Post by Godzillasaurus on Jun 17, 2014 4:51:50 GMT 5
I do not know if we have a thread like this yet, so I decided to make one. Here you will highlight inaccurate claims in any sources, papers, etc about animals. Any of you heard of this website?: kidsdigdinos.com
Here we go:
-Dinosaurs existed solely on land (and were never fully aquatic, albeit semi-aquatic in some groups). It claims the opposite a few times
-The "dumbest" dinosaur was probably not stegosaurus, that is a stupid BS wivestale. Unless we have real evidence of stegosaur intelligence, we can never know
-Seismosaurus was not the longest dinosaur (that goes to amphicoelias, or at least another similar diplodocid genus), Argentinosaurus was probably not the heaviest (we have far bulkier titanosaurs to work with, and that is not to say that diplodocids like amphicoelias could not grow to heavier weights, and giganotosaurus was NOT the largest theropod
-Albertosaurus probably did not use its hind claws for ripping or killing; that is absolute BS. To think that it would have ever kicked is preposterous!
-Baryonyx being the only known fish-eating dinosaur? Really? Even when there is a spinosaurus profile? A correct idea of its diet would be fish and small dinosaurs, not large plant eaters like iguanadon (even though juveniles HAVE been found in a stomach cavity).
-Giganotosaurus was NOT the largest carnivorous dinosaur; in fact some estimates put tyrannosaurus and carcharodontosaurus exceeding it.
-Kronosaurus did NOT weigh up to 22 tons (probably more around the realm of 10-12 at max). It most definitely gave live birth in the water; if anything, only very small plesiosaurs would have had the capability to venture onto land because their size would make it possible without too much exertion. But only for a very limited time though
-Ornithomimus probably did not use its "talons" for killing or fighting. Its probable speed and agility alone was enough; after all it was a rather gracile animal to begin with.
--Pliosaurs competed with mosasaurs? Jossed... Pliosaurs existed only in the later Jurassic and Early Cretaceous; mosasaurs did not evolved until the later parts of the Cretaceous, well at least the large macropredatory forms like mosasaurus and tylosaurus. And as well, there is little evidence that they had very thin and weak hides. Oh yea, and it completely argued that plesiosaurs were much slower which there is little evidence of and in fact it seems that smaller ones would be a lot more agile.
-Quetzacoatlus could handily crush shellfish with its snout? Seriously? Its snout was huge, not to mention very elongated; it was adapted for hunting fish, NOT crushing things... It did not have true feathers but instead possibly a similar filament-like structure; it would not need flight feathers!
-Since when could stegosaurus not run fast? I would definitely agree that it was not adapted for true quick locomotion, but a common mistake of this website is that is always brings up speed, even when it is hypothetical for the most part. And more intelligence arguments? Seriously!?
-Utahraptor did not have huge jaws; they were in fact rather weak and were used for feeding primarily. Ugh, MORE intelligence arguments!? And dromeosaur limbs were not designed for grasping, as they were structured much like the wings of birds, even if they were moderately long and powerful.
-Allosaurus would not kill by "grabbing" its victim and using its claws to rip it apart and was not a "great-grandfather" to tyrannosaurus
-Dilophosaurus probably hunted smaller animals primarily: its teeth were rather slenderized and its jaws seemed quite weak (not to mention being vaguely spinosaur-like in terms of shape. Perfectly adapted for grasping small animals). And it would NOT have killed by ripping with its hind claw probably... Its legs as a whole were quite gracile and thin, and its claws were rather small and not designed for tearing like what we see in the more derived dromeosaurids. Oh well, I'm sure glad that it didn't claim that it could use its crest arrangement as a bashing weapon! It is a common mistake of this site to always claim that all theropods dismembered prey with their hind legs, which is not conceivable!
-Liopleurodon weighing up to 150 tons in possession of teeth "the size of swords"!? First of all, it was nowhere NEAR that size, and second its teeth were not remotely like daggers but instead like thick spikes.
-Oviraptor would probably NOT be killing with kicks... For one, its hind legs were notoriously gracile and not even designed for true kicking as one would expect from a much more robust animal like a hadrosaur and at the same time did not possess the enlarged slashing claws common in dromeosaurids. It would, again, use its speed to avoid predation/conflict and would have used its beak mainly for feeding
-Protoceratops... could not use its teeth as weapons! For one, they were located in the posterior portions of its maw and were actually "sheathed" by skin; and second, they were blunted and designed for feeding on vegetation (which could have been pretty tough). It instead would have used its sheer bulk and size over predators like velociraptor to defend itself (at least it got THAT part right...). And seriously, it couldn't run very fast just because it was too heavy to be a biped? Quadrupeds can be pretty fast, and weight has nothing to do with it (elephants and rhinos can be pretty fast animals, and weight means nothing because large theropods and ornithopods obviously exist...), and it did not even have a very long tail; all derived ceratopsians didn't! Oh, and I must point out that just because "your favorite dinosaur book" says that it would have reached a weight of 570 pounds does not make it a legitimate estimate.
-Tyrannosaurus' teeth, while recurved and serrated as well as being fundamentally laterally-compressed were NOT blade-like and razor-sharp! They were instead very spike-like and rather dull. Oh, and MORE SPEED ARGUMENTS! I am surprised that it didn't even bring up the bite force or skull robusticity argument either, because those are well-known features of tyrannosaurus.
-Velociraptor was 100 pounds!? Seriously?
-Apatosaurus possessing mosasaur-like bones? That is why it was once thought to have been aquatic? For one, sauropods did NOT possess skeletal structures even remotely similar to those of mosasaurs (although vertebral similarities are possible, nothing else), and I believe that sauropods were once though to have been aquatic for completely different reasons, right? Edit: Well I was wrong... Turns out that the chevron bones were similar at least, but the website insists that the entire skeletal structure of apatosaurus was similar, which is downright wrong. Its neck was "too heavy" and thus could not be lifted for feeding? Seriously? The head is not going to be lifting the neck! The neck was in fact very muscular most likely. Same with pliosaurs: not all of them grew to immense sizes
-2 tons for elasmosaurus? Is there evidence of this? And, if I am reading right, plesiosaur necks being very stiff??? Undoubtedly there would at least be reasonable lateral motion (albeit not excessive of flexible like a snake), so that claim is likely wrong. And also, plesiosaurus did not use its size as a weapon, simply because it was both not very large and its morphology suggests that it would have likely evaded predation instead of conflicted with predators. Its jaws were NOT at all excessively powerful; they were very small proportionally and would have served the purpose of hunting small fish and squid; it would NOT have attacked predators with biting, simply because its head and neck were too weak and easy targets.
-Nothosaurus possessing bone-crushing jaws and teeth??? Uh, no; its jaws too were rather small and gracile (although proportionally nothing like elasmosaurus) and its teeth were long and slender; both of these features insist that it fed on fish and other small animals.
-Ichthysaurus did NOT have very strong jaws, at least in the sense where they were used as weapons. Its teeth were still very small, and its jaws were elongated and dolphin-like; it too would have avoided confrontation with swift movements in the water.
-Spinosaurus was MUCH heavier than 4.5 tons! And at the same time, it was a piscivorous animal primarily but yet the source claims that it hunted large dinosaurs and their eggs. It even claims that spinosaurus possessed needle-like teeth which is 1. wrong (its teeth were more like spikes anatomically-speaking) and 2. contradictory because such a tooth shape is not ideal for attacking large terrestrial animals. And no, its slender jaws were NOT ideal for digging into dinosaur carcasses...
There ARE a few of things that the site "taught me" (after I checked the facts on other sources of course, as I would never use this as a first-hand source), such as how the scientist who first discovered apatosaurus thought its chevron bones looked a lot like those of mosasaurs (and the fact that ornitholestes was a carnivorous theropod; I at first believed that it was a small ornithopod). But at the same time, there are too many inaccuracies. A lot of what it says as fact is purely hypothetical such as its claims about senses and speed, and at the same time it claims absolute sizes when they are always changing in reality. I admit, there are size estimates and such that I did not know, but mainly because I tend to stray away from numerical things because they are always inconstant, same with time in MYA.
Here we go:
-Dinosaurs existed solely on land (and were never fully aquatic, albeit semi-aquatic in some groups). It claims the opposite a few times
-The "dumbest" dinosaur was probably not stegosaurus, that is a stupid BS wivestale. Unless we have real evidence of stegosaur intelligence, we can never know
-Seismosaurus was not the longest dinosaur (that goes to amphicoelias, or at least another similar diplodocid genus), Argentinosaurus was probably not the heaviest (we have far bulkier titanosaurs to work with, and that is not to say that diplodocids like amphicoelias could not grow to heavier weights, and giganotosaurus was NOT the largest theropod
-Albertosaurus probably did not use its hind claws for ripping or killing; that is absolute BS. To think that it would have ever kicked is preposterous!
-Baryonyx being the only known fish-eating dinosaur? Really? Even when there is a spinosaurus profile? A correct idea of its diet would be fish and small dinosaurs, not large plant eaters like iguanadon (even though juveniles HAVE been found in a stomach cavity).
-Giganotosaurus was NOT the largest carnivorous dinosaur; in fact some estimates put tyrannosaurus and carcharodontosaurus exceeding it.
-Kronosaurus did NOT weigh up to 22 tons (probably more around the realm of 10-12 at max). It most definitely gave live birth in the water; if anything, only very small plesiosaurs would have had the capability to venture onto land because their size would make it possible without too much exertion. But only for a very limited time though
-Ornithomimus probably did not use its "talons" for killing or fighting. Its probable speed and agility alone was enough; after all it was a rather gracile animal to begin with.
--Pliosaurs competed with mosasaurs? Jossed... Pliosaurs existed only in the later Jurassic and Early Cretaceous; mosasaurs did not evolved until the later parts of the Cretaceous, well at least the large macropredatory forms like mosasaurus and tylosaurus. And as well, there is little evidence that they had very thin and weak hides. Oh yea, and it completely argued that plesiosaurs were much slower which there is little evidence of and in fact it seems that smaller ones would be a lot more agile.
-Quetzacoatlus could handily crush shellfish with its snout? Seriously? Its snout was huge, not to mention very elongated; it was adapted for hunting fish, NOT crushing things... It did not have true feathers but instead possibly a similar filament-like structure; it would not need flight feathers!
-Since when could stegosaurus not run fast? I would definitely agree that it was not adapted for true quick locomotion, but a common mistake of this website is that is always brings up speed, even when it is hypothetical for the most part. And more intelligence arguments? Seriously!?
-Utahraptor did not have huge jaws; they were in fact rather weak and were used for feeding primarily. Ugh, MORE intelligence arguments!? And dromeosaur limbs were not designed for grasping, as they were structured much like the wings of birds, even if they were moderately long and powerful.
-Allosaurus would not kill by "grabbing" its victim and using its claws to rip it apart and was not a "great-grandfather" to tyrannosaurus
-Dilophosaurus probably hunted smaller animals primarily: its teeth were rather slenderized and its jaws seemed quite weak (not to mention being vaguely spinosaur-like in terms of shape. Perfectly adapted for grasping small animals). And it would NOT have killed by ripping with its hind claw probably... Its legs as a whole were quite gracile and thin, and its claws were rather small and not designed for tearing like what we see in the more derived dromeosaurids. Oh well, I'm sure glad that it didn't claim that it could use its crest arrangement as a bashing weapon! It is a common mistake of this site to always claim that all theropods dismembered prey with their hind legs, which is not conceivable!
-Liopleurodon weighing up to 150 tons in possession of teeth "the size of swords"!? First of all, it was nowhere NEAR that size, and second its teeth were not remotely like daggers but instead like thick spikes.
-Oviraptor would probably NOT be killing with kicks... For one, its hind legs were notoriously gracile and not even designed for true kicking as one would expect from a much more robust animal like a hadrosaur and at the same time did not possess the enlarged slashing claws common in dromeosaurids. It would, again, use its speed to avoid predation/conflict and would have used its beak mainly for feeding
-Protoceratops... could not use its teeth as weapons! For one, they were located in the posterior portions of its maw and were actually "sheathed" by skin; and second, they were blunted and designed for feeding on vegetation (which could have been pretty tough). It instead would have used its sheer bulk and size over predators like velociraptor to defend itself (at least it got THAT part right...). And seriously, it couldn't run very fast just because it was too heavy to be a biped? Quadrupeds can be pretty fast, and weight has nothing to do with it (elephants and rhinos can be pretty fast animals, and weight means nothing because large theropods and ornithopods obviously exist...), and it did not even have a very long tail; all derived ceratopsians didn't! Oh, and I must point out that just because "your favorite dinosaur book" says that it would have reached a weight of 570 pounds does not make it a legitimate estimate.
-Tyrannosaurus' teeth, while recurved and serrated as well as being fundamentally laterally-compressed were NOT blade-like and razor-sharp! They were instead very spike-like and rather dull. Oh, and MORE SPEED ARGUMENTS! I am surprised that it didn't even bring up the bite force or skull robusticity argument either, because those are well-known features of tyrannosaurus.
-Velociraptor was 100 pounds!? Seriously?
-Apatosaurus possessing mosasaur-like bones? That is why it was once thought to have been aquatic? For one, sauropods did NOT possess skeletal structures even remotely similar to those of mosasaurs (although vertebral similarities are possible, nothing else), and I believe that sauropods were once though to have been aquatic for completely different reasons, right? Edit: Well I was wrong... Turns out that the chevron bones were similar at least, but the website insists that the entire skeletal structure of apatosaurus was similar, which is downright wrong. Its neck was "too heavy" and thus could not be lifted for feeding? Seriously? The head is not going to be lifting the neck! The neck was in fact very muscular most likely. Same with pliosaurs: not all of them grew to immense sizes
-2 tons for elasmosaurus? Is there evidence of this? And, if I am reading right, plesiosaur necks being very stiff??? Undoubtedly there would at least be reasonable lateral motion (albeit not excessive of flexible like a snake), so that claim is likely wrong. And also, plesiosaurus did not use its size as a weapon, simply because it was both not very large and its morphology suggests that it would have likely evaded predation instead of conflicted with predators. Its jaws were NOT at all excessively powerful; they were very small proportionally and would have served the purpose of hunting small fish and squid; it would NOT have attacked predators with biting, simply because its head and neck were too weak and easy targets.
-Nothosaurus possessing bone-crushing jaws and teeth??? Uh, no; its jaws too were rather small and gracile (although proportionally nothing like elasmosaurus) and its teeth were long and slender; both of these features insist that it fed on fish and other small animals.
-Ichthysaurus did NOT have very strong jaws, at least in the sense where they were used as weapons. Its teeth were still very small, and its jaws were elongated and dolphin-like; it too would have avoided confrontation with swift movements in the water.
-Spinosaurus was MUCH heavier than 4.5 tons! And at the same time, it was a piscivorous animal primarily but yet the source claims that it hunted large dinosaurs and their eggs. It even claims that spinosaurus possessed needle-like teeth which is 1. wrong (its teeth were more like spikes anatomically-speaking) and 2. contradictory because such a tooth shape is not ideal for attacking large terrestrial animals. And no, its slender jaws were NOT ideal for digging into dinosaur carcasses...
There ARE a few of things that the site "taught me" (after I checked the facts on other sources of course, as I would never use this as a first-hand source), such as how the scientist who first discovered apatosaurus thought its chevron bones looked a lot like those of mosasaurs (and the fact that ornitholestes was a carnivorous theropod; I at first believed that it was a small ornithopod). But at the same time, there are too many inaccuracies. A lot of what it says as fact is purely hypothetical such as its claims about senses and speed, and at the same time it claims absolute sizes when they are always changing in reality. I admit, there are size estimates and such that I did not know, but mainly because I tend to stray away from numerical things because they are always inconstant, same with time in MYA.
. Orly? Even when the jaws and teeth of the two suggest that they would have been the primary feeding, killing and tearing tools? And also note that sometimes it claims forearms to have been deadly weapons that would have killed when the jaws clamped... Sorry I forgot to mention this in the main post, but this is just terrible