|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 7, 2013 0:50:44 GMT 5
A very, very classic question of course but specifically to some members proficient in dinosaurs research, why are you interested and focused on dinosaurs rather than on others extinct creatures ? Which does not mean you do not devellop any interest in others, for sure. But why a specialization in dinosaurs ? And what do you appreciate the most in dinosaurs ?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 7, 2013 2:25:23 GMT 5
Fastest animal? Dinosaur. Largest land animal? Dinosaur. Largest land predator? Dinosaur. Most diverse extant clade of Tetrapods? Dinosaurs. Longest period of ecological dominance among terrestrial vertebrates? Dinosaurs. Largest animal? Dinosaurs are at least serious contenders (which is impressive enough considering the common expectation for the largest animals to be marine). Longest vertebrate? Dinosaur. Tallest animal? Dinosaur. Most complex teeth? Dinosaurs. Longest neck? Dinosaur. Longest tail? Dinosaur. Largest claws? Dinosaur. Most individual transitions from bipedal to quadrupedal locomotion? Dinosaurs. Most diverse clade of bipedal animals? Dinosaurs. Fastest metabolic rates among vertebrates? Dinosaurs. Fastest growth among vertebrates? Dinosaurs. Most intelligent non-human animals? Some dinosaurs corvids are at least contenders. Most efficient respiratory system among terrestrial animals? Dinosaurs. Longest migration? Dinosaur. Most common vertebrate you’ll find when you step outside right now? Most likely, Dinosaurs.
Even more spectacular feats could be added to this list if, like most people, one’s "dinosaur-interest" is actually more of a general fascination with prehistoric reptiles, rather than being exclusively restricted to the clade Dinosauria.
Imo dinosaurs are simply the ultimate animals.
I’ve got nothing against mammals. Mammals are perfectly serviceable animals in most regards. But mammals, which we’d generally consider to be the dominant animals alive today (they certainly are the dominant terrestrial vertebrates in terms of size and biomass, and arguably range of ecological niches occupied) are still generally outdone by dinosaurs, extant or extinct, in most regards, often by a huge margin.
Dinosaurs have always been at the forefront of pushing the boundaries of what’s been considered biologically feasible, so much so that it almost seems unfair to compare other animals to them in most regards. On the other hand, reptiles, today, are generally looked down upon as stupid, slow and inferior "lower vertebrates" that are considered subordinate to mammals in most regards, which makes it all the more impressive that dinosaurs (and several other extinct reptile groups) completely turn this expectation on its head.
All that contributes to making dinosaurs appear as animals with almost infinite possibilities, which, together with their objectively massive success and the many things still left to be discovered, simply make them appear as a particularly worthwile group to study.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Dec 7, 2013 3:44:25 GMT 5
Mine is not as large worded and broad as Theropod (reading his gave me a headache lol)
To be honest, the only dinosaurs I have interest in really are the dromaeosaurids, and that only stems from my love of Birds of Prey. They are related and that only boosted my love of them. To a lesser extant I enjoy large herbivores like the stegosaurids and large Theropod carnosaurs. Other than those 3 groups my interest persay in dinosaurs is very little. However in general extinct animals interest me far more than extant.
Edit- Maybe if there wasn't so much freaking drama over the sizes of the larger theropods and herbivores I might have more interest in them. But once I see math ans equations taking up pages and pages of Large Theropod discussions that basically repeat the same stuff back on CF with nothing new added imo (yes despite what it looks like I can understand everything you guys talk about when it comes to dat math) my mind just says screw it and I stick to smaller animals. Just imagine in a few million years (theoretically) how much math it will take to find out the size of the long extinct wolf compared to an elephant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 7, 2013 5:27:00 GMT 5
I have a strong interest in dinosaurs and other Mesozoic reptiles (specifically crocodylomorphs and various groups of marine reptiles) mainly because I love reptiles in general. Dinosaurs are just so unique and diverse and took on many different forms. Plus, it also leaves me thinking hard about what it would be like to be living in the Mesozoic era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Dec 7, 2013 7:07:59 GMT 5
Simply, im not. I have some interest in extinct reptiles but solely due to there connection with there extant counterparts
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Dec 7, 2013 7:33:54 GMT 5
They were the biggest, fastest and most awe-inspiring animals ever to live. One day I was in an observation tower that was ~ 65 feet tall,there were animals that saw the world from that height, and it felt impossibly high. And the fact that they still dominate the world today, with 10,000 living species.
|
|
|
|
Post by DinosaurMichael on Dec 7, 2013 7:56:37 GMT 5
Because they're awesome! What else do you need to know?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 7, 2013 8:40:58 GMT 5
Great opinions here. Fragillimus, just "biggest", I guess you mean on land but whatever, "fastest", I don't know what you meant here, I don't think dinosaurs were faster than the fastest mammals or you obviosuly think to the birds ? Awe-inspiring is totally reasonnable of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Dec 7, 2013 8:59:12 GMT 5
I'm pretty sure even to this day no land animal known extant or extinct is faster than a cheetah unless you count birds like Falcons that can dive at over 200mph
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267 
|
Post by Derdadort on Dec 7, 2013 14:15:01 GMT 5
I don't know. It started with childhood and now I'm studying  . Today I'm simply interested in prehistoric lifeforms and earth history, because its "our" story and there is so much to learn and so less we actually know. Well and dinosaurs are something like the mascots of paleontology and my all-day-favorites. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Dec 8, 2013 7:31:12 GMT 5
Great opinions here. Fragillimus, just "biggest", I guess you mean on land but whatever, "fastest", I don't know what you meant here, I don't think dinosaurs were faster than the fastest mammals or you obviosuly think to the birds ? Awe-inspiring is totally reasonnable of course. No, I mean of all animals.  Remember, a 200 ton Blue is well above average, and we have a few species of sauropod that approach or exceed 100 tons that are known from one measly specimen! ( And one that may have been around 200 tons assuming very conservative scaling) If you caught one blue whale today, the chances are high it would be less than 85 feet long and between ~70-110 tons, not one of the 100 foot 190+ ton monsters. And yes, I had falcons in mind when thinking of "fastest", but I don't doubt that larger ornithomimosaurs could make a cheetah sweat! |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 8, 2013 7:43:29 GMT 5
Rigorously and scientifically speaking, except for the long lost enigmatic Amphicoelias, no sauropod is proved and established at having exceeded 100 tonnes. For the vast scientific community acknowledgement, the blue whale is still the most massive animal known to science. The remaining part is only speculation, possible speculation, but speculation at the first. The adequate statement would be that is a possibility that some sauropods could have rivaled some of the largest modern whales. I know all your arguments and enthusiasm at this, I had the same when I was convinced of the existence of 100 tonnes pliosaurs, so no need to start another discussion on this, you believe what you're convinced of, I believe the actual scientifical knowledge. Friendly !
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Dec 8, 2013 10:02:24 GMT 5
Rigorously and scientifically speaking, except for the long lost enigmatic Amphicoelias, no sauropod is proved and established at having exceeded 100 tonnes. For the vast scientific community acknowledgement, the blue whale is still the most massive animal known to science. The remaining part is only speculation, possible speculation, but speculation at the first. The adequate statement would be that is a possibility that some sauropods could have rivaled some of the largest modern whales. I know all your arguments and enthusiasm at this, I had the same when I was convinced of the existence of 100 tonnes pliosaurs, so no need to start another discussion on this, you believe what you're convinced of, I believe the actual scientifical knowledge. Friendly ! Of course this is speculation, and I'm in no way convinced of these sizes, I just think they're likely! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 10:38:00 GMT 5
I take a great interest in lesser-known prehistoric vertebrate fauna, whether they be dinosaurs or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 8, 2013 11:46:00 GMT 5
Of course this is speculation, and I'm in no way convinced of these sizes, I just think they're likely! Well I don't think they're likely, I just think they're not impossible as of now, only thinking about A. fragillimus. Whatever, they are the largest land animals ever and are as big or bigger than numerous whales species already. As I usually say, I'm much more fascinated by the 70-80 tonnes Argentinosaurus than by the 120-150 tonnes Amphicoelias, because I know the former is absolutely real, confirmed and was really a living mountain around these proportions. |
|
.
Remember, a 200 ton Blue is well above average, and we have a few species of sauropod that approach or exceed 100 tons that are known from one measly specimen! ( And one that may have been around 200 tons assuming very conservative scaling)