What if you could prove one personnal theory about dinosaurs....?

[Gwangi]

How dare you tease us like that. Really though, I'm sure someone may have thought it up already. have you tried searching for papers pertaining to your theory?

Nope, no body's postulated what I have in mind (hint: bird brains for dinos and lactic acid build up for the Crurotarsi). There is certainly way more to my theory, but if I go into more details it will be trouble for me. If someone knows an honest, reputable scientific publisher I would most appreciative.

Well I am by no means a scientist but I would think you would need evidence first to back up whatever claim you may have.

[Takama]

If time travel ever happens (and the puplic can afford to see the past)  i wish to prove rather or not if theropods were as savage as they were commonly exploited in the media.

Either that. Or just grab a small featherd maniraptor and take it to a local church.  nuff said

[Brontozaurus]

I'd like to see exactly what was running around Australia in the Cretaceous. Because there's all this fragmentary material that suggests that the fauna was really odd (tyrannosaurs, spinosaurs, dromaeosaurs, Koolasuchus, DICYNODONTS, etc).

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The answers are seemingly diverse as the members of the forum, wow. I feel completely outclassed and like a simpleton cause I would use my trip just to watch a herd of Brachiosaurs walking by, but for me that would be special. So lets complicate the scenario a little bit, since this has proven to be a real thought provoker.
  Along with observing for the ten minutes I determined as the original condition, suppose, you were able to return with a single photograph...ONE , 1 picture. What would it show? Pterosaurs flying? Triceratops gouging T-rex with its headware? Velociraptors pack hunting? Mine would be a self portrait with my Brachiosaurs in the background to prove I was there !!!

[andyshores]

The answers are seemingly diverse as the members of the forum, wow. I feel completely outclassed and like a simpleton cause I would use my trip just to watch a herd of Brachiosaurs walking by, but for me that would be special. So lets complicate the scenario a little bit, since this has proven to be a real thought provoker.
  Along with observing for the ten minutes I determined as the original condition, suppose, you were able to return with a single photograph...ONE , 1 picture. What would it show? Pterosaurs flying? Triceratops gouging T-rex with its headware? Velociraptors pack hunting? Mine would be a self portrait with my Brachiosaurs in the background to prove I was there !!!

It wouldn't matter, whatever photo I chose I would market the hell out of to finance further trips haha

[ZoPteryx]

I would take a real wide panorama shot with a really high quality camera, and with as many species as I could fit in it. Then when I got home, I'd crop the image to get portraits of all the different animals.

[Gwangi]

I would take a real wide panorama shot with a really high quality camera, and with as many species as I could fit in it. Then when I got home, I'd crop the image to get portraits of all the different animals.

Ditto on that!

[andyshores]

I think one of the more interesting aspects would be how many species/individuals would be present or visible at any one time in any one place.  On an African savannah you might see a ton of animals, even a number of species, but then take jaguars for instance - even where they're abundant (relatively speaking) you'll hardly ever see one.  Also consider that most dinosaurs were huge compared to modern day animals - were they more out in the open?  The whole thing is mindblowing when you really think about it

[Joel]

Well I am by no means a scientist but I would think you would need evidence first to back up whatever claim you may have.

Yep, I'm fully aware of that. My theory is based almost entirely on conjecture, and if I, a person with no scientific credentials, were to have it published, it would ultimately be ignored. The "evidence" I have is derived from the relationship between dinosaurs and birds, and it makes many assumptions. What I could do is at least propose it, and then attempt to look for more evidence to further support or disprove my theory. Of course, without living specimens, it will be next to impossible to come up with anything conclusive.

[Gwangi]

I think one of the more interesting aspects would be how many species/individuals would be present or visible at any one time in any one place.  On an African savannah you might see a ton of animals, even a number of species, but then take jaguars for instance - even where they're abundant (relatively speaking) you'll hardly ever see one.  Also consider that most dinosaurs were huge compared to modern day animals - were they more out in the open?  The whole thing is mindblowing when you really think about it

Something else to think about. Modern birds are everywhere and generally easy to spot. At any one time in my yard I can spot half a dozen species or more depending on how long I'm out there. I saw two species of mammal (squirrels and humans) and at least a dozen different birds. They are generally diurnal animals that have no issue with being out in the open. Were dinosaurs similar? They seem to have been. Would they have been just as abundant and easy to view? Mammals are descended from nocturnal creatures and many of them still are nocturnal and much more secretive than birds. We seldom see mammals out in the open (except for places like the African savanna). I think we would find dinosaurs much easier to observe than mammals.

[Gwangi]

Well I am by no means a scientist but I would think you would need evidence first to back up whatever claim you may have.

Yep, I'm fully aware of that. My theory is based almost entirely on conjecture, and if I, a person with no scientific credentials, were to have it published, it would ultimately be ignored. The "evidence" I have is derived from the relationship between dinosaurs and birds, and it makes many assumptions. What I could do is at least propose it, and then attempt to look for more evidence to further support or disprove my theory. Of course, without living specimens, it will be next to impossible to come up with anything conclusive.

Well I hope you succeed, I would be interested in knowing what you're thinking on the topic. Even if you cannot publish it yourself it might be worth sharing it with someone in the field in order to get it out there. 

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I know myself too well. The entire trip for me would be wow factor 45 squared and I would be so excited...and then while watching an Ovirapator nesting I would manage to get a finger nipped off trying to borrow an egg to compare to my own fossil raptor eggs and have to hurry back to the future for medical help . Thats how things generally go for me so....

[andyshores]

I think one of the more interesting aspects would be how many species/individuals would be present or visible at any one time in any one place.  On an African savannah you might see a ton of animals, even a number of species, but then take jaguars for instance - even where they're abundant (relatively speaking) you'll hardly ever see one.  Also consider that most dinosaurs were huge compared to modern day animals - were they more out in the open?  The whole thing is mindblowing when you really think about it

Something else to think about. Modern birds are everywhere and generally easy to spot. At any one time in my yard I can spot half a dozen species or more depending on how long I'm out there. I saw two species of mammal (squirrels and humans) and at least a dozen different birds. They are generally diurnal animals that have no issue with being out in the open. Were dinosaurs similar? They seem to have been. Would they have been just as abundant and easy to view? Mammals are descended from nocturnal creatures and many of them still are nocturnal and much more secretive than birds. We seldom see mammals out in the open (except for places like the African savanna). I think we would find dinosaurs much easier to observe than mammals.

Agreed, however... Birds can fly so its not all too risky for them to be out in the open - they can get away from most predators fairly easily/ Spot prey from above easily, so they have that luxury.  Non avian dinos would probably have to follow the average land dwelling rules more closely

[Gwangi]

I think one of the more interesting aspects would be how many species/individuals would be present or visible at any one time in any one place.  On an African savannah you might see a ton of animals, even a number of species, but then take jaguars for instance - even where they're abundant (relatively speaking) you'll hardly ever see one.  Also consider that most dinosaurs were huge compared to modern day animals - were they more out in the open?  The whole thing is mindblowing when you really think about it

Something else to think about. Modern birds are everywhere and generally easy to spot. At any one time in my yard I can spot half a dozen species or more depending on how long I'm out there. I saw two species of mammal (squirrels and humans) and at least a dozen different birds. They are generally diurnal animals that have no issue with being out in the open. Were dinosaurs similar? They seem to have been. Would they have been just as abundant and easy to view? Mammals are descended from nocturnal creatures and many of them still are nocturnal and much more secretive than birds. We seldom see mammals out in the open (except for places like the African savanna). I think we would find dinosaurs much easier to observe than mammals.

Agreed, however... Birds can fly so its not all too risky for them to be out in the open - they can get away from most predators fairly easily/ Spot prey from above easily, so they have that luxury.  Non avian dinos would probably have to follow the average land dwelling rules more closely

I don't think the diurnal tendencies of birds has to do with the ability to fly, though you make a good point. Even ground dwelling birds are mostly diurnal. Birds rule the day, few mammals are very active at this time, most are nocturnal or crepuscular. You could say it is actually safer for birds to be diurnal animals as many of the mammals that hunt them are active at night...when birds are sleeping. So the boldness of diurnal birds is actually the safer alternative. I think birds are diurnal because they evolved from diurnal animals (dinosaurs) and mammals are nocturnal because they evolved from nocturnal animals and may have had to be nocturnal to avoid diurnal dinosaurs! There is a reason most birds have awesome color vision while most mammals have poor black and white vision. There is also a reason why birds (and reptiles too who are mostly diurnal) are generally colorful while mammals are mostly drab and boring in color.

[andyshores]

I think one of the more interesting aspects would be how many species/individuals would be present or visible at any one time in any one place.  On an African savannah you might see a ton of animals, even a number of species, but then take jaguars for instance - even where they're abundant (relatively speaking) you'll hardly ever see one.  Also consider that most dinosaurs were huge compared to modern day animals - were they more out in the open?  The whole thing is mindblowing when you really think about it

Something else to think about. Modern birds are everywhere and generally easy to spot. At any one time in my yard I can spot half a dozen species or more depending on how long I'm out there. I saw two species of mammal (squirrels and humans) and at least a dozen different birds. They are generally diurnal animals that have no issue with being out in the open. Were dinosaurs similar? They seem to have been. Would they have been just as abundant and easy to view? Mammals are descended from nocturnal creatures and many of them still are nocturnal and much more secretive than birds. We seldom see mammals out in the open (except for places like the African savanna). I think we would find dinosaurs much easier to observe than mammals.

Agreed, however... Birds can fly so its not all too risky for them to be out in the open - they can get away from most predators fairly easily/ Spot prey from above easily, so they have that luxury.  Non avian dinos would probably have to follow the average land dwelling rules more closely

I don't think the diurnal tendencies of birds has to do with the ability to fly, though you make a good point. Even ground dwelling birds are mostly diurnal. Birds rule the day, few mammals are very active at this time, most are nocturnal or crepuscular. You could say it is actually safer for birds to be diurnal animals as many of the mammals that hunt them are active at night...when birds are sleeping. So the boldness of diurnal birds is actually the safer alternative. I think birds are diurnal because they evolved from diurnal animals (dinosaurs) and mammals are nocturnal because they evolved from nocturnal animals and may have had to be nocturnal to avoid diurnal dinosaurs! There is a reason most birds have awesome color vision while most mammals have poor black and white vision. There is also a reason why birds (and reptiles too who are mostly diurnal) are generally colorful while mammals are mostly drab and boring in color.

I was more speaking on the fact that the dinosaurs would be filling a different role than the birds do today.  Good point about the color vision.

[Balaur]

I would probably go back to see Predator X hunting plesiosaurs in the Jurassic Arctic. Also probably go see some Quetzalcoatlus or Hatzegopteryx hunt on land like a stork. Now THAT would be interesting.

[Harry_the_Fox]

Hmmm, at first there is the idea of watching a T-Rex hunt to disprove Scavenger theory- but that implies there isn't already a gigantic amount of fossil evidence, zoological evidence, anatomical inconsistencies and plain logic that already does that

I would actually travel to the Triassic for the purpose of seeing whether dinosaurs (and other tetrapods) had acquired feathers, hair, etc; as this would certainly be a fascinating insight into how 'early' such things might have occurred, and also be rather solid evidence that consequent evolved species came from hairy/feathery animals, or not (putting aside that they'd "devolve" their coat off later to suit a new climate, it could potentially create new kinds of evolutionary mapping for scientists too)