized for digging and incredibly freaky. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast The Mystic Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Mononykus What you probably didn't guess is that it was specialized for digging and incredibly freaky. I definitely wouldn't have guessed digging as its specialty. However, judging from the picture, "incredibly freaky" is a bit of an understatement in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Okay, so I'm a day late, but I just wasted probably thirty minutes burning over 40,000 (k)cal as a T.Rex. I want a twinkie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 25. Camarasaurus Camarasaurus was a large sauropod. It swallowed gastroliths to aid in its digestion. Actually: Unlike a lot of saurpods, Camarasaurus had teeth that allowed it to chew its food and so it didn't need gastroliths. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Gastroliths?? *staring boggled eyed* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Originally Posted By: Erasmus Gastroliths?? *staring boggled eyed* The Latin translates to "digestive stones," which is quite literally what gastroliths are. Like their avian descendants, many dinosaurs would swallow stones which would be stored in gizzards in their throats to aid in grinding up their food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 26. Nothronychus Nothronychus was a theropod, which must mean it was a carnivore. Just look at the claws! Actually: Nothronychus (and closely related species) were actually herbivores. So what are those enormous claws for? We don't know yet. (Dikiyoba didn't post a picture of Camarasaurus because Dikiyoba isn't sure where the nostrils went. Traditionally, they've been high on the snout, but it doesn't look like it's been reassessed since Giraffatitan's nostril placement was changed.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 so if nothronychus was a herbivore does that mean hronychus was a carnivore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nothronychus 26. Nothronychus So what are those enormous claws for? We don't know yet. They had really bad itches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Or maybe they just lost their finger nail clippers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Wait a minute. I thought dinosaurs were all scales. Why have have the pictures shown feathers and furry hair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Tirien Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Jurrasic Park lied to us! Who would have guessed that the movie industry would lie to us?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Triumph Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Originally Posted By: Tirien Jurrasic Park lied to us! Who would have guessed that the movie industry would lie to us?! Inconceivable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Sudanna Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It was not so much a lie as a misconception at the time, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 feathers don't fossilise very well so it's only quite recently that it was confirmed that a whole bunch of dinosaurs had feathers, although it was suspected before then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Originally Posted By: Nothronychus So what are those enormous claws for? We don't know yet. Perhaps it was a digger? Or are the claws the wrong shape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 It looks vampiric to me. It looking like Dracula and the dinos in the rear looking like the bat henchmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Originally Posted By: Lilith feathers don't fossilise very well so it's only quite recently that it was confirmed that a whole bunch of dinosaurs had feathers, although it was suspected before then Yup. (Any "fur" is actually just more feathers.) Originally Posted By: Erasmus It looking like Dracula and the dinos in the rear looking like the bat henchmen The "dinos" in the rear actually belong to an entirely different group of prehistoric reptiles, the pterosaurs. (The species is probably Pteranodon, but Dikiyoba isn't positive about that.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 27. Ornitholestes Ornitholestes was a small, primative theropod. It had what was either a small horn or crest on its snout. Actually: Ornitholestes didn't have anything unusual on its snout. What was thought to be a horn turned out to be a disarticulated piece of the skull. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Has anyone ever tried to reassemble and argue in order to produce the smallest credible number of different kinds of dinosaur? I mean, an awful lot of them seem to be pretty similar-looking lizard-y critters, differing only in details of color or decoration that are probably not reliable anyway. And if horns and spikes and what-not can all turn out to be mistakes, maybe some of the supposedly different species are really just different individuals of the same species? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody RCCCL Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Well, in a way they are, just different sub-species. Like small cats for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Tirien Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Does this mean we can expect to see a lolraptor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 Originally Posted By: RCCCL Well, in a way they are, just different sub-species. Like small cats for example. *sobs* Most of the names of dinosaurs you see are actually genera. That's why they're all capitalized. (They should be italicized too, but I'm lazy.) The only popular exception is Tyrannosaurus rex, which is an individual species. Student of Trinity: That would be an impossible amount of work. Still, the taxonomy of dinosaurs changes all the time on a smaller scale. Sometimes multiple genera or species are combined into one (eg, Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus), and sometimes one genus is divided into multiple genera (eg, Brachiosaurus and Giraffatitan). Besides anatomical differences, the age and location of fossils matters in terms of dinosaur diversity. Even if two dinosaur specimens may look very similar, if they lived on different continents or several million years apart, they were almost certainly two different species. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Why should that be the case? There are modern organisms that are considered to be the same species as fossils found from millions of years ago, and there are species with multi-continental distribution. Mostly marine and avian, granted, but dinosaurs could count as avian if you squint. —Alorael, who concludes that there is only one dinosaur species. It was just highly metamorphic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity Has anyone ever tried to reassemble and argue in order to produce the smallest credible number of different kinds of dinosaur? I mean, an awful lot of them seem to be pretty similar-looking lizard-y critters, differing only in details of color or decoration that are probably not reliable anyway. And if horns and spikes and what-not can all turn out to be mistakes, maybe some of the supposedly different species are really just different individuals of the same species? I would just like to point out how many different species of birds there are, and how similar most of them look. Often the only visible difference between species (other than where they live) is a slightly different coloration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Yeah, actually a very large number of distinct dinosaur species is probably to be expected, given what we know of present-day life, and the enormous range of dinosaurs in space and time. But I just think it would be a salutary exercise to benchmark the quality of our evidence for dinosaur biology by checking just how few distinct species might be consistent with that evidence. If the answer is, a lot fewer than the current standard theory says, then that would remind us that most of standard theory is more speculative reconstruction than firm deduction. On the other hand, an awful lot of supposedly distinct bird species look suspiciously similar to me. Little brown things that go 'tweet'. Maybe I'm just a born lumper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Originally Posted By: Provincial Louts There are modern organisms that are considered to be the same species as fossils found from millions of years ago Same genus, sure, but I doubt they'd be considered the same species. But species is a fuzzy and sometimes arbitrary concept anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 28. Iguanodon Iguanodon was a large ornithischian. Modern depictions show it was capable of walking on two feet or four. It probably spent much of its time as a biped when it was young and then spent more and more time as a quadraped as it grew older and heavier. The structure of the hands are interesting: the thumbs were modified into sharp spikes (for defense), the three middle fingers were modified for walking, and the pinkie was long and prehensile (for holding things). Actually: Take a good look at Iguanodon's hands, because there was one more strange thing about them; something that almost all depictions of Iguanodon get wrong (including the skeleton at the museum where Dikiyoba learned this fact). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 You aren't going to mention Iguanadon's claim to fame? It was one the first dinosaurs to be named. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: The Ratt I would just like to point out how many different species of birds there are, and how similar most of them look. Often the only visible difference between species (other than where they live) is a slightly different coloration. Birds!! Hah!! You should see what Darwin wrote about insects, they are so diverse and similar at the same time that entomologists probably still have rows (or is it spelled with an 'e'?) about which insect class is Species and which is Variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Iguanadon was cooler back when it had its thumb-spike on its nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Iguanodon 28. Iguanodon Actually: Take a good look at Iguanodon's hands, because there was one more strange thing about them; something that almost all depictions of Iguanodon get wrong (including the skeleton at the museum where Dikiyoba learned this fact). Are you going to reveal it for those of us who are stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Rowen Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Iguanodon 28. Iguanodon Actually: Take a good look at Iguanodon's hands, because there was one more strange thing about them; something that almost all depictions of Iguanodon get wrong (including the skeleton at the museum where Dikiyoba learned this fact). What? What is it that they get wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Master1 Are you going to reveal it for those of us who are stupid? Yeah, but it would be nice if someone tried to answer, first. One of Dikiyoba's dinosaur models agreed to pose to provide a second view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Those look like people-hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Apposable (sp) thumbs? Holy crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall A less presumptuous name. Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 There aren't four middle fingers, are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Iguanadon was cooler back when it had its thumb-spike on its nose. I liked dinosaurs better when they were underground. Preferably whist being subjected to immense pressure and heat until they turn into the fossil fuels that is allowing our species to exert a greater impact on everything on the planet than millions of massive lizards ever could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Master1 There aren't four middle fingers, are there? No, it's an incorrect model. There are three middle fingers, a spiked thumb, and a pinkie for grabbing. Good catch. ... what happened to Dikiyoba's post the first time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Sudanna Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I think you underestimate the power of massive lizards with combustion engines and plastics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.