|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 23, 2014 23:15:10 GMT 5
I don’t have that much of a problem with most of WWD’s sympatric associations (eg. the european Utahraptor). Many are not proven, but plausible (at least in a very similar form), and the benefit is that they allow for a more complete palaeoecological reconstruction with richer ecosystems than would have otherwise been possible. Regarding Giganotosaurus, that was just an additional note concerning how that certainly was not a rigorous scientific work. Of course my main point was that they also showed Nigel Marven, travelling through time...
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 24, 2014 0:59:24 GMT 5
Just being conservative here.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jan 24, 2014 9:13:41 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 24, 2014 16:52:01 GMT 5
Some modern animals have really wide distribution areas. But if it was really that far away, I can understand why some may criticize this. But it is possible that Postosuchus and Plateosaurus co-existed somewhere in Canada though.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 24, 2014 17:43:38 GMT 5
Yes, its far. But canada is also far from patagonia, and yet, have a look at the distribution of cougars.
There are many paralells between certain continents that suggest there was still some sort of link between them, thus its likely Utahraptor or a similar taxon existed in Europe in the lower cretaceous (since close relative sof Iguanodon also existed in North America). When all continents were linked, such as in the Triassic, geographical ranges of many taxa could have been huge.
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267 
|
Post by Derdadort on Jan 24, 2014 23:39:04 GMT 5
I donÂ’t have that much of a problem with most of WWDÂ’s sympatric associations (eg the european Utahraptor). Many are not proven, but plausible (at least in a very similar form), and the benefit is that they allow for a more complete palaeoecological reconstruction with richer ecosystems than would have otherwise been possible. Regarding Giganotosaurus, that was just an additional note concerning how that certainly was not a rigorous scientific work. Of course my main point was that they also showed Nigel Marven, travelling through time... So, you want to tell me, this was no real time travel??? Seriously, I only wanted to show, that WWD couldn't know it better. However, I suppose dinokid is quite young, so I would take liberties with his sources (even if it don't fit with WoA's "reputation"). @posto-Plateo: Actually there was a second species of Postosuchus, P. alisonae, from North Carolina. I think a connection is a legitimate argument for a plateosauria, but they are nevertheless not sympatric, so they could just call them "prosauropods" (I do not know, if there are any plateosauria in USA). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 25, 2014 0:02:03 GMT 5
IÂ’m aware of that. My intention was not to attack him, merely explain this so that he can understand why we disagree with it.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Feb 21, 2014 5:37:25 GMT 5
My newest and most accurate Amphicoelias reconstruction. Here I have used Carpenter's vertebral height to estimate allometric scaling from Diplodocus and Barosaurus. The lengths range from 60 to 70 meters, and I find weights in the 125 to 190 ton range most likely when using vertebra between 2.4 and 2.7 meters tall. A far cry from the 300 tons of my early Carnivora days. Still, the largest animal on earth, rivaled only by the Blue whale. Scale bar is 4m.  |
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Apr 1, 2014 12:48:06 GMT 5
It seems there is new evidence for Amphicoelias fragilimus or a very similar genus. Larkin et al. describe in an yet unpublished paper remains of a very large sauropod from Morrison Formation. The fossils include a giant femur, some cervical vertebras und rips. It's probably a dipodocoid, but in the size range of Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus. Unfortunately no more information is revealed. Source: tinyurl.com/4poyc6x |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2014 14:44:37 GMT 5
It seems there is new evidence for Amphicoelias fragilimus or a very similar genus. Larkin et al. describe in an yet unpublished paper remains of a very large sauropod from Morrison Formation. The fossils include a giant femur, some cervical vertebras und rips. It's probably a dipodocoid, but in the size range of Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus. Unfortunately no more information is revealed. Source: tinyurl.com/4poyc6xlol, nice try. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 1, 2014 17:58:41 GMT 5
At least some April Fool's Day jokes today.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Apr 2, 2014 4:44:57 GMT 5
It seems there is new evidence for Amphicoelias fragilimus or a very similar genus. Larkin et al. describe in an yet unpublished paper remains of a very large sauropod from Morrison Formation. The fossils include a giant femur, some cervical vertebras und rips. It's probably a dipodocoid, but in the size range of Argentinosaurus or Puertasaurus. Unfortunately no more information is revealed. Source: tinyurl.com/4poyc6xGod I wish, but I thought about doing the same thing myself, so I was on my guard lol! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 2, 2014 19:56:25 GMT 5
You actually only would have needed to read broly's post. To be honest, the only exciting thing to me was what hides behind the link. I would have expected a troll face.  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 2, 2014 20:33:22 GMT 5
What’s so excellent about that joke was that everybody would have loved to accept it as truth because quite litterally everyone interested in palaeontology is eagerly awaiting such a find.
|
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160
|
Post by guategojira on Apr 12, 2014 3:22:11 GMT 5
There are several posts that I most read, and I am already fascinating with all these giants, however this says more or less what I think about Amphicoelias fragillimus: " Folks — please remember, the punchline is not “Amphicoelias fragillimus only weighed 78.5 tonnes rather than 122.4 tonnes”. The punchline is “when you extrapolate the mass of an extinct animal of uncertain affinities from a 132-year-old figure of a partial bone which has not been seen in more than a century, you need to recognise that the error-bars are massive and anything resembling certainty is way misplaced.” Caveat estimator!" Source: svpow.com/2010/02/19/how-big-was-amphicoelias-fragillimus-i-mean-really/I going to read all this, and latter, I will state what I have learn and what I think. Greetings. |
|
