#paleontology
1 messages · Page 97 of 1
ohh hell nah and also why iggy is taller than spino for sec ?
spino is rough 2 meter tall what i can see
Who the hell is kuintara
Iggy is big but not that big LOL
That’s such an odd size chart showing torvo and iggy being taller than spino at the hip
though if it's using 3.2t spino I could see this being accurate
Since when has there been a 3.2 ton spino estimate
since forever
Since the Holotype was discovered
Are there any images of Rebellatrix compared to a human for scale?
this creature is also unreasonably fat at 1.4-1.5t
Chumbus
wait i should do weight estimates based on the lowest and highest density that would be good
cause then its like a range of estimates instead of a single number
although i suppose that depends on the density range cause i just tested it for campto and it was like a 40kg difference LOL
Once again just nitpicking specimens to make x dinosaur look bigger
scout tf2
yes
That bucket of chicken legs is over sized,….
I love how were justifying the dinosaur knowledge of Ai Obama and trump
When they nerffed spino for the 20th time
how accurate is my utah model
That's looking really cool mate! 😊 I think what jumps out to me most is the eyes. They seem too small and a little too far forward on the skull. 🤔
yeah its a bit hard to make eyes for some reason for me
but i do like the eyes i made also that is the exact reference i used
Are they separate objects or part of the body mesh?
The eyes themselves look really nice. 👍 But I think they might be sunk a little too far into the head. Or are a bit small. Don't forget they need to be big enough that the eye bones can fit inside them. 😁
this is it lined up with the reference
Nice one! But if you see that ring of bones in the eye socket. Those are called scleral rings and they were inside the eyeball itself. So the eyeball must be big enough to fit them inside of it. 😄👍
what was the biggest ‘horse’ from the cenozoic
the smaller eyes were to make it look a bit more creepy
I think that would be just the modern horse tbh
The modern domestic horses have been selective bred to where they’re basically larger and more athletic than any wild horse species
Shire horse>>>
Which is just a breed of domestic horse
I really need to appreciate more how massive Sucho is
Sucho looks like it will fall over any minute
Lol
Didn't Equus giganteus reach some impressive sizes?
Apparently it’s not a particular well substantiated species
AFAIK that taxa doesnt really exist yeah
Horsies in the Pleistocene weren’t getting particularly large I don’t think. They are very diverse though
Could Koparion Glide?
Is Oxalaia pronounced "Ox-al-eye-a"?
ox-ale-yee-a
Sp-eye-no-saur-us
What he said
@bright veldt trying not to clutter Modding. The reason Dimetrodon length estimates are so inconsistent is that previous estimates were made with the assumption of either a very long squamate like tail or a short frog like one instead of the middle ground we know it has now. D. angelensis is fragmentary but the skull is frankly long and big. Additionally length is a poor indicator of size for Dimetrodon as they're rather stout animals with a lot of muscle mass and height contributing to the size. They're large but not long.
Also Feilong misspoke it was the femur that's close in size to the D. grandis type by a couple cm
k, cheers
@rancid vault
dang that’s a blocky guy lol, thanks
I actually really like short Dunk, makes it look more unique than a generic shark-like
Whenever I see short dunk I think of the childproof heli I had a hand in creating
Sorry for le ping

This one is better for it's proportions
Whose that from?
Jesus who would be so dedicated as to draw a posterior view of a fish skull
That's torture
Any like, link or verification? Cause that doesn't really help me
Oh oh I know what a posterior
It refer to the back of something
Cheers
Easily see it getting head locked
that’s pretty in-depth
well ofc
thank you for the help too!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Oddly specific inquiry but does anyone know of any decent-sized crocodile-like pseudosuchians from mesozoic eurasia? Need one for a project but from what I've been able to find they're either kind of small (goniopholis) not very crocodile-y (pholidosaurus) or not eurasian and/or mesozoic (deinosuchus)
I'm sure there are some there's just SO many pseudosuchians to have to sift through to try and find something that fits my criteria
When you say “decently-sized” how large are we talking? There are quite a few that sit around the 3-4m mark (Hulkepholis, Anteophthalmosuchus, a bunch of the allodaposuchids etc.)
I messed it in the end? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalawan_(reptile) close sarco relative from SEA
Chalawan (from Thai: ชาละวัน [t͡ɕʰāːlāwān]) is an extinct genus of pholidosaurid mesoeucrocodylian known from the Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous Phu Kradung Formation of Nong Bua Lamphu Province, northeastern Thailand. It contains a single species, Chalawan thailandicus, with Chalawan shartegensis as a possible second species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftkxBgQJslM European, though it is one of the more Marine crocforms
This is the first of four videos that we (Joschua Knüppe, Henning Ahlers & Dr. Oliver Wings) created in order to take you along for a journey into the Late Jurassic of Central Europe. It is based on our graphic novel EUROPASAURUS - Life on Jurassic Islands. In this episode we follow a marine crocodile Machimosaurus to it’s annual breeding ground...
Was anatosuchus a Herbivore?
no
Okay just a fish eater or something like that?
What is Wiehenvenator adult size?
that is one hell of a fish
2t
hey friends, what's with Saurophaganax now being a Metriacanthosaurid?
Since when?
yo, so can i buy the game using a pre paid card becuase last time i did use one it didnt go through.
it was in Cau's compsognathid explosion study
but no it's not a metriacanthosaur, that was a fluke of making an analysis of all theropods at the same time
makes sense
well, not really. but i don't know how you make a fluke that big and idk the right questions to ask😭
anyone have a good yutyrannus skeletal?
wrong chat
is torniera still valid?
yes
yes, and here's a skeletal of the current remains from it hope this helps
What was Isaberrysaura?
stegosaur
google is a tool that exists
"google" is a "tool" that "exists"
Everyone's opinion on Bistahieversor?
He looks silly
the beast tyrannosaur after gorgosaurus
the beast tyrannosaur
That design will never cease to be one of if not the best Alberto’s
wtf did you just say!
It’s pleasant to the eyes
Prove me wrong
Gorgosaurus>Albertosaurus
Idk what to tell you 😏
I would buy a life-sized Utahraptor or Velociraptor plush
Oh it’s 100% the better name. But they kinda look exactly the same lol
Oh btw. Anyone know if there’s any news on weird birds?
I don’t mean to alarm you, but that is a nanuqsaurus framed as a gorgosaurus, no albertosaurus in sight
Oh right
I forgor 😔
Wait that movie is supposed to take place in Alaska?
Any 'ew spino update
Can he finally have the flight that was promised for years
For all intents and purposes it’s also a good Alberto design even if it isn’t one
they are basically the same thing
no thats just where its meant to be set
Those are...the same things? 
Table you fool, you're supposed to tell the truth sometimes to get them to trust you 
nope
Albertosaurus simply ran from the horseshoe canyon to Alaska, why do you think it had legs that long
That's unusual
there hasn't been actual good new study on spino sicne 2021 aka the day it got it's tail
Nah we got the thought thing
And the fact that it could swim
Wich quickly got refuted tho
good new study
The Prince Creek Tyrannosaurine… soon to be Albertosaurine once more
grrrr the Prince Creek Tyrannosaurine!
How many new Rex species turned out to be Alberto again?
I know of the opposite, Albertosarus lancensis and Albertosaurus megagracilis are both juvenile T.rex
And Gorgosaurus lancinator / Gorgosaurus novolijovi (i can't spell that) are juvenile Tarbosaurus
Which is a shame because Gorgosaurus lancinator is hard as hell
the good ol days when everything from bistahieversor to nanuqsaurus to tyrannosaurus was some variation of albertosaurine
and random teeth in russia
Hear me out. It’s actually all pursuit adapted Spinosaurs
Let's get into some speculative evolution
What was the point of that sail on spino
Display
Display to potential mates and threats, stability in water and keeping cool during hot periods
Display is the no brainier when it comes to paleontologist trying to figure out the purpose of something they don't understand
Hear me out the sail was not a sail but a balloon
Yes yes we've seen that meme
No
We've also seen the wing meme and the muscle attachment points meme
But like seriously like elephant seal
You know why
To shoot water canon
Je was a pokemon all along
How would it inflate lol. We know how the vertebrae connect with their ligaments and such in sails
Doesn’t the sail actually make it disadvantageous for aquatic behavior?
It does
Sailfish do have sails for tight turns, but they can fold them back because having a giant billboard on your back doesn't help you swim fast/conserve energy while doing so
Yes
But heat me hoy using it's trunk the spinosaurus would inflate a balloon on their back with water then release the said water at high pressure to have water gun fights and display dominance
The best of spinosaurus hypothesis that don’t get talked about enough is just walking on the bottom like hippos. Plays into the bone density study
Too light tho
Sail still screws it over
It probably was going elephant style at best
Not if it’s careful (insert Giga Chad gif)
Yeah it can bottom walk fine if it's not under a strong current
Which I don't think deltas usually have, so that tracks
Local man forgets- Yea
Ok now hear me out what if it wasn't a carnivore
What if it just walks on the bottom and occasionally does a little jump up to snatch a fishy boy above it
Know what, enough of this child's play, let's bring out the real controversial topic:
How aggressive would herbivores be towards the local theropod and why is it not that aggressive 
It has too light of a bone density it would JUST float just a bit under water to drown
Trike was definitely agressive
I mean loot a it already too spiky and it might have had back spikes just saying
It’d vary but yeah definitely not flipping KOS temperament
No it was probably kos temperament
Damn, not enough silly people present 
How armored an animal is does not hold any influence over its aggression
It would depend on the herbivore and the scenario
It is made to attack and fight back Wich means it was probably forces to evolve that way witch normally leads to high level aggression
Mostly it's made to fight other Triceratops, like any other herbivore with horns
Sauropods of the bigger end would be like modern elephant but less smart and emotional
Using them against T.rex was a secondary purpose
Triceratops was mostly adapted for stabbing other trikes in the face a lot
Yeah no if that was the case why need back protection it was most likely due to predation and the fights were a result of trying to figure out who's the bast at winning
Guys, Primo's pullin your leg
It sounds enough like a genuine question that I can't tell
This is the guy who like 10 mins ago said Spino was an organic water gun
I think I've said several times that Spinosaurus could fly and breathe fire
That was just spino troll nothing unusual
Not here, but like, probably somewhere
I always just answer the trolls truthfully because it’s an opportunity to test my knowledge and I can never be sure if they aren’t sincere
Please keep this chat to paleo topics only 
It…it is?
But like seriously why would anyone think that a while weapon was made just for sparing and mating
They already have the credt and the colors not to mention sturakos unique crest horn patern
For pachi it's not many options
But for triceratops if we take exemple of buffalos that have horns usually used for dominance fight it's main use is to send the lions 3 meters in the sky
Buffalos's horns are mainly used for fighting other buffalo, fighting lions is a secondary purpose
Deer with their antlers be like:
Antler and horns aren't the same things
A lot of the time it is. Better the horns, the better you look to the ladies
Maybe, but they serve similar enough purposes.
And getting rid of not so good horn having males
The reason why they like the better fighter is to assure the next generation send the lion 3 meters in the sky too
I mean, true
But we also have plenty of horned herbivores that get bodied by big cats (i.e. gazelle)
Usually antlers shed and their only purpose is to fight other males
But they still are mainly a defensive tool against predator for females since they develop them after the males shed
And we have ceratopsids whose horns were useless against predators, like Einiosaurus
Trike isn't one of them of course
Well to be fair lions and tigers are very effective at their job having horns definitely helps a lot
(Regardless, having horns or antlers doesn't really automatically mean that you're trigger happy aggressive — it would depend on how much Triceratops was preyed upon.)
@stiff osprey I mean if we're talking veratoptians as a whole not all of them serve a defensive purpose there are some weire ones and some don't even have horns in that case it is most like display especially with sturakos
Right, and one would think that defending yourself would be very important
So why evolve extravagant horns that don't do you any favors in defense
Triceratops might be an exception because on top of relatively straight horns it also evolved a solid frill, which doesn't really have a purpose outside of defense. It would be easier to have a hollow frill for display
Unless some other force was driving the look of the horns besides defense
Boh yeah definitely
But like having courtchips that are decided by who is stronger and weapon on you probably is a good indicator for being prqued qpone q lot
I mean you don't see someone qs equiped and agressive as q porcupine
But in that case the horns first appeared for display, then got coopted as antipredator defense
We're fully talking about triceratops
If we talk about other ceratopsianut would probably be display especially styrako
The tyrannosaur would be a desperate one to incept such a hunt against the imposing adult triceratops
Unless Trike's headbutting contests were so violent they would break a hollow frill 
Late cretaceous was a rough one
inside of you are two horned herbivores
But Rex could bite a chunk out of one easy and in nature such an injury means dead
But your right Rex is probably not the only thing that forces them to evolve such forteresses
Giant eland so chill bro it s like a cow but bigger than a moose
in hindsight I doubt this because trike's nose would probably contact the opponent (and thus break) before the frill did, but trike doesn't have a reinforced nose
'aube it was leverage for more wrestling like moves such as battle have
Would be funny to see lol
I doubt that tho
what are the top speed estimates for triceratops? i personally believe that if a trike could, it would attempt to run from a rex before ever confronting it, why risk your life and health when running is an option.
It's slower than rex simply due to how the legs are
Rex stronger, faster, smarter, bigger, low diff
^
We found out that they were not really used to pierce each others at the front but more like doing rather blunt damages on the sides.
They sure would use them for facial face off, trying to intimidate one another and possibly do some horn locking, but we have many fossils showing broken and healed ribs which may have been caused by other Triceratops.
What...? These are animals with incredibly sharp horns that are like 2m+ in length as well as gouge marks in the frill/head correlating with horn locks and you're telling me they bumped sides instead?
iirc Lancian once talked about that
maybe they were drunk driving and had some accidents to cause the blunt trauma
@amber thunder Your name has been invoked
Grazing heads sounds more like what was postulated for Pachycephalosaurs. Idk though I spend very little time reading those types of papers anymore
We shall see
Time will tell
Okay I may have been spreading misinformation 
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/HORN-USE-IN-TRICERATOPS-(-DINOSAURIA-%3A-CERATOPSIDAE-Farke/690d9028637eb8d9bc844b544375670f8bb4fe05
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2617760/
My guys fighting like pachycephalosaurs 😔
This might be off topic but there is this person saying Ornitholestes is a very basal oviraptorisaurian and I don't really buy it is it true?
Their source is the Non-avian theropod systematics biology and evolution A CT BASED REVISED DESCRIPTION AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE SKULL OF THE BASAL MANIRAPTORAN ORNITHOLESTES HERMANNI OSBORN 1903 paper or article
Ornitholestes position is rather unstable afaik
hey quick question, is Majungasaurus proportionally more robust than larger Abelisaurids like Carnotaurus and Pycnonemosaurus?
no, it's more elongated and lighter at the same length. Its skull is more robust, though
Nothing seriously paleontological. Just wanted to drop a Natovenator appreciation post. (Art by Taimiratta on DeviantArt)
Here's a skeletal of Majungasaurus and then Carnotaurus as a comparison:
Scott Hartman's is better for scaling Majunagasaurus but Franoy's shows the fossil count
Did time tell
Hitting each other in the flanks is more of a centrosaurine thing, trike liked to fight by locking horns head on
appreciate it!
Random did you see my dryptosaurus?
yea I saw it in theropoda
What did you think of it, I forgot if you reacted it to it
Ear is too low on the skull and the pterygoid might be too small, but there is that upcoming study saying it wouldn't be visible laterally, so maybe not. Overall pretty good
How’s this for an adolescent allosaurus?
Do you want a reference?
I mean sure. Just wondering how plausible its look is
This or Dan Folkes Allosaurus skeletal should be okay for a young allosaurus
Ah thanks. I think mine is ok then other than the larger crests. But that’s a juvenile and mines an adolescent so I guess mines ok
They are the spino was just undersized apparently 💀
Ok I feel some kinda trop is happening here was there a nerff to spino i don't know about?
Spinosaurus was never nerf, we just have 3 different specimens of 3 different sizes 😭
Well kinda. The largest one used to be 18 meters.
omg am so glad spino the king doesn't exist anymore
Remember when deinocheirus was a sorapod size galimimus
What does that have to do with what I just said?
....that it also had insane size measurements before?
if i recall correctly that was rebuted due to structral issues
Weren't we on about out dated size estimates?
No
Oh
Is that real?
yeah
Oh how kewl :3
Never in my life,…. Amazing 🙌👏
💕
hey friends, struggling to find weight estimates for spinosaurs as a whole but specifically baryonyx and ichthyovenator. reliable anyway. mind lending a hand?
1.9 tons for Bary and 2.5 for ichthy give or take
Let me grab my spinosaurid chart
higher than i was expecting. length for those weights?
do we know what could've been silesaurus's diet and niche?
That sigilmassasaurus is cursed
I second that, had to do like, a triple take because I couldn't tell if they just made it an oversized Suchomimus, until I noticed the weird hump
I will say, I do like the idea that a couple of the Spinosaurinins had humps instead of full sails, even if Sigillmassasaurus may be just a junior synonym. Could be kind of like the whole young Tyrannosaurines = Long Legs, (most) smaller/early Tyrannosaurids = Long Legs, where smaller/more basal members of the group may have had traits that were still reflected in the ontogeny of their later/larger relatives. (Mainly talking about Irritator, as Sigillmassasaurus was a contemporary of/was Spinosaurus).
Honestly just spitballing though, I find Spinosaurid taxonomy extremely interesting, even if it's confusing and their cladogram changes every year.
Spinosaurus (and co spinosaurines whatever's going on with them) are really the only ones that had proper sails. The rest were tall backed.
I meant like, the other Spinosaurines (Sigillmassasaurus, Irritator, and/or Angaturama) had humps that were more prominent than the tall backs of other Spinosaurids, but not as tall as Spinosaurus and Oxalaia's sails (which is shown in that size comparison). Again, basically just spitballing, I have no idea of whatever's going on with them, and I doubt anyone else really does.
Such a weird looking guy, I love him
3.5/4 of those are just cranial/cervical elements
Yeah, and only one of them is a concrete, valid genus. That's why I said I was spitballing, because there's not much to actually go off of and it's entirely speculation.
First time in this chat, see if I can test everyone one. It’s a riddle see if anyone can guess it right. I’m a 9ft tall hunter I ran up and down the rivers of Texas. I hunt in packs of 3 and at time solo. I’m a carnivore but I have no teeth. What am I ?
what is it
do we know what could've been silesaurus's diet and niche?
herbivore
ye
Terror bird
which one?
if you're referring to kelenken it is one not 9ft, and two don't knopw if there's any evidences of this animal being a pack hunter
I'm not sure if Titanis is 9ft tall yeah. We also have no evidence for social behavior cause bone scraps.
going off of Gabriel's comp while definitely not in a perfect side profile position to say but all of them are not over 9ft
Makes me feel if they originally were going to use a maiasaura (or at least a hadrosaur of a similar build) but half way said iguanodon
it quite literally was meant to be iguanodon
Yes but we see more hadrosaur-esk like build instead of iguanodon in there this was there earlier concept art when we were originally supposed to see more carnivores and feathered raptors
you have to remember this was 1999 so ofc the design isn't gonna look or be what we know think the animal should be more reconstruction as 😭
Iguanodon's stockier build was not known until recently iirc
Fair enough
already by the 90s red was very common color for carnotaurus
Bro what if it was dusty Yellow or green this whole time💀
Hate to say it. That’s infinitely more likely than being colored like a blood red heck spawn 
But that don’t make it cooler 
Depends on the green also we're not really talking about what the color of carnotaurus would've been
Where did carnos live? Maybe it would've had like the colours of it's environment or something
Given there light build probably savanna like or semi dessert area to catch small game (in dinosaur standards)
Ah, maybe they would've been some sort of yellowish orange sorta colour
And spotted Like a cheetah
iirc la colonia's more estuariney
is that a word
Is now
I also hate the immediate likening of it to a cheetah in anything outside of both being fast
Carnotaurus was an apex predator that hunted large prey and couldn't turn to save its life, so they're not really comparable at all outside of being fast.
Apex?
Ooooh apex of its Era ok
more on this they were using some of what got split into mantellisaurus as a reference as well, back when it was still iguanodon
That explains the earlier drafts having the noodles Arms tucked in like lambeosaurus
I wonder if the reason every other dinosaur in Dinosaur dwarfs the iguanodons is because they were "Iguanodon" atherfieldensis
You mean they're size?
No, dwarfed in their charisma. That Carnotaurus was a different level of charming
Give me some time to figure the species lol. Guess I’m actually out of my element. Haven’t met meany people who know way more on Dino’s lol this chat is cool asf
Uhm okay?
It's a learning moment. All good. The only american terror bird was titanis.
I like conc
Yeah like kron having a sorapod and even bigger iguanadon pressed was crazy like WHAT DID HE DO?! to have ppl not question him💀
Saying that as if it's an abnormal situation
I have no idea what tj was saying 😭
It's cuz carno is sigmataur
scanova ancestor 
fr chaos effect toy are peak.
Bro in the movie nobody including all the dinos in the herd bigger than him questioned his Decisions on leading the here how you don't get it 💀
It isn't that uncommon, even in real life lmao
Oh
Because they're herd animals
Cos theyre dinos with human intelligence
were plesiosaurs and marine reptiles for that matter lipped? would a reconstruction that had lips covering their teeth be inaccurate?
It depends on the group of marine reptiles. Plesiosaurs and their relatives (like nothosaurs) weren’t lipped. Their teeth were heavily splayed to the side and interlocking for laterally striking prey with their jaws. Other marine reptiles like ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs were probably lipped.
and just mosasaurs had forked tongues? (thanks a thousand for the help)
As far as we can discern, yea (due to their placement in Squamata)
plesiosaur anatomy has some super interesting implications
it’s just a cool group of animals (45 second slowmode 💀)
tbf, they are related to monitor lizard and squamata so they would have fork tongues anyway. and also lipped
mosasaurs are squamatas
Crying rn
If I search up one more pterosaur and get linked to the pterosaur heresies or reptile evolution ONE MORE TIME I’m actually going to lose my sh!t oh my god
how accurate is this galli art
accurate
good to know
Your thoughts on my Feilongus so far? How does the launch position look?
what pterosaur is it meant to be
Feilongus
ig
…thanks?
You should look up shonisaurus skeletals, I promise you that reptile evolution doesn't make a cameo or 10
It looks quite cool!
I feel like I was supposed to say something more scientific but... idk, looks cool
Try asking @ionic crescent
Seems p good honestly, got the overbite and crests fairly well (Tho doing digging, it seems the 2nd specimen doesn't have either, though the snout crest might've been broken off)
Last thing is that I would thin the neck/accentuate the chest area a little bit more as I don't think it'd be such a smooth transition + it needs a bajillion teeth (76-78), but that's moreso "do an illusion or don't do it at all, please don't do 76-78 teeth in this thing's beak"
@young ocean Here's an excerpt on the matter that kinda summarizes why the 1967 method isn't exactly good
Sure, I'm curious, and thank you for changing your tone, Idid feel as if I was being talked down to, although more by @warped peak with his "Mosa licker" comment which I stll don't understand
1:10 lower jaw-body length ratio stated by Russell (1967) is based on fragmental specimens of Mosasaurus "maximus" or on Mosasaurus lemonnieri from Dollo (1892). The latter even though was sometimes regarded as juvenile form of M. hoffmanni (Mulder et al., 2004) definitely has proportionally larger vertebrae relative to skull length. Even Plotosaurus bennisoni, recognized as the closest relative of M. hoffmanni in recent phylogenetic studies (Simões et al., 2017), probably had a larger head than M. lemonnieri. E.g. holotype of P. bennisoni (UCMP 32778) was estimated at 5.2 meters with approximately 46 cm long skull from the anterior tip of premaxilla to the posterior end of squamosal (Lindgren et al., 2008).
Paleontologists relying on an incomplete picture is nothing new. We have a significantly greater understanding of mosasaur anatomy now.
I'm seeing a lot of "probably"s is the thing, and fact is that if it were solid, there would be more of a consensus, or at least one more in favour of the 12m estimate, but let me double check I would appreciate a link to you excerpts btw
Fastest way to sum up the situation, no offense was intended
Might I also add that in the 1967 scaling, Russel doesn't give solid justification for the method in question. He just kinda uses it when describing mosasaur size.
Fragmentary fossils like the parts of the giant mosa have tendency to drastically change in size estimate very fast as we find more parts
Your wording certainly didn't imply that and clearly came with a negative connotation, you really shouldn't apply your opinions on prehistoric creatures to the people talking about them, I'll take your word for it, but maybe try to use less inflammatory language in the future?
Also as for @bright veldt your comment, the 1:7 scaling is based off prognathodon, which while related, is not close enough to make much more accurate estimates
"No explicit justification for the 1:10 ratio was provided in Russell (1967),[38] and it has been considered to be probably overestimated by Cleary et al. (2018).[51] In 2014, Federico Fanti and colleagues alternatively argued that the total length of M. hoffmannii was more likely closer to seven times the length of the skull, which was based on a near-complete skeleton of the related species Prognathodon overtoni."
You taking the 50 year old estimate that had no justification or the one that actually has a solid basis based on closely related taxa, which is what's done in paleontology with most clades anyway?
A reminder that the actual length estimate for the 17m was done in the same year as the 11-13m one, with agreement on Russel's estimate before using it obviously, and is still considered likely accurate, although no explicit justification was given there are as far as I can see, people who agree that it's about accurate
And a seperate estimation was also made by Lingham-soliar that also got a 17m length
What?
were ornithomimids tails flexible?
Sorry that I"m not speaking as well, I'm reading at the same time, and balancing the two can make me far less eloqeunt with my words
There appears to even have been an 18m estimate from 2016, even after the first one
Lingham-soliar's length estimate of mosa is derived from Russel's, which again, has no solid explanation. It doesn't matter what the paleontologist says if the science behind it isn't sound. That's not science.
Gualicho go Siats
Fairly I'd say considering the fossils we have don't have the bony rods stiffening them (Ornithomimus for reference)
A reminder that no solid explanation was given, but that doesn't mean none existed, just that it wasn't recorded, I doubt he made it up on the spot, and again, the people who used the estimate would have checked it to a degree themselves
If you're holding faith in ancient estimates on the principle of maybe, why can't you hold faith in one's with evidence
Science isn't science if it can't be replicated. Literally the only thing standing on the 1:10 skull ratio is "this one guy said so" what reason is there for this? None. I don't know why you cling onto this so badly when the current method has, yknow, actual data behind it.
The most common and widely accepted interpretation of mosasaurus currently is that Russel's estimation was roughly accurate, regardless of what you personally believe, it is the current consensus among most paleontologists, pending better information, the professionals seem to think it's the best guess, the current method doesn't really have data behind it, it was two guys who said so and their method was also seemingly questionable
Where are you getting the info it's held by most paleontologists?
Phylogenetics is literally how 90% of prehistoric animals are reconstructed and interpeted. It is not a questional method in the slightest. What is questionable is hinging on a paper whose method had literally no scientific backing. You can't just assume those things.
It's an inherently biased way of thinking. You're not looking at what the paleontologists are ACTUALLY saying. You're just taking it at complete face-value.
i dont wanna sound dumb but is there a way of knowing if deinosuchus would've ventured out into the great interior seaway? ( i think deinosuchus was around at that time )
Deinosuchus stuck to brackish estuarine habitats, they're found on both sides of the Western Interior Seaway, and their favorite prey was marine turtles. It seems pretty likely considering these faccets and modern crocodile behavior.
"Traditional interpretations have estimated the maximum length of the largest species, M. hoffmannii, to be 17.1 meters (56 ft), making it one of the largest mosasaurs, although some scientists consider this an overestimation with recent estimates suggesting a length closer to 13 meters (43 ft)."
And again, I'm not taking it at face value, the estimates were used but only loosely, with the paleontologists actually making the size estimates not relying entirely on Russel's ratio, just using it as a starting point, again, "Based on" Russel's ratio, not using it directly, and I say there method was questionable not because of the comparison to a close relative but rather the choice of relative and the methods used which also haven't been replicated, in 2018 there was an agreement that Russel's was likely overestimated however there was no agreement on a correct ratio which is why many still doubt the other estimate, as Russel's appears likely to be closer, if overstated
Don't use Wikipedia interpretations of an article as law of the minute details.
So if we know Russell's is too big, and we have a smaller estimate, doesn't it make more sense to use the smaller estimate than the larger outdated one.
That quote, again, does not have a source on wikipedia, and I know for a fact you're just assuming half the stuff you're saying instead of actually looking at the papers in question. There is a more reliable method out there, and it's as simple as that. Stop relying on your fringe assumptions.
how do you base something off a ratio without using the ratio
Oh thank god it's Table hi Table
ALthough here, give me a moment, I'm going to have a full read of the 11m paper and check the accuracy, and by using the ratio as a starting point and making their own estimates, which is what appears to have been done, considering it was done 50 years later and that the estimated size does not match Russel's ratio
How to tell somebody wants their 18m mosa without straight up saying they just want their 18m mosa
Check out Cymbospondylus.
Basically 18m Mosa
Oh no trust me, I want my 18m Mosa, but I also think it's just generally more accurate from all that I've read, and seems to be, again, the current scientific consensus
It's a scientific consensus from the past
We're literally presenting you the current scientific consensus repeatedly and you're just ignoring it
"1:10 method has no scientific backing vs 1:7 method which is actually explained how this was concluded and why it makes sense, the 1:10 method is CLEARLY the more-supported method here"
Anyway, give me a moment to read the actual study, here's a link if you would like to read as well, and no again, the current scientific consensus is the 16-17m, not 18 btw, 16-17
But again, let me read the paper about the 11m estimate, maybe it'll change my mind
i bet paul's 5t rajasaurus has backing after all its been asserted several times and even larramendi backs him up it must be true
Cope Rex.
Nough said.
It isn’t the current consensus though, which you’ve been told multiple times. One was by all means and purposes a guesstimate, the other has scientific backing behind it.
The quote you’re clinging on to isn’t the official stance of paleontologists lol. It’s a Wikipedia editor simply mentioning everything relevant to mosa without actually claiming paper A is better than paper B
i'd like to say i could add something constructive here but i don't know jack about mosasaur scaling to i'll just enjoy the fireworks in the meantime
Btw this paper also contains a lot of interesting information about Mosasaurus teeth, if you have an interest in that I suggest you have a read, it's extremely in depth and seems to be focused on a study of their dentistry rather than size
Doesn't sound like it's a good source for a size reference then
This is your reference, for the 11m one
This really sums it up. I'm moving on cause it's like talking to a wall.
granted most papers don't put much thought into their size estimates because absolute size is rather superfluous to the actual content which is why said estimates invariably suck
except for grillcourt we love grillcourt
Agreed I have better things to do and animals to model
And a whole book on Uintatheres to read
And here is why it's debated
I say we love whoever gives us the biggest estimates
300t Perucetus? 5000t Yellowstone Super-Predator? Here I come
AGAIN, phylogenetics is literally how most reconstructions in paleontology are done. EVERY prehistoric animal you've ever seen that isn't something virtually complete like T. rex, Triceratops, or Mammoths (aka 95% of prehistoric life) is based on comparing close relatives.
We never disputed 11+ Meter Mosasaurs
I started with a 13m Mosasaur in here. It's just that at that size, it's only 10 tons
Yes, the comparison based on phyolgenetics puts it, in their own words, at "7-10 times body length, likely closer to 7, putting the specimen at at least 11m long, and possibly greater"
You really are trying to look for any angle and crack to continue believing in 17 meter mosa. Cause at this point it is belief, not science.
The average weight yes, which is about twice that of the average weight of an Orca, which is where the conversation started, I want to reiterate, as I have said multiple tiems, I do not think it is 18 meters, I think larger ones likely would have reached about 16 at maximum and averaged around 13-15
The larger one in question is the one that's at least 11m, as it says, comparable to the largest Mosasaurs
your honor the scaling may require several unparsimonious assumptions but have you considered it'd be funny
This is a large yet not largest mosasaurus
mfw you look at one of the largest mosasaur specimens and call it average
Yeah regardless of opinion, it's very clearly stating Mosas exceeding 11m are the largest and not average
You're not actually considering the science. You're just trying to use it to justify your fringe beliefs.
Alright, it's not but give me a minute then to find a more clear version, it's a little bit more complicated if you actually read the paper
(Also largest at the time, not currently largest, but let me find the records of the exact specimen used in the estimation)
i could scale an isolated rex femur to over 13m with trix doesn't mean its a good idea
Erm well, fossil record statistics would mean the average individual is always preserved so...
The biomechanics of sustaining such a large animal in an ecosystem like that is also unthinkable already.
Magnifying it to 17 meters is getting entirely unreasonable to even try to sustain
Megalodon
Idk, has it been said Prognathodon has a stupid stubby skull compared to others? Which might result in a wonky thingymajigy
Btw unfortunately this is still in quite a few places using other estimates by Russel that it says aren't well founded, we simply don't have better data, and again, I think the largest specimens would likely have reached about 16m
Now please give me a moment to find the exact skull specimen used
also probably worth noting that even the jump from 11m->13m is a size increase of well over 50%
Wow look who's being rude now
And sizes increase fast once you get big cause squared cube law is pretty funny
That is incredibly rude, like I said, I"m trying to read the paper, please let me find the skull specimen used
... oh, this is still going on
I'm sorry but its bloody midnight and I'm out of patience. I'm also not wrong.
Then my only suggestion is to take a step back, relax and go to sleep if it is 12am
General chat reminder to please be polite and respectful, and do not provoke or antagonize other users, Otherwise mutes may be handed out. Refer to our #rules
I mean you seemed to think you weren't wrong when you told me the size estimate was done in 1967, when it was done in 2014 using Russels estimates as a basis but not a direct source
NOw please hold on while I do the scientific thing and find the actual specimen used for comparison to larger skulls
Have you even read the paper to validate that it wasn't a direct source? Cause it probably was.
Scan, you're getting a bit rude
hasn't russels ratio like been actively discredited
I'm currently reading the other paper to verify the size of the skull used for the 11m estimate, please hold on, that should answer our questions, no?
You're right. I'mma step out. Peace. Have fun with Karat.
https://www.disva.univpm.it/sites/www.disva.univpm.it/files/disva/news_dipartimento/cretaceus research.pdf If anyone would like to help me find the name of the specimen used or check my information, here's a link
Also yes, that's likely a good idea, you're getting quite agressive, this is a complex conversation and you seem tired, I don't fault you for at, and I don't want you getting in trouble for being less than respectful, you seem like a genuine individual
can someone give me a sitrep on what we're arguing about it seems funny
This also seems to be a rather unusual skull that they used which is just interesting information, showing stuff not seen in other mosasaurs, and well @sullen cairn originally I wasn't under the impression we were arguing, rather having a discussion about differing paleontological views but, it appears to have gone a bit off the rails
To clarify however, not all that unusual in terms of size so it shouldn't throw off estimates
tragically thats pretty par for the course for the silly lil people who talk about dinosaurs in my phone
Here's just a particularly interesitng thing about one of the unusual traits of the skull and why this was a study of densitry mainly
"preserved teeth show distinctive
characters previously unreported in other mosasaurs. Although the marginal teeth show a posterior
migration of the labial carina along the jaw length e diagnostic of derived mosasaurines e they are
unusual in the combination of features, including anteriormost teeth with asteroid cross section followed
by teeth with crowns twisted labioposteriorly from one-third to one-half of their height toward the
apices"
I do apologize Karat for their behavior because from what I've read, you haven't responded to his tone with the same sarcastic, snarky remarks so I gotta hand it to you
God knows how infuriating it is when people escalate the situation when they really don't need to
It's alright, I'm used to it and I can understand how people can get like that, I am quite stubborn, largely on part of the autism and such
if there's any silver lining in this its been kinda funny to watch unravel
Do they go on to throw an idea as to why they were like this? Teeth terms make my head spin
And also I understand completely lmaooo, that seems to be what is happening to me
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure, Teeth are far from my area of expertise, also man, I don't know why they don't list the specimen used at the top of the paper, as far as I know that's pretty normal procedure, they reference several times but not by name, only as the specimen being studied
I specialize in invertebrates so I'm not much help oj the specifics of teeth
I may have found the name of the specicimen
As far as I've heard, that happens
Not common, but every so often (mostly in older papers)
The carina is the Serrated part of the tooth though
So "the serrations are offset in an unusual manner for an advanced mosasaur, and the teeth are slightly curved"
Man, people are really bad at listing specimen named huh? Makes a manual comparison a bit of a pain
As I said, older papers kinda poopy dookie at that
I think Bone Wars papers can see that better(?) Or they're just willynilly throwing things around
i'm gonna assume its this
Yup so I already found that one, now I'm looking for the current largest skull specimen, also I'm not entirely sure why I keep trying to spell specimen with an f
Oh, apparently we just have a 13m tylosaurus fossil somewhere that was like 60% complete, idk why that didn't come up anywhere, although I do have questions
Like 500 different marine animals have a specimen like that
I think Shonisaurus is one? Shastasaurus? I get em confused
Yeah before I properly sleep I’d like to apologize. That wasn’t right of me.
Thank you, I appreciate that, also if you'd like the answer I'm just finding the final measurements now
Skull used in the estimates (for 11m) was 145cms long, largest we have belonging to the tylosaur "bruce" is 1.8m long, this was not the largest specimen at all
P sure we'd all like measurements (Also should summarize wtf happened here so we can call upon our good skeletal lord)
tbf i don't think mosasaurus and tylosaurus are particularly similar in build
Yeah AFAIK Tylos are lighter and longer
Bruce was estimated at nearly 14m based on it's remaining vertebrae, and no, you're right tha'ts not, however they're closer than mosasaurus and prognathodon which is what the estimates were made off of, but lets actually do a comparison check very quickly
(Also tylosarus is a mosasaur btw, just not the mosasaurus hoffmani)
I think Fadeno was in the process of making a skeletal, but he got taken offline a year or so ago
Prognathodon is closer to Mosa than Tylo
Prognathodon is a Mosasaurine, Tylosaurus is a Tylosaurine
Can I have a source, the phyolgeny I'm looking at would seem to disagree, although I'm sure you know how much of a mess mosasaur taxonomy is
Where are you finding Prognathodon removed fron Mosasaurinae
I think both phylos should be tossed in here
Yeah hold on I'm doing a double check, I may also have simply read it wrong
Yeah I've seen that one but hold on a sec
Yup, I think you're right on this one, I've likely read it wrong
Wait, I've gotten lost, why did we go down the taxonomy rabbithole again?
Wait a minute, the skull used in the 11m study wasn't mosasaurus hoffmani, although just, wait this is a little confusing
if prognathodon is a better reference to scale mosasaurus from rather than tylosaurus
THat's probably fair but tylosaurus was a mosasaur as well, it does count towards how large they could get, for obvious reasons
sure but phylogenetic bracketing would strongly suggest prognathodon would be more similar in gross morphology
Yeah saying Tylo got big so Mosa did too is like saying Condors get big, so Eagles should too
Interesting, so this skull was of it's own taxon as well, which adds to the confusion, but so far the consesus of this paper is that this specimen was large, not the largest, and likely got over 11m, leaving the largest specimens just above that, also eagles did get big but that's a seperate thing
Wait, this paper directly compares it to the previously mentioned tylosaurus, stating them to be of similar sizes? That's unusual
Don't believe that's what they're saying
They're saying that it isn't unprecedented for the animals to get so large because of the other dude (If I read correctly)
Odd to compare it to a species that is 3m off from it in size?
I'd say that it's enough of a distinction to not consider them comparable, just a strange choice on the part of the paper
Wow this whole thing is kinda a mess, isn't it, down to the papers themselves?
mosasaurus is going to be relatively heavier for its length than tylosaurus
Okay so the largest mosasaurus hoffmani skull is 1.7m compared to the study's 1.45m so I think that answeres the question itself as well, the skull was not at all an example of the largest mosasaurus specimens found, that took way too much digging to find, but incase you want to check it, the specimen for the mosasaurus skull in question is ccmge10/2469
thats penza
So for you as well, just for a final answer on the question, the 11m estimate was obtained from a skull of 1.45m while the largest mosasaurus skull was 1.7m, mosasaurus would've gotten decently larger
And yes that is penza I believe, is there something wrong?
Did I miss something about the Penza specimen? This seems to implyn that I have?
1.7m is the mandible measurement
Yes? Sorry am I being stupid? I feel like I might be missing something? I'm running semi low on energy now so I'm not going to be functioning as well
that'd still be a solid meter shorter than what upscaling a 1.7m skull measurement would suggest
What do you mean? I'm not quite following, also no it's not the mandible, that seems to be incorrect, give me a moment
that'd imply penza's something like 12m tmk
If the 145cm specimen came in at 11m+, a 170cm would come in notably larger, although I no longer have the energy to do the math myself, sorry, chronic fatigue and such, mandible is 690, overall skull is more than 1700
yeah thats the mandible
a 690cm mandible on a 1700cm skull would be one hell of an underbite
Wait no I'm stupid, not the mandible, part of the mandible, it does say that the overall skull would be more than 1700, not just in reference to the mandible, I would love to see a mosasaur with that sort of underbite tho, that would look quite funny I think
Why does there not seem to be a study of the skull used in the 11m study directly? That's rather unusual
regardless wouldn't the 1.7m measurement would suggest a length of like 12m with the 1:7 ratio
Main point however is that the penza specimen would've exceeded 13m in length which would also mean over 10tons which is larger than the largest orca on record which was @warped peak's original point
1:7 right, so 170cm x 8, gets you 1,360 or 13.6m and considering the paper said larger than 11m
Nah my original point was that the largest Mosa was about the same as the largest Orca at around 10 tons
And that Sachicasaurus dwarved both
Just a basic search but, was heavier though (Than orcas, although I don't know about mosas)
what?
10-11 Meters and 15 tons.
Am I being stupid? Or what did I do wrong
1:7 would mean its 1/7th of the animal's total length
Wouldn't it mean 1/8th? Considering 1 would be the skulll, the other 7 the body? 1/7th would be less than 11m for the 145cm estimate
thats not how ratios work
Why did they end up with 11 then? I mean again, I could be wrong on my ratios, I'm far too tired to be doing accurate math but, then they got something wrong too
Oh wait, it's not 1:7 ratio, it's 7-10 times the skull length, right yeah I was being stupid there, sorry
because the estimated 11m animal is larger than the 145cm skull
What? They estimate the skull would've belong to an 11m specimen, yes? I feel like something's wrong, is it referring to a difference specimen? Can you tell I'm starting to crack with tired lol
they estimate 21876 would be 11m, not hoffmani
Yes, I know, and scaling that up for the size difference on the penza skull in comparison you end up with 13.6m for the penza mosasaurus, which was a hoffmani
Also all of this is strange because the estimate isn't 11m, it's "more than 11m" "at least 11m" and then goes on to compare it to a 13m specimen
if 21876 is 11m at ~1.61m and penza is ~1.7m that'd be like 11.7m
21876 is 145cm from what I saw, you mean the mggc?
hoffmanni is 145cm
21876 is mosaurus sp.
Penza was 1.7, but just, no you're right, something is a bit weird, gimme a moment
Man this is all kinda strange considering I found a part where they talk about how mggc 21876 bares more similarity to a prognathodon than it should, given it's presumed relation to hoffmani
21876 is larger than the 145cm hoffmani skull
21876 is estimated somewhat over 11m
you can't scale penza with hoffmani's skull and apply the quotient to 21876's total length
and that whole process is all kinds of convoluted considering you can just skip the middleman and scale penza to the 1:7 ratio
Trex and tarbo skeletal please?
THey seem to be saying that 21876 is considered to be the same size as the 145cm skull and then scale it to 11m, and then compare it to tylosaurus proriger which was significantly larger
the given overlapping measurements for 21876 are ~10% larger than that of the 145cm skull
Yet again, they say the estimate it of comparable size, t's also worth noting that again, "at least 11m" and the penza specimen is listed as "more than 170cm long", all of these far from precise measurements and rather saying "larger than this"
Gotchur tarbo skeletal right here
assuming they applied the difference in size between 21876 and the hoffmani skull the results are perfectly congruent with the 11m estimate when applied to the formula they explicitly mentioned they used
Also what other sizes do we have of M. Hoffmani skulls? I feel like knowing that it's the largest doesn't help if we don't know the average to understand the deviation, also I feel it's strange that they don't actually say what size they assumed for their skull specimen and simply say "of comparable size" and again, the sudden comparison to the larger tylosaurus is quite unusual
Why am I struggling so much to find an average length for mosasaurus hoffmani skulls?
Because people don't tend to average stats like that
why not just apply the 1:7 ratio to penza instead of scaling 21876 to the 1:7 ratio and then scaling penza to 21876
the latter is incredibly redundant
Yes no I get that, the thing is that penza doesn't even have an exact length, stated only as "more than 170cm" and the scaling they use seems to imply that it's more than teh 1:7 ratio, although they're not sure by how much, with their implication taht their skull would've belonged to a creature over 11m in length, and it's also worth noting that their skull is a particularly unusual skull for a mosasaur as I said earlier, none of this seems very concrete, the conclusion I'm seeing is "it was larger than this" this all seems to point to Penza being larger than 12m, how much so? No idea, they don't seem to know either, just some amount larger, although you are right and I should go with large rthan 12m not larger than 13
you don't need to stress yourself with 21876 when scaling penza it serves zero function in that respect
I more meant that they don't even seem sure of the scaling used in 21876
but that doesnt matter at all for penza
It does if we're scaling Penza of their scaling if they're unsure of said scaling, it's not 1:7 ratio, it's 1:7 ration or more, and then there's this nonsense which would be helpful if the people doing it gave any more information
they verbatim say more likely 1:7
See again, the thing I'm getting hung up on is the "about 7 times skull length, and then later, when scaling something with it, they say "11m long at least implying that it's a lower estimate, and the penza skull is also a lower estimate, stating "more than 170cm"
this has nothing to do with penza or 21876
No I realize that, I was just pointing out that that would be useful if we had any idea what ratio they used to come to that conclusion
cursory glance and it seems like people have scaled 003892 to only marginally larger than penza
This was after Russel's ratio with the previous one proposed and mentioned in relation to the previous paper, and could be implying an interesting scaling thing but people nowadays can't just put all the relevant information in the paper apparently, also yeah lemme see if I can actually find a skull length for 003892 because that's interesting to me, it seems if what you said is right they probably did use Russel's ratio, or maybe even just their own
And why do I keep seeing Penza quoted as an "average size" I'm seeing very conflicting mentions between it being "average" or "unusually large" however the latter seems to be the consensus as far as I can tell
its just a quadrate so any estimate is gonna be absurdly tenuous
but based off sent above it seems like people have scaled it to only like 3% larger than penza
I'm finding quotes that 003892 is 150% larger than Penza which cannot be right, I'm not sure where they're getting that number from
This makes me think they're using Russel's scale
i don't think thats claiming penza's average sized
???? a 60m mosasaur? What are they talking about? And no not that one
that's more of a theoretical question about biomechanics
Just strange to go into honestly but what I'm referring to with the average quotes is, lemme go grab it, although man this slowmode is a lil annoying and feels somewhat unnessecary
Some seem to be implying that Penza is the average for hoffmani?
citation plz
also that could be also using russel's ratio
Anyway, this is giving me a headache, I'm going to take a step back, but I think what we've learnt today is that we're not sure but Penza was somewhere larger than 12m by ??? amount and yeah I think you're likely right about Russels ratio
https://www.fossilera.com/pages/how-large-did-mosasaurs-get#:~:text=As large as Tylosaurus got,the existence of larger specimens.
(this source appears to be using inaccurate information btw)
I just wish I could find like, a good source for the overall distribution of skull size among most specimens, rather than information about only the largest ones, so I can get an idea of deviation
i think you're putting too much thought into a throwaway average size estimate on a random forum
but yeah penza seems to be ~12m which was already established with the 1:7 ratio
Oh no I get that, I think the more important point s just that, aplpying the 1:7 ratio which it's own paper seem to imply is a lower estimate (Although seemingly not by much) we get 12m minmum on Penza, 12m minimum again, the penza skull is listed simply as "more than 170cm"
penza's mandible seems more or less complete lengthwise to the point i can't see there being a meaningful increase in size
Point is, larger than an Orca, which is somehow how all of this started, but even then I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the 1:7 ratio at all considering the comparison used and unusual nature of the skull used, I feel like they likely should have used a skull of a known species of mosasaur rather than this unusual 2014 specimen with the strange teeth and more resemblance to prognathodon than usual, all of this seems very up in the air, honestly, more than anything I just wish Russel had actually mentioned where he got his estimate, as far as I can see it was likely based on something, it was just never recorded exactly what
again the 1:7 ratio has nothing to do with 21876 i'm not sure why you keep bringing it up
I'm not? In the paper, unrealted to 21876, they imply that the 1:7ratio is on the lower end, and that it ranges from that to 1:10 but is more likely around 1:7, implying likely slightly higher, although by how much it would range, they don't state
they imply 1:7 is the lower end because its lower than the the outstanding unfalsifiable 1:10 claim that's been generally discredited
1:10 is brought up by them as a possiblity seperate of Russel's estimates, and Russel's estimates haven't been discredited as far as I can see, and again at the time it seem he did have a reason for it, it was just never recorded what said reason was, it wasn't just a guess, it was just never actually recorded what this was based on
ergo it'd be absurdly unparsimonious to triple something's mass on that basis
but yes the 1:10 ratio methodology for a 17m mosasaurus has been considered unlikely/incorrect
Yes, which is why I'm not proposing that, again, the 11m paper lists 1:10 as a possibility seperate of russel's estimates, and said it is somewhere within the range of that to 1:7, and that it's likely around 1:7, and that's not discredited or called incorrect, just that it's probably overestimated, that's far from discredited entirely
the 11m paper literally cites russel in the same sentence as the 1:10 ratio
I don't believe it does but let me check then
if its overestimated that means the ratio's not the same as the one proposed by russel
which means the aformentioned ratio would be incorrect
"The preserved upper right dentigerous margin of MGGC 21876
includes seven consecutive tooth positions (two premaxillary and
five maxillary) and is about 40 cm long. In an articulated
Fig. 8. A, marginal dentition of MGGC 21876 in left lateroventral view. B, cross sections of second left maxillary tooth taken at (from left) the basal end, mid-height, and the apical
end of the crown. Note the twist. Abbreviations: a, anterior; p, posterior; c, carina.
100 F. Fanti et al. / Cretaceous Research 49 (2014) 91e104
Mosasaurus hoffmanni skull about 145 cm long (Lingham-Soliar,
1995, fig. 5) the same region is about 36 cm long. Assuming the
skull of MGGC 21876 closely followed the skull proportions of
M. hoffmanni (Lingham-Soliar, 1995, fig. 4), we estimate that it was
of comparable size when complete. In articulated mosasaurid
skeletons, the total body length is about 7e10 times the skull length
although it is more likely that a mosasaurine body length was about
seven times skull length, based on a nearly complete specimen of
Prognathodon overtoni (Russell, 1967; Konishi et al., 2011). " you mean where it talks about Russel and prognathodon? Because that's not in reference to his ratio, it does not cite his ratio in relation to the 1:10, and it says based on their estimates
And "likely overestimated" is a far stretch to "definitely incorrect"
In articulated mosasaurid skeletons, the total body length is about 7-10 times the skull length although it is more likely that a mosasaurine body length was about seven times skull length, based on a nearly complete specimen of Prognathodon overtoni (Russell, 1967; Konishi et al., 2011)
Yes, where is that quoting Russel's ratio? That's referencing him seemingly in relation to the Prognathodon
you're really trying to tell me that russel mentioned a prognathodon specimen uncovered in the early 2000s in the year 1967
the citation only makes any vague semblance of sense in regards to the 1:10 ratio
He's not quoted when the body length is mentioned, that's my point, again, I'm getting really tired, I've said at a couple points that I need to step back, and regardless, they explicitly acknowledge the possibility of 1:10 even in their own measurements "we estimate that it was of comparable size when complete. In articulated mosasaurid
skeletons, the total body length is about 7-10 times the skull length
although it is more likely that a mosasaurine body length was about
seven times skull length"
with the 10x figure deriving from russel
which modern researchers consider unlikely
this means we shouldn't be using russel's estimate
They mentioned 7-10 times, and say about seven times, which implies somewhere around 7 in the upwards direction, hence, more than 7 times, but not by much, like I said, the 10x figure is mentioned directly by them and not said to be deriving from Russel
It's important to note that Palaeontologists aren't allowed to say "impossible" or "definitely not" because they can never 100% prove anything, so everything is basically forced to sound vague, even when confident
so they cited russel in a sentence that had nothing to do with russel?
also "about" works in the lower direction too
The whole point of me mentioning 7-10times it that it implies the about goes upwards instead of down, and yeah, I'm aware they can't say impossible but, "likley an overestimate" doesn't feel like it holds any semblance of certainty, once again
Russel's estimate was based off of something, it's just been lost to time what said something was
you do know they say "about" 7-10m as well right
like if anything they say "about" because obviously a ratio won't apply 1:1 between taxa
your rationalization is entirely post hoc and unfalsifiable
Anyway, I'm real tired, can we continue this when I'm not exhausted? I'm sure it's not hard to tell how much I've been degrading, two sentence messages, informal language? Again, I have chronic fatigue, I go downhill really quickly, I really need a break
"Likely" alone makes it clear that's its relatively certain
Again, I'll address this when I'm not starting to shut down, I'll come back to this, i want to thank you all for at least trying your best to be cordial, even if things slipped a lil sometimes, and at very least you've been interesting and engaging to talk to, and as I'm sure you can tell, a lot of this is outside my rather unusual area of expertise anyway, strangely enough, despite my passing interest in paleontology I'm more of a theoretical mathematics person, so idk if you want to talk about that I can be leagues more succinct
if you need a break don't feel like you're tied down here
but yeah this channel does have its moments
Yeah, thing is something something autism, hard to walk away and all that, y'know, fault of my own obviously
don't worry
and tbh this is far more action than this channel's seen in months so there's that at least
Yeah, and it's nice to talk about a passion y'know, shame it isn't one I'm more knowledgable on, like other than mosasaur I can't tell you jack about any other prehistoric creature really with even a mote of certainty
mosasaurs aren't exactly my strong suit either so at the very least its nice to have an excuse to dig through some literature about em
But man for some reason there isn't quite the interest in theoretical mathematics as there is in dinosaurs, I wonder why, definitely couldn't be because dinosaurs are just, like more surface level appealing or anything, gotta find more popular areas of expertise one day, be nice to be able to talk with confidence about anything other than super obscure topics
if it makes you feel any better 90% of conversations here would be utterly incoherent in any somewhat public setting as well
But yeah if you ever want a lecture on the collatz conjecture and the inherently paradoxical nature of the founding logic behind math, you know who to go to I guess, it is interesting in the end but y'know
color me shocked this ended on a constructive note so cheers to that
No point in a conversation that ends on a sour note, now is there?
This is unironically tear-jerking to see
People should end conversations like this more 
I recently read this fascinating article about a hypothesis on terror bird tongues. I thought you guys would find it cool
https://antediluviansalad.blogspot.com/2015/09/terror-birds-cometh-new-theory.html?m=1
Ikr, it's nice, just be thankful this wasn't a conversation about spinosaurus biology, I don't think it's possible for those to end well unless they end with Spinofaarus
What are your guys thoughts on raptor pack behavior like gangs
Poor Spinosaurus man
I need to get back to my Spinofaarus some day
Every day I am haunted that I did not deal with Spinofaarus when I had the chance a decade ago
Imo Spino just needs to be looked at more thoroughly instead of quantity. Not saying the recent papers are such, but more teams looking would be good. New perspectives, ya know?
Yeah I can get behind that, it's just largely the lack of complete remains right? Man wouldn't it be cool if humans hadn't destroyed the best specimen in a war
On the other hand, the msot calm debate is on Nodosaurus biology
Completely logical, I see no evidence against it (Maybe for it tbh)
Like "Hey it looked like this"
"Oh yeah true"
And not really! The neotype (2014 skeleton) is the most complete Spinosaurus we have. It’s just that Spinosaurus (spinosaurs in general) have been barely studied, if at all, for decades so it’s not unusual for there to be teething pains
Based nodosaurus fossilizing well. What a champ
Kinda hard to argue with that, also just some appreciation for the most amazing fossil ever
Also really? Man that's actually awesome to hear, a good chance at something good for the poor boy
Ikr, best boy, 11/10 job there, absolute legend
Dis be Borealopelta which Ig is Nodosaurus from how bland Nodo is, but “Borealopelta” sounds prettier
It does sound very pretty, good name for an absolute champ of a dinosaur
Before I get too distracted, what what do you guys think of the theory that terror birds had a vulture like tongues?
Oh right sorry, I was reading that, un momento
Yeah sorry I don't know anything about Terror birds, just Mosasaurus and vague spino knowledge is all I've got really
lil misleading to say they havent been studied.... and there goes my ability to speak for 45 seconds how awesome
Lol, I'm not trying to be pushy, it's just a neat hypothesis
Man hasn’t learned how to edit his messages yet
Yeah ikr, it's kinda silly, like I know it's a long shot but hey @vast breach could we get this maybe reduced? It's kinda painful and seems unnessecary with the pace these things are moving
I’ve tried that every time this slow mode was extended beyond 25 seconds, same answer of “It helps us moderate, make a ticket to suggest things” each and every time 
And yeah but good lord if all the studies are to be believed it couldn't walk, swim, run, hunt or fish, istg next we're going to be told it was somehow the first flying dinosaur
i did edit that last part of the message as-is but 45 second timeout is ridiculous for a 3 person conversation jesus
Spino?
Worst thing is it was like this during my nearly three hour two person conversation, and yeah spino, how'd you guess, lol? Conversation probably would've lasted 40 minutes if it wasn't for this slowmode, please lord can we get a break from this?
Suggestion noted and I have decreased the slow mode timer. Hopefully, it helps a bit to keep the conversation flowing.
Oh my god thank you, not by much but thank you
I sent it and saw the edit too late but I wasn’t gonna waste my message
Spino could probably function well, especially if Random’s skeletal is to be believed, but we’re still wrestling with that stupid sail lol
WHAT???? I mean thank you but 😭😭😭
I just got here saw the tail end of you convo. Spino can run? I guess it makes sense, did it actually have the little legs or is that outdated?
30 seconds is still a vast improvement, and oh no I have no idea, just that there are papers saying it couldn't
Thank you again btw, that's so much better, I'd argue still a little long but miles better
Oh I misread your message that it COULD do all those things. The theory that it couldn't swim is really weird to me the thing lived by water and ate fish. What if it slipped?
At the risk of being crucified, I think, think that it's currently correct to say it had smaller legs and longer arms, about the same length as each other, and yeah no there's papers that say it couldn't swim or fish
There are limitations due to moderation purposes, but I'm happy to help as much as I can
If you put all the papers about the poor thing together it would've had to live on spite alone, and yeah I understand, just can be a lil annoying limited to two messages per minute
He had his legs fixed
If I had to give my 2 cents on it I feel like keeping it lower rn is fine given the time of day it is and current state of the conversations being respectful
Wait is that current now, oh god, when did that happen?
Uhhh last November…? Nothing actually changed beyond the tail getting a bit longer
also
But wasn't it only recent that spino was considered to have legs and arms of the same length and it walked on both?? Honestly I don't know why I ask, it'll have changed before anyone can answer knowing this poor creature
Why can't spino just be like baryonyx that guy never causes so much controversy
being Br*tish is controversial enough
Man we just gotta wait till spino pulls a Nodosaurus
Some time traveller needs to go mummify a spinosaurus for the sake of all of us
the issue with spino papers is that they often time just kinda spit the data out with incomplete data sets, assumptions, pedantic dichotomies on animal ecology, or just kinda undermine whats more likely in the face of a math equation. spinosaurus didnt need to be amazingly efficient like a shark or a croc because its a 8 - 12m long river dwelling dinosaur, living in rivers where some fish were also very big and very slow- it is very likely the animal, like the rest of its group, was semi-aquatic for all intents and purposes
God, again, luckily we have that beautiful nodosaurus to balance out the wars that is the spino's biology
Mummify an Egyptian dinosaur. Id be perfect!
Oh yeah lol I didn't even think about that, and hey don't you dare question the accuracy of math, that's my job! That's all I'm good for!
I didn't think about this I mean, that is very funny
But yeah, I should really go, but remember kids, everything is chaos, nothing is certain, and in the darkness of the void and the knowledge that the universe is a messed up paradoxical hellhole, there is only one thing to do:
Cling to nodosaurus, cling to our brilliant boy, he is all that is good, he is salvation
idk why falcon said this was nodosaurus or particularly close to it, its closest relation to nodosaurus to my knowledge is being the probable basis for nodosaurus' model in jurassic world evolution
Oh, I thought it was just in some way a nodosaurus
Idk, I'm just going to continue appreciating him,a nd in lieu of him being a nodosaurus, I'mma just call him Gary
It's borealopelta. But whatever I can't spell half these names anyways
I thought you meant it was like "nodosaurus borealopelta", so just the articles calling it nodosaurus are entirely wrong?
its a nodosaurid, part of the same group, but not nodosaurus itself
Idk according to Wikipedia it's B. markmitchelli
Ahhh okay, well like I've said before, I'm not a paleontological taxonomist, I'm a dumbass who's only real expertise is in the entirely useless and obscure field of theoretical math 
So I'll leave that stuff up to y'all
Theoretical math scares me
Math in general actually
Theoretical math is even scarier because it gives me the power to prove that the entire field of math is wrong using said field of math, creating a paradox in the foundational logic of our universe, and what does that mean in practicality??
Nothing, it means nothing, math works well enough
I thought that was a cross at first, which, fair
jesus did say division was an construction of the devil
Somehow there's even a debate in theoretical math that's more controversial than the spinosaurus debate, which the cross reminded me of
All I can think of is that video title I saw saying “Using math to prove speeding doesn’t get you there sooner” or something and idk if I wanna go looking it up to actually watch it
Oh yeah no if you want even worse, recently there was a proof released that 1+1=3
And if you want even worse, there's the postulation about the impossibility of differentiating between true random over a large enough timescale and an intelligent creator, that one is particular complex, painful and controversial
It is 3am and I haven’t slept for more than like 10 hours over the course of 4 days (6 of them last night)
Please don’t do this to me
Actually no, please tell me on that last one (DMs cause I assume the slow mode will be your cause of death if you try here)
Idk why but people really can't see religious and non religious as anything other than an us vs them half the time, both are good! Religion makes people happy, let people live good lord
Yeah sure if you want
love Thai roommate and all that
Because they are thought to have weak bites but a skull that can withstand great forces laterally phorusrhacids get the allo treatment of battle axe attack which I disagree with. Some also claim that they only hunt small prey, this is possible but I think it's unlikely at least for larger members. There are small members however that probably do specialize is small game. Anyways my theory is that terror birds would bite at the vulnerable arias of large prey and use their strong necks to pull out chunks of flesh. This combined with kicks from their sickle claw could bring down larger prey and makes more sense that bashing their head against a giant marsupial, at least to me
Yall would Thylacoleo be able to live in modern day Australia succesfully?
there’s still a lot of kangaroos and emus and stuff to hunt In some places I’m pretty sure
the only thing it would have real competition with would be dingo's so i'd say it would be able to survive fairly comfortably
i heard there's new species of pterosaurus this year. i think it was febuary or march this year it was discover in german in europe
If dinosaurs were still alive today, what do you think zoologists would have named them? (Ex. Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus likely being called Dwarf Tyrannosaurus or False Tyrannosaurus today, fitting more into the naming themes of modern day animals.)
You mean non avian dinosaurs
so as zoologist we call them as "non-avian dinosaurus"
Yeah because they are non avian dinosaurs 😭
fair enough
Well I know that Dromeosaurs would be named Land Hawks
Ceratopsians would probably get called Ceratops, im basing this of modern Rhinos because zoologists shortened their names from Rhinoceros to Rhino and Ceratopsians are really close with rhinos niche wise so yeah
(Triceratops is really close niche wise not everh ceratopsians)
Megaraptors would probably get called "killer hawks/eagles/vultures"
On the contrary, I would exclude things that already got common names pretty much. After all, I think it would be very easy for the dromaeosaurs to get the name "raptor" attached to them as a whole
I genuinely do not think we should ever think about common names because they will always come out sounding stupid, long-winded, useless, or all 3
that and there are plenty of animals that don’t wind up with a common name, I wouldn’t be surprised if dinosaurs just kept their binomial names with slight variation (like how PhP did hoffmanns mosasaur)
me trying to remember the scientific name of Boa constrictor
The western lowland gorilla…
That's the prehistoric kangaroo guy right
no thats procoptodon, thylacoleo is this guy
I'd say dinosaur common names would be 1/3 edits of scientific names, 1/3 words in the native language of wherever they existed, and 1/3 completely stupid things
Hesperosaurus mjosi aka the Western Throngler
Not to be confused with Stegosaurus, the Greater Western Throngler
Very true
irregular thagomite
Irregular thagomite would be that one stegosaur that had 8 spikes (chungking?)
peloroplites, the diabolical ironclad throngler
Petition to rename "Thyreophora" to "Throngler"
Apex predator of the las hoyas... the pepito
Wait no, its name is actually Pepito
I thought you were a genius by knowing the specimen nickname off the top of your head
Imagine being named Matilda after that becomes Diamantinasaurus's common name
What's the latest surviving stegosaurid?
A herd of Matildas 
And I think it's some Asian taxa?
Australia's largest dinosaur... the stephanie
Normalize making the most oatmeal of names dinosaur common names
i wish i was named banjo
Dinosaur named beg
Dravidosaurus or the Lameta trackways
wait, do you mean latest as in oldest or latest as in most recent
Where's that? ( Oldest surviving )
The last stegosaur isnt a taxa. It’s trackways from India.
nvm ignore what i said then
Imo we should ignore trackways
as a way to diagnose fauna
It is if you exclude trackways which is why i said both
Is there any sort of evidence for what Spinosaur ontogeny was like?
What's ontogeny
Growing/life cycle
We don’t. Cau had some funny things to say about Scipionyx being a baby spinosaur but that needs to be validated.
there are some dumb reffered specimens aka MSNM V6894, but i do not think it is known from enough
The Spinosaur grows with a fully developed sail
Is nedocerstops valid?
Thought it was megalosaur, not spinosaur? And people extrapolated that onto spinosaurs since they're possibly derived megalosaurs
Cau placed it closer to Spinosaurus than to Megalosaurus, which technically makes it a spinosaurid. But he also put Wiehenvenator in that position so everybody ignores it
its something thats for sure!
True!!!!!!!!
Hmm alright, so it could be used for both? (to Random)
I'd use Sciurumimus or Juravenator for baby megalosaurs personally. Scip has allosaur vibes
So for spinosaurs, use baby crocs 
The feathered Spinosaur…
Wuh
Probaby a reference to the fact all(?) of the listed possible babies have feathers preserved
No I was reacting to the "use baby crocs"
Ooh
Oh
T'was not a serious suggestion
I'm not that dumb
Why is my internet so bad I am literally in the middle of the city
I sent that message 50 seconds ago
Punishing you for your downsizes
Karma gets everyone eventually
Why would you punish such valorous actions
It was not by my hand
downsizing everything but peloroplites which we somehow managed to make bigger
Sounds like some Sinosauropteryx is baby yutyrannus level silly 
Ah ok
https://theropoddatabase.com/Phylogeny of Taxa.html how reliable is this website for Theropod Phylogeny? I has a lot of dubious, probably invalid taxa listed, like a bunch of Allosaurus and Megalosaurus wastebasket species, and it lists Megaraptora as a sister clade to Tyrannosauroidea, when I think the most recent analysis, Naish and Cau (2022), found them to fall under Tyrannosauroidea as a branch that diverged around the same time as Proceratosauridae.
TLDR: It seems to be somewhat partisan, and potentially outdated, but I am not sure if it makes it unreliable since dinosaur phylogeny changes every week.
It's the best source there is for theropod phylogeny
Megaraptorans fall on opposite sides of the tree once every week, so their position in a particular paper really doesn't matter
megaraptora isn't exactly the most stable clade and the wastebasket species are distinctly all effectively incertae sedis
the only really somewhat esoteric thing on TD is prolly the number of post-turonian carchs it lists
True, can't wait for Megaraptora to fall into Ornithomimosauria tomorrow, and then Caenagnathidae next week.
Also, just now noticed the oddly high amount of Carcharodontosaurids on it, never knew that "Osteoporosia gigantea" was a thing. Poor thing, probably went extinct because of how frail its bones were.
Enantiornithes is totally unresolved on TD and it’s incredible
It takes up like a third of the page it's beautiful
Saying any sentence that implies megaraptors are anywhere outside of tyrannosauroidea should be a federal crime for purely aesthetic reasons
Show some of these unaesthetic designs, I've never seen them
Like this design is p good
My god, Tyrannosauroid Megaraptoran Gualicho is absolutely cursed. (The small brown one with tiny arms)
Off-brand Alioramus
Wait is the recon given small arms because it had small arms or because it’s being reconstructed as a Tyrannosauroid?
Because if it’s the second option that is both silly and goofy 😔
All his art from that era is good so that’s unfair
and one sec I’ll dig some up if I can
It had big-ish two-fingered claws and really tiny arms, like a Tyrannosauroid, but probably evolved them independantly since it diverged before Tyrannosaurids super-reduced their forelimbs.
Basically a cross between a Dryptosaurus and a Australovenator, if it was a Megaraptoran and a Tyrannosauroid, since it's also all over the place
Rey really dropped off, it's painful
Oh my god, it's him. It's the real Gualicho.
First two
third 
3rd one is awesome
Most Megaraptors give the vibe that they’ll steal your wallet. That guy though….hes too goofy for that
Every Megaraptor design has its charm, except the one that's a carcharodontosaur with long arms. That one is cringe
Those are the worst ones. This makes me want to jump.
Indominus rex but accurate!!
Look at its tiny neck vertebrae trying to support that ginormous skull
Bro's head will fall off
wasn't Scipionyx said to be a carcharodontosaurid juvenile?
That was what Cau initially said (or I think carnosaur in general?) but the most recent tree he did said spinosaur
Gives the same vibes as the “carno mount”in the line at disneys dinosaur ride that has the body of a tyrannosaurus and the head and arms of a carno
Lmao yeah i saw that
I was like ten and saw that carno and thought “hmm….those legs look weird”. I was later vindicated 💀
The mighty Maip
The goodest boy
wait what happened with rey? been a while since i heard anything about him
Before
Slowmode is agony, one sec
what horrors am I about to witness
And nowadays
that hurts my soul, the old art is so iconic
those newer two aren’t even high quality what was bro thinking
It's the art equivalent of your muscles degenerating if you lie in bed for 2 years
Rey started photobashing and slowly lost his ability to make things look good
It looks like old cartoons that tried integrating CGI. (Also I’ll be getting some of his art books today from the olden days)
I actulaly drew something like that
his style kind of defined that whole era of paleoart it really is a shame
ong
The fall off has to be studied.
The 2nd is one of my favorites of his
Fun fact, the croc attacking the Suchomimus in that second piece is not Sarcosuchus
Rey just made up a 15 m Mesozoic crocodile that ate dinosaurs, because he could
Always thought it looked oddly alligatoroid. Eh can’t fault him. Big croco cool
yeah yk what I though so too
Rey manifests a new Mesozoic crocodilian
It’s old rey art. He had the power to manifest animals back in the day before he fell off
Hello, I would like to know how do I get the game on PC version. I already have it 100% on my phone but now I'd like to move it to my laptop. 'Cause I can't play on my phone anymore
Would there be any way to transfer my data to the computer version? Or I'll have to keep playing only on mobile
You shouldn't ask this here, probably in #path-of-titans
Always Paleo-chat how the hell
Why do people always ask stuff like that in paleo chat
OK thanks
Can't wait for Megaraptora to end up being late surviving anapsids
group named "no fenestrae"
look inside
several fenestrae
Turtles (which were part of anapsida) are diapsids, but there are also parts of anapsida that are outside diapsida
Classic polyphyletic grouping
can’t wait for a stegosaur toe bone to be found in early cenozoic deposits
Wait until you hear about the possible Triassic stegosaur femur (or was it dermal plate..)
It’s highly unlikely and was refuted quite a few times but still funny
Wait until you hear about me being found in the Jurassic
Send them to the Morrison formation IMMEDIATELY
Could livyatan reach 26 meters at its full potential? And is primordial tyrants trex accurate?
We only have one proper livyatan specimen, and it's 16 meters max. PT is also accurate with its prehistoric creatures in basically all instances yes.
do not follow their size chart though, that has issues
I mean it was though that trex was only 10 tons but some speculation on the max size is 30,000 pounds or a little higher like 35,000
So Livy could be much bigger than we thought. If sperm whales can reach 25 meters at max livy can most likely be the same
We don't know either of those things. The "rex is bigger" paper didn't actually mean anything. It was basically just a thought excersize that was given its own paper for some reason. These claims aren't valid without proper evidence.
I mean I still believe in it tbh cause who knows but I still think Livyatan could reach 26 meters at it’s full potential
at that point, 20 ton spino when: part 2
We don't know that end of story. Livyatan wasn't just a sperm whale but big teeth. It was its own species with its own ecology entirely different from it. The sperm whale family used to be incredibly varied but in modern times we got three deep-diving specialists that don't really tell us alot about the more ancient ones.
Tbh I just want a whale that’s like a orca but is 26 meters lol maybe someone will find a whale bigger then the blue whale
A 35,000 pound rex is about 70% larger than the largest fossil we have. A 26 meter livyatan would be 330% larger. So yes it is not just unlikely but completely impossible
But perhaps if it were to be exposed to steroids 
Honestly it would be more plausible to have a 26 meter Basilosaurus, the largest specimen we have is already >21m
Also it would look super cool because big sea serpent so it must be true 
Tho a serious comment on 20t Spino:
Considering largest Spino is 8-10t(?), it’d fall into the same territory as 26m Livy, albeit a lil less. But even if largest Spino is 10t, it’d still be a 200% size increase if I did math right?
100% size increase, you discount the first 100% because ''size increase'' is excluding the tons you already had
Ah mk, I was bouncing between 100 and 200, but I played myself
Don’t matter if it’s a joke
Still should be addressed in case
maybe the spinosaurus was like the mighty edmontosaurus and nearly tripled the average size at the max
Perhaps ontogeny similar to the Tyrannosaurus…?
would that mean even shorter legs
the average spinosaurus is 3t according to maximum splitters, so a 3fold range of variation brings us to 9 tonnes 👍
this also makes the max milanospinus gigas 25t
guys is spinosaurus 135 tonnes!
Maximum splitters would say the holotype is a chimera thus meaning it might be lower
spinosaurus
anyone got a good and up to date to date rapetosaurus skeletal?
keratine ? right ? plates covered with keratin its usual and color should be matching like orange-reddish combining with purple but not to dark.
and also its the same principle of what ankylosauridae and nodosauridae were. they armor bumps are covered by keratin same with the clubs
Wait do we have evidence of quills on stegosaurs?
No
That is not a rule (it having to be a specific color)
Love how everyone just voted the thing they actually had lol
ye you're right kinda wrong to answear that
not single speciment in touch btw. but sound curse
Huh? It was a question, my guy
Bro my brain can't even process a already scary looking dinosaur with even more scary features
But quills aren't scary? If you're thinking porcupine quills, that's not what they mean
More of JP3 Raptor type quills (That's the best example I can come up with)
But Stego probably wouldn't have had them
Probably for more aesthetic purposes of that person's stego
Pretty much yeah, if done right it would probably look pretty good
guys
Wazzup
Ill give you something scary to process, taxes
How do you use the !tp command?
I see what you guys mean now, it is always paleo chat that people ask things in
Its /respawn, use #path-of-titans
If the channel was directly under #path-of-titans maybe I'd understand, but its not
This is the second time in 2 days lol
7 channels below #path-of-titans, 4 channels above #qna and in an entirely different category from the actual qna channels
How are y'all doing this
Maybe paleontologist have a secret !tp command we're not aware of
True!!! (It's how they hide the Spinosaurus and T. rex mummies)
Big paleo strikes again
Any good paleo art books on Amazon yall know of?
"All Yesterday's" is pretty great. 😁🙌 @lavish frigate
Wait isn't that made by the all tomorrows guy?
His stuff is insane, it's super unique I love his creativity lol
Yep same guys. Really love their approach. 😁
That’s one of the ones I’m thinking about getting actually. From what I’ve seen it looks beautiful
"All Yesterday's" isn't exactly a must-buy nowadays tbh since we've kinda moved on from the issues it was made to address
Hell, we might've overcorrected due to it lmao
Have any other ideas? (Preferably below like 40 bucks 💀)
The dino behavior one that idrc the name of
Proto v Velo on the cover
Who wrote it?
I don't know 
Also @deft sigil can we get this slowmode reduced please?
I found a dinosaur behavior book but it had a Tyrannosaurus stealing a trikes baba and not velo v proto 
Also the cooldown must stay in place so us paleo chatters can be suppressed! REBEL HOORAH MERCA
Yea that's it too, show me the cover
Locked in Time by Lomax is a great book, idk if it costs under $40 but I think so
Here’s a very high quality image 
HECKIN GOSH I just sent an epilepsy trigger 
If that's the book I think it is, don't get it
Art is incredible but the text is stupid, I learned nothing new from it
That's what it was
Sorry, I thought it was a regional cover thing 
Oh wait
If you're looking for specifically paleoart books, it doesn't have that many pieces (although the art it does have it top tier)
Well yeah id prefer a paleo art book. Although I might get that one if I can’t find a good paleo art book in my price range
Bro ignored you😭😭
Steve White's art books are good and not too expensive. Mesozoic Art edited by White & Naish is the most recent one
Ichthyornis can be a beautiful little bird when depicted right 
It's even more beautiful 🥹
i swear rapetosaurus was larger then this, crazy
oh, is this the juvie of rapeto?
YES
what
what
Yes, that is a juvenile Rapetosaurus
Here's the possible adult
do you think i can have that with out the majunga?
In a few minutes, need to help someone move a ladder
dont walk under the ladder
Ten orphanages just blew up the second you posted this. This is an affront to nature itself. God had no hand in this abominations creation. This is an incarnation of mans hubris manifest.
this is peak fym
i want a small, armored sauropod thats around 4 tons
Saltasaurus is 3 tons
maybe, its very SMOL
Swore it was 5t
It's very w i d e
Ok, maybe not as wide as I thought, but still wide
Did Madygenerpeton have babies that lived in water and did their babies have gills like how baby salamanders have gills as they are non amniote reptiliomorphs and didn't lay eggs that had shells and had to lay eggs in water I think?
And could Madygenerpeton breathe underwater as adults or only as babies?
Also does anyone know the size of Dromotectum?
Like how big it was in length at least and a image of it compared to a human to see if it was a big or small non amniote reptiliomorph?
But did baby Madygenerpetons actually have gills to breathe underwater as they might have laid their eggs underwater as they didn't produce eggs with shells as they are non amniote reptiliomorphs
And Could they Breathe Underwater as Adults or not
Did they have more flat paddle tails?
Or did only their babies have more flat paddleish tails?
how much did ceratosaurus and rapetosaurus weigh?
Three?
hartman's, gunnar's, and
Damn, bro doesn't even get a name mentioned 😭
hang on sec. thats rapetosaurus
first thought it was titanomachya but no 😭
how much did ceratosaurus weigh?
~1.1t
alright, any megaraptorians with good skeletals that size?
well here's good one
....maip is NOT cerato size ToT
Evil Concavenator
Murusraptor or idk Megaraptor would be around Cerato's size
what is that
how big they can get ?
like a ton
size ?
use this as you need
i wish it had a scalebar
biggest one can up to how much... okay nvm there's one
maip is the only one that brenchs barely over 3 tonnes
dang not relizing that map is rlly big compare to the rest of the member of the family.
why do you have so many ToT
bc he same it alat
Wdym
carno got picked up by maip
bro carno got rekt
Idk why they had carno with maip 😭
arent they live in different formation ?
No clearly!
being carno live in la colona and maip live in chorillo formation
so recently i made One-Eye the T-rex remake and how does it look like to y'alls ?
it's okay but the legs could be a littl beefier
I'm ngl, I am not a fan of redesigns/remakes of media dinosaurs and they're just a skeletal trace with the coloration of the original dinosaur cause it removes the identity of the design
If it is meant to be a scientific diagram, that is completely acceptable (I apologize for my constant self-plugging but it is the only art I have quickly on hand) such as:
But stuff like this is just meh to me
DAMMMMMMMMNN this is gas
Stuff like this tho is 
Your just meh to me 😃
Same, like you can make an accurateish dino which doesnt look like every skeletal in circulation
erm that's very nice to say to fellow members, buck-O
Crying!!!!
this has to be my favortie giga deisng though
i never thought i'd see a fee-fie-foe-fum-coded theropod posture
You're welcome 
Thats a jolly Mapu
Did I cook?
ye
to thin ofc. but this one is nice. i'll tried to make whenever i'll do rework. and tbf referencing is better than copy nor tracing
ok
thoughts?
They are wrong lol
Congrats on finding that because Jesus Christ
The image to the right reminds me of this ngl
