Top favourite prehistoric animals

[DinoToyForum]

Please treat each other with respect. It's easy to be kind if you choose to be.

[suspsy]

Which you then used to try and claim—incorrectly—-that the tyrannosauroids are more closely related to allosauroids than to birds.

No I didn't.

You did indeed:

Also, I wasn't sure of it at the time, but I don't think Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to modern birds than to e.g. Giganotosaurus.  Allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are relatively closely related, Gregory Paul even says this in the aforementioned field guide, and the amount of changes between Tyrannosaurus and modern birds is greater than between Tyrannosaurus and allosauroids.

And can you please stop with the passive-agressive comments?

Pointing out that you are in error is not passive aggressive.

It's in the entry for Neovenator.  Perhaps it's an erroneus conclusion though, if it hinges on Neovenator.

It is indeed an erroneous conclusion on your part because the entry for Neovenator on page 149 says absolutely nothing of the sort.

What is actually stated on page 149, under the heading of "Tyrannosauroids," is that they may share a close common ancestor with allosauroids. But that does NOT mean that the former were more closely related to the latter than to birds. Indeed, directly above the heading "Tyrannosauroids" is another heading which reads "Coelurosaurs," and it describes them as "Small to gigantic predatory and herbivorous avetheropods of the Middle Jurassic to the modern era, all continents."

Paul is referring to birds with that bit about the modern era. Tyrannosauroids are indeed more closely related to birds than allosauroids, and Paul himself would tell you that.

[DinoToyForum]

Pointing out that you are in error is not passive aggressive.

It is if you point it out in a passive aggressive way. You might not intend it, but your posts are often brusk in a way that comes off as disrespectful to other members. Do you mean to come off that way? Is your intention to upset people? I don't think it is, so maybe it's something you could consider working on improving? For example, you could easily have cut out the 'shouty' bold all caps from your last post and your point would be just as well made. 

[Gwangi]

I'm sorry that my previous response upset you but it felt like you came at me with a "well actually" attitude that generally rubs me the wrong way. Like you just wanted to be a thorn in my side while I defended Tyrannosaurus.

Thanks!  I didn't mean to upset you.  It might be relevant that because I have autism, I tend to be direct in what I say and possibly am a bit too concerned with details...  This isn't an excuse, just an explanation.

With regards to the relationships of coelurosaurs, thanks for the correction!  I'm not sure what to think about it really, tyrannosauroids and allosauroids share a direct ancestor, while tyrannosauroids and birds don't.  Tyrannosauroids are very close to allosauroids in a cladogram and not as close to birds.  I guess I might have been interpreting it wrongly?

Allow me to share some cladograms. Notice on the one below that Coelurosauria and Carnosauria share a common ancestor where the line diverges into each separate clade. Allosauroids are in the Carnosauria clade, they are not coelurosaurs. This cladogram doesn't show it but tyrannosaurs are within the coelurosaur clade. So are birds.



Here is the coelurosaur cladogram. Again, notice that Carnosauria (and thus, allosauroids) are outside of Coelurosauria.



See where tyrannosaurs are? See where Eumaniraptora are? The two groups share a more recent common ancestor than tyrannosaurs do with allosauroids. Tyrannosaurs are more closely related to birds than they are to allosauroids. Looking at the other coelurosaur groups will also illustrate just how unusual tyrannosaurs are when looking at coelurosaurs broadly. Tyrannosaurs are weird! Any resemblance they have to other apex predatory theropods is the result of convergent evolution.



 

[andrewsaurus rex]

"Tyrannosaurs are weird! Any resemblance they have to other apex predatory theropods is the result of convergent evolution."

That's very interesting.  I never realized that.

[suspsy]

Pointing out that you are in error is not passive aggressive.

It is if you point it out in a passive aggressive way. You might not intend it, but your posts are often brusk in a way that comes off as disrespectful to other members. Do you mean to come off that way? Is your intention to upset people? I don't think it is, so maybe it's something you could consider working on improving? For example, you could easily have cut out the 'shouty' bold all caps from your last post and your point would be just as well made. 

Boldface is regularly used by many people for emphasis, and so is all caps (and in this case, it was only used for one word). It does not necessarily imply "shouting." Indeed, the descriptor of coelurosaurs that I quoted from Paul's field guide is printed entirely in boldface and all caps. Would I have been in trouble if I had written all of it in the exact same fashion?

[DinoToyForum]

Pointing out that you are in error is not passive aggressive.

It is if you point it out in a passive aggressive way. You might not intend it, but your posts are often brusk in a way that comes off as disrespectful to other members. Do you mean to come off that way? Is your intention to upset people? I don't think it is, so maybe it's something you could consider working on improving? For example, you could easily have cut out the 'shouty' bold all caps from your last post and your point would be just as well made. 

Boldface is regularly used by many people for emphasis, and so is all caps (and in this case, it was only used for one word). It does not necessarily imply "shouting." Indeed, the descriptor of coelurosaurs that I quoted from Paul's field guide is printed entirely in boldface and all caps. Would I have been in trouble if I had written all of it in the exact same fashion?

I know you enjoy a good argument, that's fine, but this isn't a debate to be won. This is about how your posts make others feel and whether you care or not.

You're not "in trouble" either way but my questions were not rhetorical so if you'd be willing to give them some consideration I'd welcome some answers. Like I said, you might not intend it, but your posts are often brusk in a way that comes off as disrespectful to other members.

So, to reiterate, do you mean to come off as disrespectful? Do you care if you upset other people? And is your forum manner something you'd consider working on improving or not?

This isn't an argument, it's a constructive conversation about making the forum a friendlier place, so hopefully some introspection isn't out of the question. I'm speaking here with my moderator hat on.

[suspsy]

I don't intend to be disrespectful, no, but I've yet to see a convincing case as to why you think that. You've already brought up the use of boldface and caps and I addressed that by pointing out that both are common methods of emphasis. If I'd written everything in all caps and included exclamation points after every sentence, then yes, that's definitely "shouting," but that's not what happened here.

You also accused me of being passive-aggressive without really clarifying. Stating that someone is in error and then explaining precisely why is the opposite of passive-aggressive. It's honest and direct, but it's not mean, no more so than pointing out to someone that they got the answer to a math word problem incorrect and then explaining precisely how they made the error.

So again, my answer to you is that no, I don't intend to be mean to anyone, but I also don't see how anything I wrote last night is mean.

[danmalcolm]

I'm like 90% lurker 10% poster but FWIW suspsy I often see your comments and think to myself that they're much more disrespectful than they need to be. 

[andrewsaurus rex]

i don't believe suspsy means to be disrespectful.  But many of his posts, when commenting on what someone else has said, have an in your face "i'm right and you're totally wrong" vibe. 

[DinoToyForum]

Let's please not pile on Suspsy, the point has been well made. I'm busy now but will reply properly later.

[Sim]

You did indeed:

Also, I wasn't sure of it at the time, but I don't think Tyrannosaurus is more closely related to modern birds than to e.g. Giganotosaurus.  Allosauroids and tyrannosauroids are relatively closely related, Gregory Paul even says this in the aforementioned field guide, and the amount of changes between Tyrannosaurus and modern birds is greater than between Tyrannosaurus and allosauroids.

Firstly, I know what I said!  It's extremely weird that you keep trying to make it seem like I said something different!  The bolded part is what I said about Paul, and it's true!  Paul says, "That researchers have disagreed whether this is a basal tyrannosauroid or an allosauroid reinforces the two groups' close relationship."  He might be wrong about this, since it's not Neovenator that has had its identity debated, but this has been the case for a number of theropods, most notably the megaraptorans, so the point about the two groups being closely related is not without support.

Pointing out that you are in error is not passive aggressive.

As others have described, it's the way you say it.  When I receive the brunt of something you say, I feel like you're treating me as someone that deserves your cruelty.

It is indeed an erroneous conclusion on your part because the entry for Neovenator on page 149 says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Are you looking at the field guide to predatory dinosaurs?  What I said is from the third edition of the field guide to dinosaurs, on page 117.  I specified I was referring to the dinosaurs (as opposed to predatory dinosaurs) guide.

[Protopatch]

Hi everyone 
In my humble opinion, it's such a pity to see that this cool thread is going into a rather bitter lollipop ?
May our love for dinosaurs get over it
Take care.

[SidB]

Hi everyone 
In my humble opinion, it's such a pity to see that this cool thread is going into a rather bitter lollipop ?
May our love for dinosaurs get over it
Take care.

Yes, it would be good and timely for it to end. One doesn't need to succumb to the need to have the last word on the subject.

[DinoToyForum]

Let's please not pile on Suspsy, the point has been well made. I'm busy now but will reply properly later.

Suspsy and I have moved this conversation to private.

[Halichoeres]

As always, my favorite creature is whichever one I just finished reading about.

[Sim]

Currently my favourite prehistoric animals are as follows:

1. Velociraptor mongoliensis
2. Rhamphorhynchus muensteri
3. Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis
4. Saurornithoides mongoliensis
5. Thalassomedon haningtoni
6. Buitreraptor gonzalezorum
7. Baryonyx walkeri
8. Stegosaurus stenops
9. Sinornithosaurus millenii
10. Deinonychus antirrhopus
11. Linheraptor exquisitus
12. Suchomimus tenerensis
13. Utahraptor ostrommaysi
14. Paracyclotosaurus davidi
15. Dakosaurus maximus
16. Dromaeosaurus albertensis
17. Torvosaurus tanneri
18. Dilophosaurus wetherilli
19. Thalattosuchus superciliosus
20. Cryolophosaurus ellioti
21. Scaphognathus crassirostris
22. Eoraptor lunensis
23. Kentrosaurus aethiopicus
24. Tanystropheus longobardicus
25. Basilosaurus cetoides
26. Ambulocetus natans
27. Scutellosaurus lawleri
28. Coelophysis bauri
29. Cyclotosaurus robustus
30. Eudimorphodon ranzii

The first 11 will probably never change..  As for the new additions:
I find Cyclotosaurus and Paracyclotosaurus so cool!  Additionally, the museum in my city has a skeleton of Paracyclotosaurus which has impressed me with its form and size!
Thalattosuchus is a species that was originally in Metriorhynchus and I've read it's sometimes still considered a species within that genus.  Regardless of which genus it's in, I like superciliosus as it's the classic metriorhynchid I've known since I was little!
Tanystropheus has been a favourite of mine since I was little, but I was left shocked by the radical revision of this genus a few years ago.  The Tanystropheus I knew had the size of the larger species and the head of the smaller species.  It's taken me a long time to come to terms with the revision of Tanystropheus and I've concluded the one that is among my favourite prehistoric animals is the smaller species, T. longobardicus.  I find it such an interesting animal!  It's also from Italy, which is what I have descent from.  So I can relate to it through that!
I find Basilosaurus and Ambulocetus fascinating!

[Concavenator]

Behold the updated version of my favorite prehistoric animals list:

1. Allosaurus jimmadseni
2. Deinonychus antirrhopus
3. Yutyrannus huali
4. Apatosaurus louisae
5. Diplodocus carnegii
6. Suchomimus tenerensis
7. Styracosaurus albertensis
8. Concavenator corcovatus
9. Mosasaurus hoffmannii
10. Dilophosaurus wetherilli
11. Quetzalcoatlus lawsoni
12. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
13. Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis
14. Kentrosaurus aethiopicus
15. Amargasaurus cazaui

It is a shorther list than my previous one, as last time I listed too many species. Of course, I still really like those other species, but I wouldn't necessarily call those "favorites". This list is pretty similar to my previous ones, I just added Spinosaurus and made some other minor adjustments.