Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses.

[wings]

I was just saying that we probably have enough samples to generalize sauropod gastroliths as polished ("generalize" being the key word).

This is your initial comment (see below):

"...It's probably no coincidence, then, that like sauropod gastroliths, moa gastroliths are polished (Again, see the Shugart quote) while ostrich gastroliths are pitted..."

To me that is a generalizing sauropod gastroliths are "polished" which is possibly not every case here (if these "Seimosaurus" gastroliths are indeed gastroliths or for the reasoning below).

I never said it was. I was just clarifying. As for Bakker's book, that was for more info about gastroliths that hypothesis #1 supporters ignore (Not saying that you're 1 of them; Just trying to be helpful).

Helpful to? I've read Bakker's but my comment was referring to your hypothesis 1 (since Wings and Sander's was mainly based on quantitative measurements so wouldn't giving some kind of measurement to support the idea be more suitable?)

I did, & it does have a point. However, other papers both cite Lucas 2000 & describe the gastroliths of Seismosaurus (among other sauropods) as having withstood "rigorous testing" (E.g. Cerda 2008: http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app53/app53-351.pdf ). It's also worth mentioning that Lucas 2000 ignores at least 1 of said sauropods.

That said Lucas thinks there could still be more definitive tests run on these stones/gastroliths as mentioned in his original paper. I'm not sure why it is worth mentioning "Lucas ignores at least one of said sauropod" though...

If you take everything from Lucas paper as some kind of definitive study then you would probably agree on the gastrolith surface would have a more "pitted" texture (which was one of Lucas reasoning).

"Onorato argue that what may actually be characteristic of gastroliths is not high polish, but instead a highly pitted and rilled surface when viewed under high magnification. Indeed, Darby and Ojakangas concluded that high polish is not distinctive of gastroliths, especially in plesiosaurs... (Lucas 2000)"

[HD-man]

To me that is a generalizing sauropod gastroliths are "polished" which is possibly not every case here (if these "Seimosaurus" gastroliths are indeed gastroliths or for the reasoning below).

You do realize that, in this context, to generalize means to make a statement "of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/general?qsrc=2446 ), right? That's what I was saying I did.

Helpful to?

Sorry, but what exactly are you asking?

That said Lucas thinks there could still be more definitive tests run on these stones/gastroliths as mentioned in his original paper.

Hence why I said that Lucas 2000 "does have a point."

I'm not sure why it is worth mentioning "Lucas ignores at least one of said sauropod" though...

B/c, as you may have noticed, a general theme of the hypotheses listed in my 1st post is that their supporters (E.g. Lucas) ignore relevant info (whether on purpose or by accident I'm not sure).

If you take everything from Lucas paper as some kind of definitive study then you would probably agree on the gastrolith surface would have a more "pitted" texture (which was one of Lucas reasoning).

In some vertebrates, yes, but generally not moas or sauropods for reasons already discussed.

[wings]

You do realize that, in this context, to generalize means to make a statement "of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/general?qsrc=2446 ), right? That's what I was saying I did.

"...It's probably no coincidence, then, that like sauropod gastroliths, moa gastroliths are polished (Again, see the Shugart quote) while ostrich gastroliths are pitted..."

If you solely reading the above comment; would you honestly say this is a general comment ? (there is just no other implications for the texture other than "smooth". It is not talking about "generally" or "commonly" but just "IS")

You do understand based on Lucas (2000); "pitted" seems to be more common right?

Sorry, but what exactly are you asking?

No need to say sorry and no one is asking for help so it's kind of redundant.

Hence why I said that Lucas 2000 "does have a point."

Right.

B/c, as you may have noticed, a general theme of the hypotheses listed in my 1st post is that their supporters (E.g. Lucas) ignore relevant info (whether on purpose or by accident I'm not sure).

How is this relevant to my comment or my issue of your comment as pointed out?

In some vertebrates, yes, but generally not moas or sauropods for reasons already discussed.

This must be based on another post since such discussion/reasoning (texture) cannot be found anywhere on this post... maybe there is a paper somewhere which has a detail description on the appearance of the moa gizzards but it wasn't here and as for the sauropods' gizzards; it seems both forms are possible for the time being(until further study is done).

I won't dwell on this anymore since this is going around in circle and I'm not into cherry picking info from one source to suit my argument. The main point is there are no documentations shown (on this thread) the differences between the texture of say an ostrich's gastrolith compare to a moa's gastrolith. You might call them "polished" but could they sometimes be smooth to touch but pitted or just being plain smooth (which is a reasonable assumption based on available/possible specimen photos) ; there is just no reference provided about the texture (from the author of this thread) prior or after the issue was raised. Are the differences in texture (if any) great enough to over turn the "ostrich" study? We are not sure until further study is done. Bakker's book does mentioned about these stones on six specimens but to be fair it is no more or less descriptive as in Gillette's.

If we get back to the point of the gizzard, all we can say is that they (sauropods) had gizzards (found in situ of some sauropod specimens) and  regardless the condition ("polishness") of these stones inside them the function of the gizzards remains the same which is to aid digestion (in mechanical break down) in sauropods.

[HD-man]

If you solely reading the above comment; would you honestly say this is a general comment ? (there is just no other implications for the texture other than "smooth". It is not talking about "generally" or "commonly" but just "IS")

You do understand based on Lucas (2000); "pitted" seems to be more common right?

Maybe this isn't obvious, but I speak in general terms unless I have to specify something. In other words, you simply misinterpreted 1 of my previous statements as being absolute. That's all there is to it.

As for gastrolith texture, all I'm saying is that, as indicated by the sources provided in this thread (including 1 of yours), both moa & sauropodomorph gastroliths are generally described as smooth/polished. That includes those of Seismosaurus (which "are all polished, but not all to the same extent, and some are waxy": http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/cup/gillette/gillette16.html ).

No need to say sorry and no one is asking for help so it's kind of redundant.

I just wasn't sure what you were asking when you said, "Helpful to?" In any case, it wasn't meant just for you, but for anyone interested in relevant info.

How is this relevant to my comment or my issue of your comment as pointed out?

You brought up Lucas 2000 (which is by a hypothesis #1 supporter) in reference to the gastrolith debate & the quality of a given source is always relevant if you're going to use it to support a given argument.

This must be based on another post since such discussion/reasoning (texture) cannot be found anywhere on this post... maybe there is a paper somewhere which has a detail description on the appearance of the moa gizzards but it wasn't here and as for the sauropods' gizzards; it seems both forms are possible for the time being(until further study is done).

I'm not sure what you're talking about, given that every related source I've provided in this thread cites the technical works from which its info came.* Even if you don't count those, a Google Books search turns up several more (I found Prodigious Birds & Magnificent Mihirungs particularly helpful).

*By "related", I mean, "related to the texture of moa &/or sauropodomorph gastroliths".

I won't dwell on this anymore since this is going around in circle and I'm not into cherry picking info from one source to suit my argument.

Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about, given that no 1 here was cherry-picking info from any given source AFAICT.

[wings]

I'll just do this in point form since it is a little time consuming in cutting and pasting.

• In your statement you did specify one as"pitted" and the other as "polished" (and I assume that you are talking about no pit at all) and how is that general exactly? To label it as "...It's probably no coincidence..." then wouldn't it implies this is a specific/particular event?

• When I said "helpful to?" that was referring to whether it is necessary to post the same idea repeatedly...

• I didn't get a chance to read Prodigious Birds but I've read Magnificent Mihirungs and for the description of these gastrolith; the whole thing was described on one page and the only comment that is texturally related is some smooth quartzites in the composition of these gastroliths...

• "Cherry picking"; well that was referring to when you were using Lucas paper as support material you would pick certain reasoning for your argument but not others (when it doesn't quite suit your comment, like the section on texture from the paper).

[DinoToyForum]

This conversation is getting provocative and I think it would be best for you both to agree to disagree.  Stand down gentlemen.  and no provocative last words please. Thanks! Admin

[HD-man]

In your statement you did specify one as"pitted" and the other as "polished" (and I assume that you are talking about no pit at all) and how is that general exactly?

It's not that hard to understand: I made a general statement when I said, "like sauropod gastroliths, moa gastroliths are polished...while ostrich gastroliths are pitted"; Had I made an absolute statement, I would've said, "like ALL sauropod gastroliths, ALL moa gastroliths are ALWAYS polished...while ALL ostrich gastroliths are ALWAYS pitted" or something like that.

When I said "helpful to?" that was referring to whether it is necessary to post the same idea repeatedly...

The post in which I quoted Bakker was the 1st time I mentioned his book in this thread, so I don't see how that's posting "the same idea repeatedly".

I didn't get a chance to read Prodigious Birds but I've read Magnificent Mihirungs and for the description of these gastrolith; the whole thing was described on one page and the only comment that is texturally related is some smooth quartzites in the composition of these gastroliths...

In retrospect, I misread MM's gastrolith description as being in reference to "Giant moas" when it's actually in reference to dromornithids. My bad. My point still stands, though: There's enough literature describing both moa & sauropodomorph gastroliths as smooth/polished (E.g. PB AWA the technical works cited by my sources in this thread) to generalize them as such.

"Cherry picking"; well that was referring to when you were using Lucas paper as support material you would pick certain reasoning for your argument but not others (when it doesn't quite suit your comment, like the section on texture from the paper).

IDK where you got that from, but I never cherry-picked anything from Lucas 2000. Rather, I 1) pointed out that it has a point ("I did, & it does have a point"), & 2) pointed out that it's problematic & why ("However..."). That's all.

EDIT: My bad, Dr Admin. I started responding to Wings b-4 your post, so I didn't see it until after the fact.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The Admin asked for an end to the current discussion I believe.  So STOP please.

[HD-man]

The Admin asked for an end to the current discussion I believe.  So STOP please.

No need to raise your voice. As already explained, I only posted my previous post b/c I didn't see Dr Admin's post until after the fact.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The Admin asked for an end to the current discussion I believe.  So STOP please.

No need to raise your voice. As already explained, I only posted my previous post b/c I didn't see Dr Admin's post until after the fact.

Ah, that explanation wasn't there when I started my reply .  I clicked reply, thought out what I was going to say which took a few minutes to do. So  I didn't see that. My apologies.

[HD-man]

Ah, that explanation wasn't there when I started my reply .  I clicked reply, thought out what I was going to say which took a few minutes to do. So  I didn't see that. My apologies.

It's OK. I understand.

[HD-man]

UPDATE: As you can see in my 1st post, I've since modified my original journal entry to be more explanatory.

[Iguanocolossus]

Definitely agree with these. Also would add the Toroceratops mess, non-coelurosaurs with feathers, ceratopsians with quills, dinosaur gigantothermy, and, of course, BANDers

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Ceratopsians with quills are proven. Did you mean derived ceratopsians? Psittacosaurus would be considered a basal ceratopsian and we do have the quilled specimen so I wondered.

[Yutyrannus]

Ceratopsians with quills are proven. Did you mean derived ceratopsians? Psittacosaurus would be considered a basal ceratopsian and we do have the quilled specimen so I wondered.

Also, Triceratops was found with quills as well.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Ceratopsians with quills are proven. Did you mean derived ceratopsians? Psittacosaurus would be considered a basal ceratopsian and we do have the quilled specimen so I wondered.

Also, Triceratops was found with quills as well.

Unless that is a vey recent find, no Triceratops was found with quills. I believe you are referring to "Lane" a well preserved specimen that displayed skin impressions. The shape of the impressions was interpreted to suggest the center of the scales would hold a quill shape extending up from them. As far as I know nothing has been published for the find yet, however this is what the impressions looked like.



It is easy to see from the picture why the people involved with this specimen feel it is possible the dinosaur might have had quills. Most intepretations of more derived ceratopsian dinosaurs with quills are being based from the psittacosaurus specimen found with them, and the fact that more basal ancestoral dinosaurs to this family have been found with quill like covering. Tianyulong, is a good example of this type of quilled dinosaur. However it also bears mentioning that psittacosaurus was likely an evoloutionary dead-end on the ceratopsian tree and just because it had quills does not mean more derived ceratopsians did as well. We know that psittacosaurus was not the ancestral dinosaur to the line as psittacosaurus had already lost a digit on each hand and foot, as well as losing the fenestrae or opening in the skull between the nasal  and eye orbit. More derived ceratopsians have these features, and it is highly unlikely that nature made a u-turn and re-evolved them, thus eliminating psittacosaurus as a canidate.

[HD-man]

Definitely agree with these. Also would add the Toroceratops mess, non-coelurosaurs with feathers, ceratopsians with quills, dinosaur gigantothermy, and, of course, BANDers

1stly, many thanks for the kind words.

2ndly, the Toroceratops hypothesis didn't make the list b/c 1) like "Dishonorable Mention", it's already been dissected in the literature (See Farke 2011, Longrich & Field 2012, & Maiorino et al. 2013), & 2) it doesn't seem to be as universally accepted as #3 (not that #3 is universally accepted, but you know what I mean: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2010/11/visit-with-two-domeheads.html ). Also, I don't consider the BANDit hypothesis to be annoyingly popular b/c it's a fringe hypothesis (& thus, only taken seriously by the BANDit fringe).

[HD-man]

UPDATE: As you can see in my 1st post, I've once again modified my original journal entry to be more explanatory.

[EmperorDinobot]

Is the Diplodocus trunk still a thing? I mean with All New Yesterdays revolution practically everything is allowed (well not everything), so I asked around in my deviantart page a question concerning whether I or we (paleoartists) should start depicting all dinosaurs with feathers, or just those for which there is specific evidence, and T-Peck answered "1. a) Phylogeny; b) logical reasoning (+/- a little bit of speculation maybe); c) and don't listen to everyone, because not all opinions are equal. Those criteria should do."

[stargatedalek]

I personally would give all dinosaurs some degree of integument, not full on feathers but a light "dusting" of fluffy structures, similar to elephant hair
but thats just me, at this point with a lot of groups we still get creative liberty in that regard