|
Post by Grey on Oct 23, 2013 22:28:58 GMT 5
Anyway, I really have to make some precisions to theropod.
And what is science? Insisting they must be part of the quite rare 28-year old category, insisting they must be large specimens?
Doing with what we have, with rational approach. Scientific maturity has nothing to with the age. But yes you lack some maturity on a number of posts. And you terribly lack of modesty, farting higher than your ass.
I'm not doing any "work", "making up facts" like you seem to imagine. I am merely stating obvious statistical facts about what is probable and what is not. I should not need to "perpetuate" that. The material is present, on the fossil record, and it should sink into your mind, sooner (?preferred option) or later.
Nothing is obvious in what you argue, since only you and some others fanatics all the time wanting bigger and bigger things beyond any caution are stating this as obvious. What you suggest is a possibility among others. A speculation without real basis. At least you could wait for more datas about Giganotosaurus status before open your mouth.
On the issue about Megalodon tooth measurements; you know very well how you reacted to my observations (and I should not have to repeat the exact wording here) on this and similar issues (eg. "jaw gape angle of mounted megalodon jaws"). You first tried to turn it on me, and now try to make it a testimony of your own maturity.
You're ridiculous. I was rude at the beginning because of our history but I've quickly made my research ande realized that it was right, and recognized it without any problem, as no one had directly remarked that before on the board(s). I favor truth and objectivity over ego and pride in science.
You'd be well advised to not bring it up,
Wake up, that was for recalling you that on real subjects, you can be efficient. All your statements about average sizes, likelihood, is speculation, and speculation becomes boring. Not interesting, on the contrary to find out the accurate method of measurement in a fossil.
I'd be willing to forget about it given you learned your lesson (yes, I wrote that).
Still this lack of modesty. With such a haughty attitude you're lucky to not be my neighboor... You've learnt me nothing, you've hinted me on that subject, as well as others. And I recognize this as valuable, I did it. But don't start to glirify yourself, don't forget you're just a geek on the internet with good knowledge but huge propencity to speculate with enthusiasm.
Palaeontology is a science that consists of 99% hypothesis (= educated speculation=the most probable speculation).
There's certainly not only 1% of facts in paleontology but that is true that paleontology is based on theories and hypothesis. But based on more or less rational basis.
Dinosaurs having feathers is speculation, but it is the most probable one there is.
Some dinosaures had feathers : fact, no speculation there. T. rex had fuzz-like feathers : speculation based on a relative.
T. rex having eyeballs is speculation, but it is so probable it approaches certainty. It ain't possible to classify these into what you consider "speculation" and what you consider "fact".
T. rex had a bone-crushing bite : fact. T. rex had social skills : educated speculation. T. rex roared like in JP : speculation.
The same way, you may call the individuals of monotypic species being average a "speculation", but it still is the most likely one, and thus justified. Them being extremes, be it the kind of extreme you see in a sample of 30 or the kind of extreme in your so called "ideal" sample, is also speculation by the very same logic, but it is far less likely.
Everything is possible without a good sample of a valid population. There is more likelihood if the life status of the monotypic/specimens are known. Example : Leedsichthys is known to have reached 55 feet but we know based on solid evidences that they could certainly grow larger. I appreciate you made some concrete points.
My points are concrete yes. Your points are mostly intelligents but not concrete, that's our difference.
Now theropod, you believe what you want.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 24, 2013 0:41:11 GMT 5
Doing with what we have, with rational approach. Scientific maturity has nothing to with the age. But yes you lack some maturity on a number of posts. I suppose, and dearly hope, that that is a joke. If not, it's a mind boggling example of sheer lack of comprehension. Is there some rule nowadays by which the validity of something is judged by personal bias about the one who stated it? Of course, you can go on insulting people who you do not agree with and obviously don't try to agree with as "fanatics", that's much easier than questioning your own principles...Its comical enough you're calling me a fanatic because I'm statinbg that sue does not represent the norm for a T. rex. Shut your own mouth please, I'm not arguing about Giganotosaurus in case you haven't noticed. This is a matter of principles in science, not the monster- Giganotosaurus you want to believe I'm fantasizing about. The sad truth is, there are no data, and in the absence of data what I'm going to assume, based on rational thinking, is certainly not a highly speculative 1/40 assumption, but rather something with a higher degree of probability. yeah, I know, I'm a fanboy. I got a very different impression from the stuff you are posting. So, Mr. "I favor truth and objectivity over ego and pride in science, much more than you", didn't you mention the word "modesty"? As long as it's my speculation. If it's your speculation, it is not in the slightest, you don't even call it speculation any more because when you speculate it's automatically something better than when others do! and be called a *you know what* in the process? It doesn't matter what I argue, you always will have problems with it. That was just luckily a case with an unequivocal way to prove who was right and who was wrong, ie. you couldn't insist in being right (going by your responses you would have, had there been ANY possibility of doing so)... Why the hell is it you giving lessons in modesty, when at the same time you write stuff like your last post? Oh, is the big, bad soldier trying to scare me? I think you need a psychiatrist, seriously. It's "taught", not "learnt". Of course I cannot teach you anything if you automatically react in such a way every time I potentially could, I presume because often the results don't please you, which, in combination with it being me who wrote them, leads them to interpret a lot of hogwash into them. Instead of even trying to learn anything, all you do is rephrase or copy and paste your preconceived ideas. That's ridiculous and childish, nothing more. And what if not "rational basis" is it that the assumption that a single specimen is not comparable to the largest in 30 or more has? You know very well what I meant. That T. rex had feathers is phylogenetic bracketing, which in turn is nothing but an application of probability. It is more probable an animal retained a structure than that it lost it, if no other data exists (and it is more likely an individual represents the average than the extreme, unless other data exists). Now in the case of T. rex we do have skin imprints which at least somewhat limit the magnitudinal extent feathers had in certain geographical and anatomical regions (ie. the degree to which that T. rex individual was feathered in the preserved region, to be more concrete), but the point is the same. and in conclusion from your very own reasoning Sue is a relatively old and large T. rex? fact, in a sample of dozens of individuals none exceed or even just equal it. A random individual cannot be expected to be in the same state of relative size/maturity?a simple statistical probability (no speculation, no hypothesis, a fact). A random individual of another species is not in that state?a hypothesis, in the end nothing but an educated speculation, in this case, and preferrably, one that is the most probable...as with many of the speculations you believe are true. What are you talking about, BBC-sized Leedsichthys? Possibilities are not all equally probable. Eg. it is fully possible T. rex had a massive horn on its rostrum that was made of keratin and thus didn't fossilise. Does that make it in any way probable, and would you trust a reconstruction depicting T. rexes with snouts like arsinoitheres? My points are as concrete as they can be. Perhaps you want to read a few older, earlier posts in discussions like this one and compare whether they suit your expectations better. That might be the case, your problem is that you never read them, so no wonder that you: A: don't learn anything from them, if you don't consider them B: are bored by them, if I have to repeat similar arguments for you to even read them (let alone consider them) C: don't always get to read your ideal post in terms of writing style Be a bit more careful with your criticism if the whole fault lies with yourself! Any reason you haven't already incorporated that annoying phrase in your signature?
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Oct 24, 2013 1:42:24 GMT 5
I'm surprised that nobody posted the new titan abelisaurid and the new Deinocheirus material, instead they talk and argue all again about that certain same coelurosaur They are not even published yet and under an embargo, so there is not enough information, thats why. Nobody posted about Giant central asian Tyrannosauroids or Giant Megalosaurids from England. Also nobody has mentioned Neovenator. There is so much unpublished stuff that most people would not believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 24, 2013 1:42:50 GMT 5
What piece of crap, that's utterly hopeless. Go teach lessons to others.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Oct 24, 2013 2:25:51 GMT 5
We have a decent sample of femurs, that's something to start with (and yes, even if that's just like 15 or so, it's better than just taking some random individual instead). The average femur lenght for T. rex adults based on these data is not above 1.2m, that's well below sue-sized. In the absence of histological data, one CAN only use probability. Since I'm quite certain nobody here has histological data and growth tables for Giganotosaurus, the only thing one can assume is the most probable thing. The most probable thing for a random adult is that it's not in sue's state of maturity, because we know sue is a pretty old individual. What's supposed to be wrong about that? It certainly isn't wrong just because it is probable, is it? Why should sue be any more representative for its species than B-rex? @broly: The problem with those new findings, as amazing as they are, is that there is no concrete information of any kind. Deinocheirus didn't even receive a rough estimate. We have to wait a little longer, until we get to see a description or at least the secondary sources reporting about it--then I'm sure there will be plenty of new interesting stuff. Grey: Neither I nor Fragillimus have done the "boring speculations" you are accusing us of. As I already pointed out, Holtz' adresses a different point in the article, that of ontogeny, and this is a point applicable to carnosaurs as well as Tyrannosaurs, and for all we know to other non-avian theropods as well. First, how do you know that the owners of the femora were adults? Again using propabilities? and where is your data from? 1.2 meters seems pretty low, even that of stan widely surpasses that, and Stan is like 11 meters... The only three specimens with a smaller femur than 1.2 meters are Bucky, which has one of 1,17 meters, just recently became mature, and Mor 009, which is around the same size of Stan, but has a much smaller femur.The smallest adult is B-rex, which really is tiny and smaller than some subadults. I hope. I do not need to start counting the femora over 1.2 meters...There is also something called individual variation, which makes estimates based on single bones very vague. And then limiting the size estimates on a single type of bone is even worse, because you reduce the database again. Also, T. rex specimens approaching Sue in size are not that rare as you make it seem. And, no in absence of histological data and actual information on the population, using propabilities is nonsense. You have not even presented numbers and the data behind it. As I mentioned earlier, I could as well claim that it is more likely than not to be at Sue´s age because of its completeness, as most younger adults are preserved in a worser state. It is making up an argument out of no hard data. Its Fortune Telling. As for your last argument, I thought you were so hot on using averages and propabilities? There are multiple specimens approaching Sue in size, how many adults are close in size to B.rex?(Well maybe Mor 009 and thats it) Again, Sue is nothing special for her age, and fits inside the model of life history quite well. B. rex is far from the actual Graph and very small for hers age, smaller than some adolescents and samller than a lot of younger specimens. Know you want to tell me that B. rex is the better model? Simply, nope.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Oct 24, 2013 5:18:54 GMT 5
Doing with what we have, with rational approach. Scientific maturity has nothing to with the age. But yes you lack some maturity on a number of posts. I suppose, and dearly hope, that that is a joke. If not, it's a mind boggling example of sheer lack of comprehension. Is there some rule nowadays by which the validity of something is judged by personal bias about the one who stated it? Of course, you can go on insulting people who you do not agree with and obviously don't try to agree with as "fanatics", that's much easier than questioning your own principles... Shut your own mouth please, I'm not arguing about Giganotosaurus in case you haven't noticed. This is a matter of principles in science, not the monster- Giganotosaurus you want to believe I'm fantasizing about. The sad truth is, there are no data, and in the absence of data what I'm going to assume, based on rational thinking, is certainly not a highly speculative 1/40 assumption, but rather something with a higher degree of probability. yeah, I know, I'm a fanboy. I got a very different impression. So, Mr. "I favor truth and objectivity over ego and pride in science, much more than you", didn't you mention the word modesty? As long as it's my speculation. If it's your speculation, it is not in the slightest, you don't even call it speculation any more because when you speculate it's automatically something better than when others do! and be called a *you know what* in the process? It doesn't matter what I argue, you always will have problems with it. That was just luckily a case with an unequivocal way to prove who's right or wrong, ie. you couldn't insist in being right (going by your responses you would have, had there been ANY possibility of doing so)... Why the hell is it you reminding people to be modest, when at the same time you write stuff like your last post. I think you need a psychiatrist, seriously. It's "taught", not "learnt". Of course I cannot teach you anything if you automatically react in such a way every time I potentially could. And what if not "rational basis" does the assumption that a single specimen is not comparable to the largest in 30 or more have? You know very well what I meant. That T. rex had feathers is phylogenetic bracketing, which in turn is nothing but an application of probability. It is more probable an animal retained a structure than that it lost it, if no other data exists (and it is more likely an individual represents the average than the extreme, unless other data exists). Now in the case of T. rex we do have skin imprints which at least somewhat limit the magnitudinal extent feathers had in certain geographical and anatomical regions (ie. the degree to which that T. rex individual was feathered in the preserved region, to be more concrete), but the point is the same. and in conclusion from your very own reasoning Sue is a relatively old and large T. rex? fact. A random individual cannot be expected to be in the same state of relative size/maturity?probability. A random individual of another species is not in that state? "educated", highest-possible-probability-speculation. What are you talking about, BBC-sized Leedsichthys? Possibilities are not all equally probable. Eg. it is fully possible T. rex had a massive horn on its rostrum that was made of keratin and thus didn't fossilise. Does that make it in any way probable, and would you trust a reconstruction depicting T. rexes with snouts like arsinoitheres? My points are as concrete as they can be. Perhaps you want to read a few older, earlier posts in discussions like this one and compare whether they suit your expectations better. That might be the case, your problem is that you never read them... Any reason you haven't already incorporated that annoying phrase in your signature? I think Grey has lost sight of what we are trying to tell him, and he's too angry to let us explain, so in the spirit of progress I think it's best to let this one go. However, I think "farting above one's ass" is definitely the best insult I've ever heard. I want to change the track of this thread to discussing methods of estimating Deinocheirus's size!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 6:41:56 GMT 5
I'm surprised that nobody posted the new titan abelisaurid and the new Deinocheirus material, instead they talk and argue all again about that certain same coelurosaur Anyway, here the one on Deinocherius:Lee, Y., Barsbold, R., Currie, P., Kobayashi, Y., Lee, H. NEW SPECIMENS OF DEINOCHEIRUS MIRIFICUS FROM THE LATE CRETACEOUS OF MONGOLIA p. 161 here: vertpaleo.org/PDFS/0d/0d20d609-f7e6-4bb3-a0c4-765fcffde49b.pdfI can't find the one on the giant abelisaurid. The giant abelisaurid: " A GIANT ABELISAURID THEROPOD FROM THE LATEST CRETACEOUS OF NORTHERN TURKANA, KENYA SERTICH, Joseph, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, United States, 80205; O'CONNOR, Patrick, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States; SEIFFERT, Erik, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, United States; MANTHI, Fredrick Kyalo, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya The African fossil record of Cretaceous non-marine vertebrates has expanded significantly over the past two decades. However, these discoveries have been limited to Lower and middle Cretaceous horizons with a conspicuous absence of fossils from the latest Cretaceous, an interval of prolonged African isolation. Recently recovered vertebrate fossils from the Lapurr Mountains of northwestern Turkana, Kenya, comprise the first definitive non-marine fauna from this critical terminal Cretaceous interval. This diverse fauna from the Lapurr sandstone (“Turkana Grits”) has been dated to the Maastrichtian and includes crocodyliforms, pterosaurs, and dinosaurs. Though fragmentary, the dinosaur record includes at least two iguanodontian ornithopods, three macronarian sauropods, and two large theropods. Here we report on one of these theropods, a new abelisaurid that significantly expands the upper limits of body size in ceratosaurians and represents the youngest diagnostic dinosaur material yet reported from the Afro-Arabian continent. The new taxon is known from multiple isolated specimens including portions of the skull, axial column, and appendicular skeleton. Referral of unassociated remains to a single taxon is based on morphological consistency and on the recovery of specimens from a narrow stratigraphic and geographic area. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis substantiates referral of the new Kenyan taxon to Abelisauridae based, among other features, on the presence of a tall, rugose premaxilla, an anteroventrally inclined posterior border of the postorbital, and a prominent dorsal projection of the parietals and supraoccipital. An associated partial skull is strongly coossified, with a thickened but weakly sculptured skull roof. Unlike many other abelisaurids, no prominent cranial ornamentation is evident. As in other ceratosaurians, the astragalocalcaneum is completely coossified and displays a prominent transverse sulcus on the anteroventral surface. Like other abelisaurids, the ascending process is low and subrectangular, separated from the anterior surface of the astragalus by a distinct fossa. Comparison of preserved elements with those of other, more complete abelisaurids indicates that the new taxon likely exceeded 11-12 meters in length. Furthermore, the presence of a large- bodied abelisaurid in the Kenyan fauna parallels many other Late Cretaceous Gondwanan faunas, reflecting global early Late Cretaceous turnover from allosauroid and spinosaurid dominated ecosystems." page 211 Thanks! Looks like my Giant Cretaceous Theropod Size Comparison will need an update on one of the theropods, as soon as the Deinocheirus material gets published and put together into a reconstruction. Judging from that, it doesn't look much like Struthiomimus at all. And exceeded!? I had the impression that the abelisaurid was around that size due to what I've seen from others' statements. It takes aeons to load.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 6:48:50 GMT 5
I'm surprised that nobody posted the new titan abelisaurid and the new Deinocheirus material, instead they talk and argue all again about that certain same coelurosaur They are not even published yet and under an embargo, so there is not enough information, thats why. Nobody posted about Giant central asian Tyrannosauroids or Giant Megalosaurids from England. Also nobody has mentioned Neovenator. There is so much unpublished stuff that most people would not believe it. At least it would be better than the current situation we have here. Look how theropod and Grey have carried on this thread to see my point. And do you have at least the links or abstracts about those giant Asian tyrannosauroids and that giant English megalosaurid? You mentioned them. And I think the reason nobody has posted anything about Neovenator here is because they don't see it as "giant". Most people seemingly set their standards of "giant theropod" to 5+ tonnes, when based on how large most of the theropods taxa known are, should be more of around 1+ tonne, making Neovenator meet the giant theropod criteria.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Oct 24, 2013 8:04:14 GMT 5
Megalosauroid: Philips(1871)
Tyrannosauroid: mentioned by various authors, including Gilmore. I have more on this, but this information that I got from private.
Oh, and Neovenator most likely reached much more than a ton, the holotype might just be a subadult, and there is material of definetively bigges specimens.
Same for Aerosteon.
Oh, and every theropod over 100 kg should be considered megafauna.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 24, 2013 14:19:22 GMT 5
I think Grey has lost sight of what we are trying to tell him, and he's too angry to let us explain, so in the spirit of progress I think it's best to let this one go. However, I think "farting above one's ass" is definitely the best insult I've ever heard. I want to change the track of this thread to discussing methods of estimating Deinocheirus's size! Everyone perfectly understands what you are trying to establish as fact whereas you speculate on possibilities among many others, complexified by a number of unknown factors. Parameters that you don't want keep in mind. I respect you but I'm naturally cautious of your orientations for obvious reasons. So far, I'm on the authorities side. And I've made clear that I can't stand this crap discussion anymore : stomatopod, have you your links about Utahraptor...?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 24, 2013 15:37:31 GMT 5
We have a decent sample of femurs, that's something to start with (and yes, even if that's just like 15 or so, it's better than just taking some random individual instead). The average femur lenght for T. rex adults based on these data is roughly 1.2m, that's well below sue-sized by any standard, ie. sue is relatively large. On the other hand, specimens like the holotype of Giganotosaurus, MNSN V4740, or the Neotype of Carcharodontosaurus are far closer to the species' averages. In the absence of histological data, one CAN only use probability. Since I'm quite certain nobody here has histological data and growth tables for Giganotosaurus, the only thing one can assume is the most probable thing. The most probable thing for a random adult is that it's not in sue's state of maturity, because we know sue is a pretty old individual. What's supposed to be wrong about that? It certainly isn't wrong just because it is probable, is it? Why should sue be any more representative for its species than B-rex? @broly: The problem with those new findings, as amazing as they are, is that there is no concrete information of any kind. Deinocheirus didn't even receive a rough estimate. We have to wait a little longer, until we get to see a description or at least the secondary sources reporting about it--then I'm sure there will be plenty of new interesting stuff. Grey: Neither I nor Fragillimus have done the "boring speculations" you are accusing us of. As I already pointed out, Holtz' adresses a different point in the article, that of ontogeny, and this is a point applicable to carnosaurs as well as Tyrannosaurs, and for all we know to other non-avian theropods as well. First, how do you know that the owners of the femora were adults? Again using propabilities? and where is your data from? 1.2 meters seems pretty low, even that of stan widely surpasses that, and Stan is like 11 meters... The only three specimens with a smaller femur than 1.2 meters are Bucky, which has one of 1,17 meters, just recently became mature, and Mor 009, which is around the same size of Stan, but has a much smaller femur.The smallest adult is B-rex, which really is tiny and smaller than some subadults. I hope. I do not need to start counting the femora over 1.2 meters...There is also something called individual variation, which makes estimates based on single bones very vague. And then limiting the size estimates on a single type of bone is even worse, because you reduce the database again. Also, T. rex specimens approaching Sue in size are not that rare as you make it seem. And, no in absence of histological data and actual information on the population, using propabilities is nonsense. You have not even presented numbers and the data behind it. As I mentioned earlier, I could as well claim that it is more likely than not to be at Sue´s age because of its completeness, as most younger adults are preserved in a worser state. It is making up an argument out of no hard data. Its Fortune Telling. As for your last argument, I thought you were so hot on using averages and propabilities? There are multiple specimens approaching Sue in size, how many adults are close in size to B.rex?(Well maybe Mor 009 and thats it) Again, Sue is nothing special for her age, and fits inside the model of life history quite well. B. rex is far from the actual Graph and very small for hers age, smaller than some adolescents and samller than a lot of younger specimens. Know you want to tell me that B. rex is the better model? Simply, nope. The Theropod database for one thing, Larson 2008 () for another. There are plenty of T. rex specimens with femora below 1.2m. And I already posted that elsewhere. I know these are "probably adults" because they are alltogether well within the size range known from adults (it’s your task to prove otherwise if you are so convinced they are rather subadult size. How the hell do you know that?). What do you want to do, claim that at the same time sue is completely normal but smaller sizes, known from numerous specimens, are not? By the same logic, who´s telling you what theropods are adults at all, and that they are not all just tiny freaks? And why do you use this logic on T. rex, but not apply it to all other theropods? There are multiple specimens closer to the lower bound, at least as many as ones close to the upper bound. There´s MOR 009, B-rex, Bucky, DMNH 2827, BHI 6233, 6232, 6242, Black Beauty... Meaning B-rex is just as good a representative as sue, sue is merely popular and large–B-rex is neither (although really it should be popular, and if only due to being the only T. rex whose sex is confirmed). Both in the end are lousy representatives. Sue represents a very old, fully grown specimen, which is an unusual thing for any non-avian dinosaur. And in case you’re gonna tell me that, Yes, bucky is young. Sue’s old, in fact to the point that only very few dinosaur specimens (Bypee et al. 2006, Myhrvold 2013, Erickson et al. 2004) come close to its state of maturity. If one includes one, one has to include the other. The same was one cannot derive the average size of african lions by just counting the larger half of the population, or by just counting males, and one cannot compare the biggest saltwater crocodile ever discovered to the average adult croc (or the average adult great white shark for that matter, and then conclude that the crocodile is at least as big as the shark). You were always the first person to suggest individual variation should lead you to cautious estimates, and now you suddenly just want to ignore the data alltogether rooting with the largest known specimen as the norm. Femora are used as a standard measurement to compare and estimate taxa, among other things in the growth curves you yourself (and we all for that matter) rely on. But I'm not supposed to use them to demonstrate what is a large and what an average specimen? Why, because you don’t like me? Fluctuations go in both ways. The mean is always the best thing, I shouldn't have to tell you that. And I haven't even tried to estimate total lenght or weight like some scientists do (such as one of the studies I cited). I compared femur lenghts among specimens–where sue turns out well above average! In the end, it is not me who wants to make it looks as if sue was a freak, it’s you who wants to envision rexes significantly smaller than sue as an absolute rarity, while actually they are the norm, representing the vast majority of T. rex fossils. Fragillimus335: I think I've got a fitting quote: Where the walled city is certain posters minds. thus, I guess I should give up on that… EDIT: Apparently this wasn’t made obvious enough: "That shouldn't be this way" But some people have no sense of humour, in exchange for far too much hypocritical lust to attack me… Grey: If you are tired of "crap discussions", stop doing them. More than one person is needed for a discussion, how come you always seem to forget that? But you cannot just order others to be quiet because what they write disturbs you too much to keep quiet yourself. That's entirely your own problem. REFERENCES: Bypee, Paul J.; Lee, Andrew H.; Lamm, Ellen-Thérèse (2006): Sizing the Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Allosaurus: Assessing Growth Strategy and Evolution of Ontogenetic Scaling of Limbs. Journal of Morphology, Vol. 267 pp. 347-359 Erickson, Gregory M.; Makovicky, Peter J.; Currie, Philip J.; Norell, Mark A.; Yerby, Scott A.; Brochu, Christopher A. (2004): Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature, Vol. 430 (7001) pp. 772-775 Larson, Peter (2008): Variation and Sexual Dimorphism in Tyrannosaurus rex. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington pp. 103-128 Myhrvold, Nathan P. (2013): Revisiting the Estimation of Dinosaur Growth Rates. PLoS ONE, Vol. 8 (12) pp. 1-24
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Oct 24, 2013 17:51:08 GMT 5
Yeah, that document is really long and a pain to navigate, because loading a search takes ages. The feathered ornithopod is on page 136: The giant abelisaurid: " A GIANT ABELISAURID THEROPOD FROM THE LATEST CRETACEOUS OF NORTHERN TURKANA, KENYA SERTICH, Joseph, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, CO, United States, 80205; O'CONNOR, Patrick, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States; SEIFFERT, Erik, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, United States; MANTHI, Fredrick Kyalo, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya The African fossil record of Cretaceous non-marine vertebrates has expanded significantly over the past two decades. However, these discoveries have been limited to Lower and middle Cretaceous horizons with a conspicuous absence of fossils from the latest Cretaceous, an interval of prolonged African isolation. Recently recovered vertebrate fossils from the Lapurr Mountains of northwestern Turkana, Kenya, comprise the first definitive non-marine fauna from this critical terminal Cretaceous interval. This diverse fauna from the Lapurr sandstone (“Turkana Grits”) has been dated to the Maastrichtian and includes crocodyliforms, pterosaurs, and dinosaurs. Though fragmentary, the dinosaur record includes at least two iguanodontian ornithopods, three macronarian sauropods, and two large theropods. Here we report on one of these theropods, a new abelisaurid that significantly expands the upper limits of body size in ceratosaurians and represents the youngest diagnostic dinosaur material yet reported from the Afro-Arabian continent. The new taxon is known from multiple isolated specimens including portions of the skull, axial column, and appendicular skeleton. Referral of unassociated remains to a single taxon is based on morphological consistency and on the recovery of specimens from a narrow stratigraphic and geographic area. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis substantiates referral of the new Kenyan taxon to Abelisauridae based, among other features, on the presence of a tall, rugose premaxilla, an anteroventrally inclined posterior border of the postorbital, and a prominent dorsal projection of the parietals and supraoccipital. An associated partial skull is strongly coossified, with a thickened but weakly sculptured skull roof. Unlike many other abelisaurids, no prominent cranial ornamentation is evident. As in other ceratosaurians, the astragalocalcaneum is completely coossified and displays a prominent transverse sulcus on the anteroventral surface. Like other abelisaurids, the ascending process is low and subrectangular, separated from the anterior surface of the astragalus by a distinct fossa. Comparison of preserved elements with those of other, more complete abelisaurids indicates that the new taxon likely exceeded 11-12 meters in length. Furthermore, the presence of a large- bodied abelisaurid in the Kenyan fauna parallels many other Late Cretaceous Gondwanan faunas, reflecting global early Late Cretaceous turnover from allosauroid and spinosaurid dominated ecosystems." page 211 Wow a 11-12 meters Abelisaurid? It would be nice, but I'm want to wait some better infos (a official denomination?) for say something.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 24, 2013 18:03:46 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 24, 2013 22:00:53 GMT 5
I cannot understand why. There aren't any images or other large files in there, but even Sue's osteological description is loading much quicker. It's strange...
That abelisaur is truly fascinating, I hope its real and not like Ekrixinatosaurus!
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 24, 2013 23:11:03 GMT 5
Well, the SVP abstracts have 249 pages, while Sue's description has 138 pages.
|
|