|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 21, 2014 23:53:08 GMT 5
^Amen to that.
I also believe that ornithopods or ceratopsians with quills could have also used them as deterrences to gain a head start to run away or attack.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 23, 2014 16:11:37 GMT 5
Porcupine-like spikes are absolutely feasible. I can even see them as quite common, since they body shape and integument of many small ornitischians would probably be ideal prerequisites.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 23, 2014 17:33:16 GMT 5
There were also speculations that pachycephalosaurs might have had rhino-like keratinous horns or the likes on their heads in life, the dome merely being a base.
Just look at my signature.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 23, 2014 17:48:15 GMT 5
It looks cool, but doesn’t convince me. The thickness of the structure fits, but if that was the case I’d expect it to be rugose. On the other hand, pachycephalosaur domes are usually very smooth.
Also, at earlier ontogenetic stages they often already had horns with a bony core that were lost later.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 23, 2014 18:32:46 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 23, 2014 18:37:00 GMT 5
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that! That doesn’t necessarily mean there was a horn, but it’s actually a compelling hypothesis!
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 23, 2014 23:21:41 GMT 5
True.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 23:51:39 GMT 5
The presence of a protective keratin "helmet" is far more likely than a horn imo.
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 24, 2014 2:09:32 GMT 5
Depends. Most duckbills have big heavy tails. Alot of dinosaurs can kick with their front or back legs. What's to stop them from biting?
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 5, 2015 6:26:10 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 5, 2015 14:41:12 GMT 5
^Nice, looks like the common depiction of hadrosaurs as good runners is well founded.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 5, 2015 19:04:33 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 6, 2015 6:14:59 GMT 5
One question pertaining to that article. It states that it took thirty six years for a tyrannosaurus to reach adulthood. Last I recall, it was believed that a tyrannosaurus lived a maximum of thirty years. Has their been recent evidence suggesting that tyrannosaurus lived longer than thought, or was that a typo or something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 8:17:57 GMT 5
The article writer was likely just misinformed regarding that part.
Tyrannosaurus were sexually mature by ~16-18 years and skeletally mature by something around ~25ish years.
Maximum lifespan is unknown, just like in basically every extinct prehistoric animal.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 6, 2015 15:29:14 GMT 5
^Actually, the author just took the estimates from the cited paper: rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1651/2609I am not expert when it comes to growth modeling, so I can't tell if the estimates are correct or not. And to be honest, I hardly understand the paper. They say that 95% of the maximum femoral circumference is reached at 36 years, but their figure 3 does not go beyond 30 years. Moreover, they are aware of Horner & Padian's paper (2004) and even used data from it, yet got radically different growth results. I wonder if 36 years was a typo and they actually meant 26 years or something like that. P.S. Sorry for getting off topic.
|
|