rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 17:45:31 GMT 5
one more thing i spinosaurus maroccanus just a larger sub species of spinosaurus agypeticus? We are not even sure what species it is to begin with (it's dubious). Right there in the article according to some sources i found spinosaurus maroccanus was larger than spinosaurus agypeticus  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 23, 2019 18:48:24 GMT 5
We are not even sure what species it is to begin with (it's dubious). Right there in the article according to some sources i found spinosaurus maroccanus was larger than spinosaurus agypeticus How does that prove the existence of S. marrocanus as a valid species? |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 19:14:15 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 23, 2019 19:15:53 GMT 5
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 19:24:21 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 23, 2019 19:30:40 GMT 5
1: Look at the post creature386 made concerning this. That should tell you what you need to know ((first 2 sources) 2: It is a nomen dubium, meaning dubious and therefore not distinct |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2019 19:36:35 GMT 5
This is a good source, but none that supports what you are saying. Have you actually read the text under figure three? About E and F, they write:"Nomen dubium" means that the scientific name is of uncertain validity and that the material cannot be clearly assigned to a taxon. also give me better proof that spinosaurus.m did not exist , since their is literal fossil evidance Of course there is fossil evidence, but is it diagnostic? |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 19:48:59 GMT 5
This is a good source, but none that supports what you are saying. Have you actually read the text under figure three? About E and F, they write:"Nomen dubium" means that the scientific name is of uncertain validity and that the material cannot be clearly assigned to a taxon. also give me better proof that spinosaurus.m did not exist , since their is literal fossil evidance Of course there is fossil evidence, but is it diagnostic? i dont see why it would not be , seeing as these are real fossils from moroco , however it may have been a larger sub species of spinosaurus agepticayus if i am spealing that right. |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 19:50:44 GMT 5
This is a good source, but none that supports what you are saying. Have you actually read the text under figure three? About E and F, they write:"Nomen dubium" means that the scientific name is of uncertain validity and that the material cannot be clearly assigned to a taxon. also give me better proof that spinosaurus.m did not exist , since their is literal fossil evidance Of course there is fossil evidence, but is it diagnostic? it proves what i am saying is right because it proves it was real , not if it was a spinosaurus though |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2019 20:33:43 GMT 5
What? Do you think I and dinosauria are arguing that the fossils were made up?
We are saying that they are not diagnostic and that the concept of an independent S. marrocanus species uncertain, not that those bones had no owner.
Considering the fragmentary nature of the bones, the uncertainty of size estimates and the uncertainty of the species itself, I personally wouldn't use S. marrocanus in matchups, but that's just my opinion. We have many matchups with obscure animals both here and on Carnivora.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 20:35:31 GMT 5
What? Do you think I and dinosauria are arguing that the fossils were made up? We are saying that they are not diagnostic and that the concept of an independent S. marrocanus species uncertain, not that those bones had no owner. Considering the fragmentary nature of the bones, the uncertainty of size estimates and the uncertainty of the species itself, I personally wouldn't use S. marrocanus in matchups, but that's just my opinion. We have many matchups with obscure animals both here and on Carnivora. oh ok , i see , my bad i made a mistake ,i will not use spinosaurus maroccanus until we get further size estimates |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2019 20:38:33 GMT 5
I did not want to prohibit you anything. We can still make such threads, I was probably more bothered by the fact that so much speculation is treated as fact in these threads.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 20:42:06 GMT 5
I did not want to prohibit you anything. We can still make such threads, I was probably more bothered by the fact that so much speculation is treated as fact in these threads. ok |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 23, 2019 20:51:38 GMT 5
Woah there rock! You don't have to quote every single post!
Anyway, in the end it is up to you, but I too would use S. aegyptiacus due to better information. Other members may like it better as well.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 23, 2019 20:55:20 GMT 5
ok , i will use S. aegyptiacus for future refrance , but anyhow i think stegosaurus can beat S. aegyptiacus in the land for sure , not sure about in the water though but i think S. aegyptiacus better chance in the water.
|
|
