DS Forums

 
 

The Palaeontology thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-08-2014, 15:53
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
Two very interesting articles on the history of ceratopsian (horned dinosaur) forelimb posture reconstructions.

Specifically on the skeletal mounts of Triceratops through the decades.

http://dinosours.wordpress.com/2014/...roblem-part-1/

http://dinosours.wordpress.com/2014/...roblem-part-2/
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-08-2014, 00:53
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
A very nice article by Mark Witton on the giant azhdarchid pterosaurs from last year and a few interesting recent news stories.

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk...out-giant.html

http://www.livescience.com/47426-too...rld-skies.html

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31212843&nid...=latest_videos

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2014/a...evolution.html

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....cs-in-the-sea/

http://www.livescience.com/47464-jur...sect-diet.html
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2014, 00:31
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
A few articles that may be of interest including two on the smallest dinosaurs of them all - the hummingbirds - a truly gigantic fossil frog (in Spanish so use translate if the link has not already been) and cute little Scleromochlus taylori

http://www.latercera.com/noticia/ten...-de-anos.shtml

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-humming...sweetness.html

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....ste-sweetness/

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk...than-just.html
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-08-2014, 20:24
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
A lovely little 2012 animation workshop video by Benett Kim about Carnotaurus and the hazards of its tiny forelimbs (not exactly anatomically accurate digit-wise but never mind).

It's really hilarious - the poor sod!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfk8tkh5uKA
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2014, 00:52
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
A very interesting little article on how our fishy ancestors may have learned to walk.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....ns-baby-steps/
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-08-2014, 08:38
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
More on the possible way our stem-tetrapod ancestors (although I prefer the term fishapod lol) may have learned to survive on land - with great video and a podcast.

http://www.nature.com/news/how-fish-...o-walk-1.15778

Babysitting dinosaur (Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis) discovered - how cute is that?.

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/p...ung-babysitter

Finally more Acrocanthosaurus and Sauroposeidon tracks that have been discovered in Texas (with a photo gallery).

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ty-5716070.php
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 01:34
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
An informative little article on how the giant 'Whorl-tooth' ratfish - (the Helicoprion genus) - actually used their remarkable dental apparatus.

This had been a mystery for many decades - but scientific investigation can solve even the greatest of puzzles given time.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....-buzzsaw-jaws/
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 09:55
Shrike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,475
New paper been published on
Dreadnaughtus schrani

85 foot long and 65 tonnes - and this particular specimen wasn't even full grown!

A more full on report for real paleo buffs -
Nature.com
Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 10:13
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
New paper been published on
Dreadnaughtus schrani

85 foot long and 65 tonnes - and this particular specimen wasn't even full grown!

A more full on report for real paleo buffs -
Nature.com
Shoot! I thought I was so clever finding this yesterday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/d...Argentina.html

New dinosaur seven times bigger than T. rex discovered in Argentina
Dreadnoughtus schrani was the size of seven Tyrannosaurus Rex and would have been utterly untroubled by predators, say experts
Nearly the length of a 737.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 20:32
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
Shoot! I thought I was so clever finding this yesterday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/d...Argentina.html

Nearly the length of a 737.
You both beat me to it.

Thank you Shrike the nature paper is superb.

And I love the name - most dinosaur names recently have been so unimaginative and dull - unlike the actual animals themselves.

Lots more to come on this beast - it is very interesting though how sauropods were so incredibly light for their size - perfect structural engineering meant that they were probably about as light as any animal could possible be at such a scale - with hollow but remarkably strong bones and avian air sacs amongst many other adaptations (and no puny land mammal has ever approached their size of course).

This is why (for example) mass estimations have been halved for such well known species such as Giraffatitan and Brachiosaurus from 80 tons to around 40 (although it still varies depending on who you ask).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/sc...very.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ughtus-schrani

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29050114

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-of-a-giant/
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 20:45
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
You both beat me to it.

Thank you Shrike the nature paper is superb.

And I love the name - most dinosaur names recently have been so unimaginative and dull - unlike the actual animals themselves.

Lots more to come on this beast - it is very interesting though how sauropods were so incredibly light for their size - perfect structural engineering meant that they were probably about as light as any animal could possible be at such a scale - with hollow but remarkably strong bones and avian air sacs amongst many other adaptations (and no puny land mammal has ever approached their size of course).

This is why (for example) mass estimations have been halved for such well known species such as Giraffatitan and Brachiosaurus from 80 tons to around 40 (although it still varies depending on who you ask).

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/sc...very.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ughtus-schrani

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29050114

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...en-of-a-giant/
H ha ha beat you to something. Probably a stupid question but why did sauropods have avian skeletons and air sacs?
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 21:07
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
H ha ha beat you to something. Probably a stupid question but why did sauropods have avian skeletons and air sacs?
Avian air sacs and lungs - a far superior way of breathing to mammalian systems (bit busy at the moment but there is plenty about it on the web) and their skeletons were hollow with structural adaptations to make them incredibly strong but very light.

The best site on sauropods on the net is -

http://svpow.com/

Pneumaticity is extensively covered in the articles in this section.

http://svpow.com/category/pneumaticity/

Any question you want to ask will be answered - just scroll down and look on the right hand side for the subsections on size, necks, life restorations, mounts, museums, stinkin' mammals, () etc, etc.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2014, 09:11
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
A few more thoughts on Dreadnoughtus.

Almost all the largest dinosaur specimens were not fully grown at the time of death but the unfused bones of this great beast suggest it was younger than most. So I would be confident that a fully grown adult would probably exceed 30 metres in length although this is just a pure guess.

That will have to wait for the real experts.

Anyway a fully grown adult would be in the same ballpark as the other supermassive titanosaurs (Argentinosaurus, Puertasaurus, Alamosaurus etc) and it will also be interesting to see how the truly enormous titanosaur discovered earlier this year scales up when is it finally described.

It is the completeness of this animal which is so unique - and it will tell us an awful lot about the biomechanics of such gigantic dinosaurs.

Anyway here is a nice little video and below it the first brief comments on Dreadnoughtus from SVPOW. The discussion below it should prove very interesting once it gets going.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoTwDfXZ6c

http://svpow.com/2014/09/05/brief-th...dreadnoughtus/
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2014, 11:21
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
Avian air sacs and lungs - a far superior way of breathing to mammalian systems (bit busy at the moment but there is plenty about it on the web) and their skeletons were hollow with structural adaptations to make them incredibly strong but very light.

The best site on sauropods on the net is -

http://svpow.com/

Pneumaticity is extensively covered in the articles in this section.

http://svpow.com/category/pneumaticity/

Any question you want to ask will be answered - just scroll down and look on the right hand side for the subsections on size, necks, life restorations, mounts, museums, stinkin' mammals, () etc, etc.
Did any other mammals have avian skeletons?
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2014, 11:28
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
Did any other mammals have avian skeletons?
No avian means bird and dinosaurs were (and are) Diapsids - mammals are Synapsids they split well over 300 million years ago so are not closely related.

The 'stinkin mammals' is a bit off a joke section in SVPOW in there where us mammals are taken the piss out of for being so puny.

Mammalian skeletons are not nearly as efficient for dealing with weight as dinosaurs were.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2014, 12:16
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
No avian means bird and dinosaurs were (and are) Diapsids - mammals are Synapsids they split well over 300 million years ago so are not closely related.

The 'stinkin mammals' is a bit off a joke section in SVPOW in there where us mammals are taken the piss out of for being so puny.

Mammalian skeletons are not nearly as efficient for dealing with weight as dinosaurs were.
Oh well Zoology was never my strong point, obviously. Amazing stuff. I had no idea they were Diapsids, just thought they were mammals.So they had mammal and avian construction? Or not. Any fish bits in there?
Which other creatures apart from birds have hollow bones? I also now know about the airflow system of birds so all is not lost!
Go on shoot me!
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2014, 12:27
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
Oh well Zoology was never my strong point, obviously. Amazing stuff. I had no idea they were Diapsids, just thought they were mammals.So they had mammal and avian construction? Or not. Any fish bits in there?

Go on shoot me!
Nothing to do with us smelly little mammals - what a slur on the beasts!



Dinosaurs are reptiles Ann although with cladistics and phylogenetic analysis 'reptile' like 'fish' are outdated terms.

Birds, dinosaurs and crocodilians are Archosaurs, and snakes and lizards are Lepidosaurs for what it's worth (turtles no one is really sure about yet).

But I will shut up before this thread gets too bogged down.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2014, 18:22
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
Nothing to do with us smelly little mammals - what a slur on the beasts!



Dinosaurs are reptiles Ann although with cladistics and phylogenetic analysis 'reptile' like 'fish' are outdated terms.

Birds, dinosaurs and crocodilians are Archosaurs, and snakes and lizards are Lepidosaurs for what it's worth (turtles no one is really sure about yet).

But I will shut up before this thread gets too bogged down.
OOPS. Okaaaaaaay, just proved again I know nowt about, just as I said
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 16:53
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
Nothing to do with us smelly little mammals - what a slur on the beasts!



Dinosaurs are reptiles Ann although with cladistics and phylogenetic analysis 'reptile' like 'fish' are outdated terms.

Birds, dinosaurs and crocodilians are Archosaurs, and snakes and lizards are Lepidosaurs for what it's worth (turtles no one is really sure about yet).

But I will shut up before this thread gets too bogged down.
One of the unfortunate things is that organic matter such as genetic material, proteins, etc. does not survive that long in intact form and, for example, comparative DNA analyses cannot be used to determine the evolutionary tree of dinosaurs or other long extinct creatures. It's instead down to morphology, radiometric dating, rock strata type and location and so on to try to determine the relationships between the different dinosaurs, pterosaurs, ichthyopterygians, etc.
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 18:56
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
One of the unfortunate things is that organic matter such as genetic material, proteins, etc. does not survive that long in intact form and, for example, comparative DNA analyses cannot be used to determine the evolutionary tree of dinosaurs or other long extinct creatures. It's instead down to morphology, radiometric dating, rock strata type and location and so on to try to determine the relationships between the different dinosaurs, pterosaurs, ichthyopterygians, etc.
Incredibly Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue has been found and Horizon did an excellent documentary on this remarkable discovery not so long ago. In the future as scientific techniques improve I expect us to uncover far more as well and from many different species.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039grrx

And here is the full programme for anybody who is interested.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1x...013_shortfilms

'Creationists' please do not spout any of your bullshit about it either - look at the science behind this astonishing event before going on and on about your bronze-age fantasy book.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 22:43
TelevisionUser
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Storbritannia
Posts: 28,916
Incredibly Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue has been found and Horizon did an excellent documentary on this remarkable discovery not so long ago. In the future as scientific techniques improve I expect us to uncover far more as well and from many different species.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039grrx

And here is the full programme for anybody who is interested.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1x...013_shortfilms

'Creationists' please do not spout any of your bullshit about it either - look at the science behind this astonishing event before going on and on about your bronze-age fantasy book.
One of the interesting things about that case is the particular and specific preservation circumstances which might make similar finds somewhat rare, unfortunately (although I hope otherwise). There is the hint of the presence of degraded nucleic acids but not in any way in good enough condition for testing of any sort (let alone a Jurassic Park scenario) and that's a pity because DNA testing has been invaluable in, for example, shedding light on humans' evolutionary relationship with the great apes (Bonobo is my cousin!) .

The necessity of DNA for determining the classification and relationships of creatures to each other is shown by the recent discovery of some 'living fossils' previously unknown to science but, apparently, the storage solution made the specimens unsuitable for molecular analysis - doh!

“Two species are recognized and current evidence suggests that they represent an early branch on the tree of life, with similarities to the 600 million-year-old extinct Ediacara fauna.”. The Ediacara fauna (also known as the Ediacara biota) consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped organisms that were mostly immobile, living their lives attached to something, on par with today’s barnacles on boats. They lived during the Ediacaran Period from around 635–542 million years ago.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/ne...rner+user+view
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0102976

PS Has this been mentioned before? http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0100005
TelevisionUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2014, 23:02
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
One of the interesting things about that case is the particular and specific preservation circumstances which might make similar finds somewhat rare, unfortunately (although I hope otherwise). There is the hint of the presence of degraded nucleic acids but not in any way in good enough condition for testing of any sort (let alone a Jurassic Park scenario) and that's a pity because DNA testing has been invaluable in, for example, shedding light on humans' evolutionary relationship with the great apes (Bonobo is my cousin!) .

The necessity of DNA for determining the classification and relationships of creatures to each other is shown by the recent discovery of some 'living fossils' previously unknown to science but, apparently, the storage solution made the specimens unsuitable for molecular analysis - doh!

“Two species are recognized and current evidence suggests that they represent an early branch on the tree of life, with similarities to the 600 million-year-old extinct Ediacara fauna.”. The Ediacara fauna (also known as the Ediacara biota) consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped organisms that were mostly immobile, living their lives attached to something, on par with today’s barnacles on boats. They lived during the Ediacaran Period from around 635–542 million years ago.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/ne...rner+user+view
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0102976

PS Has this been mentioned before? http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0100005
Yes I have mentioned the pterosaur article earlier in this thread.

It's a real shame the new species cannot be compared with the enigmatic Ediacara biota though.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2014, 01:35
RobinOfLoxley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,830
Incredibly Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue has been found and Horizon did an excellent documentary on this remarkable discovery not so long ago. In the future as scientific techniques improve I expect us to uncover far more as well and from many different species.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039grrx

And here is the full programme for anybody who is interested.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1x...013_shortfilms

'Creationists' please do not spout any of your bullshit about it either - look at the science behind this astonishing event before going on and on about your bronze-age fantasy book.
Wow! Great post and links.
I haven't missed many Horizons over the years, but I did that one.
I was totally unaware that soft tissue had been found.

The positive indication of DNA is astounding, but isolating a full genome may still be impossible unless fragment re-assembly one day becomes possible (in the right order).

But hats off to Mary Schweitzer the self-described "Paleo-Housewife".

She deserves a ton of plaudits and has certainly enthralled me this evening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer
RobinOfLoxley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2014, 06:06
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
Wow! Great post and links.
I haven't missed many Horizons over the years, but I did that one.
I was totally unaware that soft tissue had been found.

The positive indication of DNA is astounding, but isolating a full genome may still be impossible unless fragment re-assembly one day becomes possible (in the right order).

But hats off to Mary Schweitzer the self-described "Paleo-Housewife".

She deserves a ton of plaudits and has certainly enthralled me this evening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schweitzer
I am really glad you enjoyed the documentary - and who knows what we may discover in the future?

I am still waiting for the new paper on Utahraptor (the largest Dromaeosaurid) to come out - it seems that it was exceptionally muscular, robust and far heavier than was previously thought.

http://ewilloughby.deviantart.com/ar...ptor-442020192

Alsp very soon there is big news on Spinosaurus according to the National Geographic - we will finally know if all the hype that it was even larger than T.rex is true - not to mention what it actually looked like (it may have had very short, stout limbs - not that surprising for a gigantic piscivore).

This really is the golden age of dinosaur discovery.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2014, 08:33
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,174
Interestingly I have just noticed the latest mass estimate for good old Brachiosaurus altithorax - 56 metric tons according to Benton et al.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001853

But it always was a heavier built animal than Giraffatitan (they were once thought to be the same).

As for Argentinosaurus they get a massive 90 metric tons, so it's still amongst the very largest dinosaurs known - although of course weight estimates still vary considerably depending on the method used.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:54.