Dinosaurs: New Findings & Theories

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
961
Likes
962
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
Quite a lot of words (and adverts) before they reach the conclusion that "nobody knows".

Quite clever that they sell models of T-Rex both with and without feathers. I'm surprised they didn't mention that, if T-Rex didn't have feathers to keep himself warm, then maybe he wore clothes instead - so you'd better buy this one wearing a natty suit to be sure. Or no-one knows for sure that T-Rex didn't scoot along on a giant skate-board and wore sunglasses and a propellor-beanie....
In truth nobody does knows, time will likely tell? Papers -articles go either way with T-Rex i.e.: feathers or scales.
https://sauriangame.squarespace.com/blog/2018/9/20/tyrannosaurus-redesign-2018
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
961
Likes
962
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
The annoying adds were mentioned in the post as a heads up. I picked this for it's visualization only. Point's the jury out concerning as to whether or not many large carnosaur's such as T-Rex were covered with scales or feathers. The research is out there supporting either viewpoint.
It could prove interesting to see a 6 ton T-Rex skateboarding around as long as it was from a safe distance, regardless of it skin type.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
26,947
Likes
28,117
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Largest (and oldest) T-Rex fossil uncovered:

Paleontologists have discovered the biggest Tyrannosaurus rex fossil yet found, according to a new study. The fossil is also the largest dinosaur ever uncovered in Canada. About 66 million years ago, the fossil -- nicknamed "Scotty" -- belonged to a 42-foot-long Tyrannosaurus roaming prehistoric Saskatchewan. When researchers studied the leg bones, they found that the dinosaur probably weighed in at about 9.7 tons. That makes this Tyrannosaurus bigger than any other carnivorous dinosaur.
"This is the rex of rexes," Scott Persons, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Alberta's Department of Biological Sciences, said in a statement. "There is considerable size variability among Tyrannosaurus. Some individuals were lankier than others and some were more robust. Scotty exemplifies the robust. Take careful measurements of its legs, hips, and even shoulder, and Scotty comes out a bit heftier than other T. rex specimens."
Scotty has quite a history, and he wasn't dug out of the ground recently. Rather, the fossil was discovered in 1991, but his bones were locked in hard sandstone. It took more than a decade to remove the stone, fully assemble the fossil and study Scotty to realize how different he was from other T. rex fossils. The nickname comes from the celebratory scotch that was imbibed on the night the fossil was discovered. "Scotty is the oldest T. rex known," Persons said. "By which I mean, it would have had the most candles on its last birthday cake. You can get an idea of how old a dinosaur is by cutting into its bones and studying its growth patterns. Scotty is all old growth."

Full Article:
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/03/2...cn-trnd/index.html?r=https://edition.cnn.com/
 

Lord Lucan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
1,496
Likes
3,467
Points
154
Largest (and oldest) T-Rex fossil uncovered:

Paleontologists have discovered the biggest Tyrannosaurus rex fossil yet found, according to a new study. The fossil is also the largest dinosaur ever uncovered in Canada. About 66 million years ago, the fossil -- nicknamed "Scotty" -- belonged to a 42-foot-long Tyrannosaurus roaming prehistoric Saskatchewan. When researchers studied the leg bones, they found that the dinosaur probably weighed in at about 9.7 tons. That makes this Tyrannosaurus bigger than any other carnivorous dinosaur.
What a formidable beast this was.​
I was in the National History Museum in New York last May and they have on display one of two complete genuine (not casts) T-Rex skeletons. Here are two images which don't do it justice. Once can only begin to image just how terrifying these creatures were when alive.​
trex1.jpg
trex2.jpg
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,369
Likes
4,990
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
What a formidable beast this was.​
I was in the National History Museum in New York last May and they have on display one of two complete genuine (not casts) T-Rex skeletons. Here are two images which don't do it justice. Once can only begin to image just how terrifying these creatures were when alive.​
Nice shots!
I took this pic of an impressive theropod (not sure exactly what species) at Edinburgh museum a couple of years ago:

PSX_20190328_083555.jpg
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
961
Likes
962
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
What a formidable beast this was.​
I was in the National History Museum in New York last May and they have on display one of two complete genuine (not casts) T-Rex skeletons. Here are two images which don't do it justice. Once can only begin to image just how terrifying these creatures were when alive.​
Very nice pic's. We saw Lucy a few years back when it was on a traveling exhibit. Ya these type of skeletal - mounts have to be seen to be appreciated.
1553811038128.png
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,857
Likes
20,940
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Dino superhero.

Chinese scientists have discovered a new dinosaur species which appears to have been equipped – like Batman – with a cape that may have given it the ability to glide.

Researchers say the finding is extraordinary, representing something new in evolutionary history. The little tree-climbing dinosaur – about the size of a magpie – was equipped with a soft, smooth membrane draped over its long, strong forearms that may have looked like the wings of a bat when spread.

The 163-million-year-old fossil has been named Ambopteryx longibrachium and was found at Wubaiding village, Liaoning province, northeast China, in 2017, according to a paper published in the journal Nature on Thursday.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...could-caped-dinosaur-found-china-glide-batman
 
Last edited:

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,332
Likes
2,760
Points
154
I see that Scotty is not just the biggest T-Rex but also the oldest. Might dinosaurs have kept growing all their lives?
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
504
Likes
963
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Here is a recent talk by Dr. Thomas Holtz from the U.S. who comments on the bizarre and baseless idea of Brian Ford - aquatic dinosaurs. This is lately in the news because of Ford's fantastical idea that dinosaurs died out because the water bodies dried up leaving them "high and dry". In other words, the "sex lakes" disappeared.

And other pseudo-paleo stuff, including Beringer's stones and the implausibility of prehistoric survivors.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
36,953
Likes
23,782
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Here is a recent talk by Dr. Thomas Holtz from the U.S. who comments on the bizarre and baseless idea of Brian Ford - aquatic dinosaurs. This is lately in the news because of Ford's fantastical idea that dinosaurs died out because the water bodies dried up leaving them "high and dry". In other words, the "sex lakes" disappeared.

And other pseudo-paleo stuff, including Beringer's stones and the implausibility of prehistoric survivors.
Why is that a bizarre idea?
Some of the really huge land leviathans (e.g. Argentinosaurus and the like) would have had difficulty with walking, which suggests that they may have waded about in lakes and rivers, being buoyed up by the water.

Edit: However, I don't think that it's feasible that ALL dinosaurs were aquatic/water based.
 
Last edited:

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
504
Likes
963
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Why is that a bizarre idea?
Some of the really huge land leviathans (e.g. Argentinosaurus and the like) would have had difficulty with walking, which suggests that they may have waded about in lakes and rivers, being buoyed up by the water.

Edit: However, I don't think that it's feasible that ALL dinosaurs were aquatic/water based.
It is clear that sauropods had no difficulty walking, their remains are found away from marine and lake deposits and they ate more than water vegetation. But Ford says ALL dinosaurs. It’s absurd. He is also quite nasty and belligerent about it.

There is no evidence to support his claims. All data is against it. Yet, he persists.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
36,953
Likes
23,782
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
It is clear that sauropods had no difficulty walking, their remains are found away from marine and lake deposits and they ate more than water vegetation. But Ford says ALL dinosaurs. It’s absurd. He is also quite nasty and belligerent about it.

There is no evidence to support his claims. All data is against it. Yet, he persists.
He's a misguided fellow to persist in such a belief.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,146
Likes
1,771
Points
159
I've just had a colleague ask me why it is we suddenly seem to be finding evidence for feathered dinosaurs where previously we only seemed to find fossilised bone. I told him about archaeopteryx of course, but that was after all an early branch from the path to birds. So I thought I'd put it to you clever lot. Skin impressions also seem to be more common. So what's going on? Have our methods of excavating fossils changed. Do paleontologists have a better idea of what to look for? Is The Trickster just mixing things up to confuse us? Is it part of the continued conspiracy among scientists to discredit the True Word of God? I suggested it was to do with greater efforts to find fossils in places other than North America, and therefore from environments with more diverse circumstances in which the animals were preserved, but I can offer no evidence for that. Any thoughts?
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
961
Likes
962
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
I've just had a colleague ask me why it is we suddenly seem to be finding evidence for feathered dinosaurs where previously we only seemed to find fossilised bone. I told him about archaeopteryx of course, but that was after all an early branch from the path to birds. So I thought I'd put it to you clever lot. Skin impressions also seem to be more common. So what's going on? Have our methods of excavating fossils changed. Do paleontologists have a better idea of what to look for? Is The Trickster just mixing things up to confuse us? Is it part of the continued conspiracy among scientists to discredit the True Word of God? I suggested it was to do with greater efforts to find fossils in places other than North America, and therefore from environments with more diverse circumstances in which the animals were preserved, but I can offer no evidence for that. Any thoughts?
Presently there are considerable sites for dinosaur era fossils on nearly every continent. Many of the newer feathered specimens have come from east Asia, so lets keep digging.
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-a...ered-fossils-hint-all-dinosaurs-had-feathers/
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
504
Likes
963
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I've just had a colleague ask me why it is we suddenly seem to be finding evidence for feathered dinosaurs where previously we only seemed to find fossilised bone. I told him about archaeopteryx of course, but that was after all an early branch from the path to birds. So I thought I'd put it to you clever lot. Skin impressions also seem to be more common. So what's going on? Have our methods of excavating fossils changed. Do paleontologists have a better idea of what to look for? Is The Trickster just mixing things up to confuse us? Is it part of the continued conspiracy among scientists to discredit the True Word of God? I suggested it was to do with greater efforts to find fossils in places other than North America, and therefore from environments with more diverse circumstances in which the animals were preserved, but I can offer no evidence for that. Any thoughts?
There are a few reasons for this. First, you have to have the right sediment for deposition. It has to be fine-grained to preserve these delicate structures. Thus, lithographic limestone like Solnhoffen, indicates a non-dynamic environment and the filaments, fur, and feathers are preserved. This also happens with the Yixian Formation in Liaoning, China. When such awesome fossils are found, there tends to be a focus on collections from those sites for that reason.

Second, in the earlier days of collecting, they weren't very careful and didn't even look for soft features. I remember a story from John Ostrum, the paleontologist who pushed forward the idea of dinosaurs as birds, saying he pulled an old fossil to look for feathers that no one had previously noticed, and there they were. No one looked all that closely before. Or, they were less cautious in excavating them just for the bones.

Finally, technology helps. We now have instruments that can see melanosomes which indicate color that is preserved in a fossil. That was unimaginable decades ago.
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
961
Likes
962
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
504
Likes
963
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I just finished a book that was basically about how the public first was nuts over big mammals (like mammoths and megatherium) and it took a while for dinosaurs to take over the public interest. But when they did...

Permian reptiles had their moment before that too. Big sails and all.
 
Top