|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 2, 2014 2:23:03 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 2, 2014 8:01:11 GMT 5
Very interesting, a new big guy on the block, that's fresh news. I've found that : itar-tass.com/nauka/1474267Apparently under preparation. As always, don't trust the hype, pretty muh every pliosaur has been dubbed the biggest ever prior to description. Would fun that this one lacks the global hype and eventually becomes the very largest. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 2, 2014 15:51:36 GMT 5
It probably just lacks the global hype because the news came out a few days ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 4, 2014 6:42:50 GMT 5
Cool!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 4, 2014 7:50:19 GMT 5
It probably just lacks the global hype because the news came out a few days ago. I think the fact the discovery is in Russia won't help the hype, all discoveries don't get the same hype depending the epoch, the nation, the authors. Just like the very big Mosasaurus described from Russia more recently, I bet if the discovery was from Europe it would be much more spread in the news. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 4, 2014 14:05:44 GMT 5
Well obviously, chances would be it would be described in Latin writing, and possibly in English, and thus be acessible to about 20 times as many people.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 4, 2014 14:10:12 GMT 5
Given media articles contribute to the greatest part of the hype, we would merely need one media article (the others and wiki would just copy it) that has a good translator.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 4, 2014 14:38:51 GMT 5
Sure, and my guess is that that will happen sooner or later. But this makes it more difficult. Also it reduces the amount of contribution to the media from the scientists involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 4, 2014 15:44:55 GMT 5
Who knows, maybe there later will be another paper about it in English. Two papers about the same animal in the year it was discovered is not uncommon when it is a discovery that deserves attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 4, 2014 21:43:02 GMT 5
There isn’t any paper on it so far, just articles in newspapers.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 4, 2014 22:28:47 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 24, 2014 1:58:12 GMT 5
coherentsheafDo you know the size of the largest teeth in the largest Liopleurodon skulls specimens so far ? I want to verify if the reported 200 mm maximum long teeth by Forrest on his website correspond to the teeth in the known skulls of if they represent isolated teeth.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Nov 24, 2014 5:35:42 GMT 5
Andrews (1913) describes two skulls including the largest one known, they were both found with isolated teeth, one has a condylobasal length of 112cm and the largest teeth found with it is 235mm long alongside the outer curve, crown height is 85mm, the largest teeth found with the largest Liopleurodon skull (126.5cm CBL), however, is 190mm with a crown height of 75mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 25, 2014 4:52:31 GMT 5
Many thanks blaze.
Is it just me or proportionnally the largest teeth in Liopleurodon ferox are larger than the largest teeth in Pliosaurus kevani ?
I ve failed to see teeth even as long as those of Liopleurodon despite P. kevani being significantly larger than Liopleurodon.
Of course the largest teeth in P. kevani have not been preserved and are actually reconstructed.
But on a general basis, Pliosaurus, at least kevani, is less large toothed than Liopleurodon ?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Nov 25, 2014 9:02:04 GMT 5
I think is more that Liopleurodon has longer crowned teeth or P. kevani was reconstructed with more "robust" teeth. At the same BSL they appear to have similarly sized alveoli but as you pointed out, as seen in the figures of Benson et al. (2013) none of the preserved teeth have crowns much taller than 80mm and the largest reconstructed ones are just ~110mm, rather than the ~140mm suggested by isometric scaling from Liopleurodon. |
|
