|
Post by creature386 on Jun 21, 2014 22:39:14 GMT 5
A new pretty large vertebrate from the Silurian (this pretty much destroys the picture of all vertebrates in the Silurian being small): www.nature.com/srep/2014/140612/srep05242/full/srep05242.htmlIt was called Megamastax amblyodus, lived in the Silurian of China, got roughly a meter long and you see it preying on Dunyu longiforus on the picture.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 28, 2014 14:11:08 GMT 5
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Jul 2, 2014 11:34:51 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 10, 2014 0:55:54 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 18, 2014 15:52:18 GMT 5
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Aug 18, 2014 16:08:19 GMT 5
hehe "rodent to primate" is actually poor choice of words when the intent is to show how widespread it is given how both primates and rodents belong together in the clade Euarchontoglires (also known as supraprimates).
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 18, 2014 16:14:06 GMT 5
I was actually perfectly aware of this (I once explored the phylogenetic relationship of humans a bit on Wikipedia). I just took what the article said.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Aug 18, 2014 16:18:37 GMT 5
Then I suppose it wasn't in their minds our relationship to rodents haha.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 18, 2014 19:32:31 GMT 5
I am not sure if they even wanted to say that it is widespread. Maybe primates and rodents were both studied and these were simply their results.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Aug 19, 2014 2:17:25 GMT 5
I didn't read the link, I thought they investigated more mammals but the abstract doesn't make it clear.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 19, 2014 15:00:15 GMT 5
No problem, at least we kept the forum activity decent (I believe that was the only discussion that happened yesterday).
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Aug 20, 2014 0:04:24 GMT 5
Indeed haha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 10:28:46 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 24, 2014 13:20:44 GMT 5
60 t for a 26 m sauropod appear pretty heavy. Scale that to 35 m… Maybe again a particularly thick femur for its size.
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Aug 24, 2014 18:51:24 GMT 5
I can't tell from the abstract alone but... is this the "biggest ever sauropod" that was reported from Patagonia a few months ago?
|
|