Takamas Question Thread

[stargatedalek]

One thing people don't often consider is that cannibalism =/= killing ones own kind. Cannibalism is done by the vast majority of carnivorous and omnivorous species, even if they don't hunt and kill their own kind.

[DinoLord]

As to the issue of jaw flexibility, some authors interpret Carnotaurus as having a degree of mandibular flexibility that would've allowed for swallowing small prey. Others interpret it as a hunter of larger prey, able to inflict rapid successive bites. Wikipedia has a pretty good overview of the different interpretations.

[Sim]

One abelisaurid species (Majungasaurus) is thought to have eaten members of its own species.  That doesn't mean the whole of the abelisaurid family is known to be cannibalistic.

To be fair, Takama said that Carnotaurus "comes from a family of Dinosaurs thats known to eat its own kind", not that every member of that family "is known to be cannibalistic." Also, to quote Bakker ( http://blog.hmns.org/2010/03/raptors-group-hunters-or-cannibals/ ), cannibalism is "Standard Operating Procedure today. Meat is hard to come by and most carnivore species won't turn up their noses at a meal of their own kind.  Lions eat lions. Wolves eat wolves. Hyenas will eat everybody."

Regarding the bolded part, I just wanted to point out that one member of the abelisaurid family eating members of its own species doesn't mean the abelisaurid family is known to do so, which is what Takama said.

[Takama]

Ok I would like to do a Minatarosaurus(or Tarchia to be more accurate)

I will have the model be posed simalar to this



Obviously it will not be a Magma Monster and will look like a real Dinosaur, but aside from the fire, is it possible for a large Akylosaur to do this pose?

[LophoLeeVT]

i dont know but this is an awesome pic!!!

[Takama]

Ok whats eveyones opinion on Wuerhosaurus?

Do you all agree its a Species of Stegosaurus or a separate Genus?

Also whats the best way to depict its plates

[DinoLord]

I've always had a bit of an affinity for it since reading about it in many of my children's dinosaur books back in the day. I would think it's a separate genus - Ken Carpenter (who knows a thing or two about thyreophorans) contests the lumping with Stegosaurus. IIRC even Greg Paul has it as a separate species in his latest book, and we all know how much he likes lumping. Generally I've seen the plates depicted as more squared off (rather than the rather triangular plates in other stegosaurs).

[Takama]

But i read that there more rounded, like Hesperosaurus.

Like this



Though i like this more,



Theres also this


Which do you guys think is most plausible?

[LophoLeeVT]

well isnt hesperosaurus an ankylosaurid?

[stargatedalek]

I don't know much about Stegosaurs but be careful to point the thagomizers horizontally and align the wrists correctly, these details are so often missed.

[Sim]

Ok whats eveyones opinion on Wuerhosaurus?

Do you all agree its a Species of Stegosaurus or a separate Genus?

Also whats the best way to depict its plates

My opinion on Wuerhosaurus is that it's too incompletely known to have a good idea of what it looked like.  Out of all the dinosaurs I've seen you ask us about I think Wuerhosaurus is the one least worth reconstructing based on how likely reconstructions would turn out to be inaccurate.  Apparently Wuerhosaurus plates that have been found are actually broken so the real shape of the plates isn't known.

[Takama]

Ok whats everyones opinon on this very popular Theropod?





I read that it was considerd a Dilophosarid, and I can see that. But now there saying its a Tetanuran.     So which Reconstruction would be more up to date? The Dilophosaur like one above?

Or this one by one of our Forum Members.

[HD-man]

I read that it was considerd a Dilophosarid, and I can see that. But now there saying its a Tetanuran.     So which Reconstruction would be more up to date?

Tetanuran.

Quoting Holtz ( https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/ ):

NEW December 2013: REAL big changes here, mostly from the work of Carrano, Benson and Sampson. Their new study forms the major structure of the primitive tetanurine part of the new appendix. As mentioned above, they found that Cryolophosaurus DOES belong in this chapter, as the most primitive-known tetanurine. Sinosaurus (formerly "Dilophosaurus" sinensis), Chuandongcoelurus, and Monolophosaurus are similarly primitive tetnaurines. A careful reader will note that the heads of all of these dinosaurs (where known) have crests: apparently, that was the "in" thing for Early and Middle Jurassic primitive tetanurines.

[Dinoguy2]

I read that it was considerd a Dilophosarid, and I can see that. But now there saying its a Tetanuran.     So which Reconstruction would be more up to date?

Tetanuran.

Quoting Holtz ( https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/dinoappendix/ ):

NEW December 2013: REAL big changes here, mostly from the work of Carrano, Benson and Sampson. Their new study forms the major structure of the primitive tetanurine part of the new appendix. As mentioned above, they found that Cryolophosaurus DOES belong in this chapter, as the most primitive-known tetanurine. Sinosaurus (formerly "Dilophosaurus" sinensis), Chuandongcoelurus, and Monolophosaurus are similarly primitive tetnaurines. A careful reader will note that the heads of all of these dinosaurs (where known) have crests: apparently, that was the "in" thing for Early and Middle Jurassic primitive tetanurines.

Yes, the latest phylogeny had Cryolophosaurus as a tetanuran. So did the original one from the 90s. There are also some in-between ones that have found it to be closer to Tetanurae than to Dilophosaurus, but still not quite a tetanuran. Cryo is actually pretty incomplete, we don't know the true shape of its snout (kinked like basal theropods, or flat like tetanurans? Who knows?) or even the true shape of its crest.

[MLMjp]

If we talk about proportions and anatomy I think you should take this for reference, specially for the skull:

[Takama]

Well A new paper just came out, saying that Elaphrosaurus is actually a Noasaur now along with Deltadromeous.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zoj.12425/abstract;jsessionid=DB8A6D9B14700E39CAD3A061EF793A6B.f02t03

Now I would like to have Kayaksaurus do a Elaphrosaurus, but since its a Noasaur now, how do i have him make the skull?   Its related to Limasaurus, which has a Beaked one, but arent most noasaurs like Masikasaurus?

[Dinoguy2]

Well A new paper just came out, saying that Elaphrosaurus is actually a Noasaur now along with Deltadromeous.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zoj.12425/abstract;jsessionid=DB8A6D9B14700E39CAD3A061EF793A6B.f02t03

Now I would like to have Kayaksaurus do a Elaphrosaurus, but since its a Noasaur now, how do i have him make the skull?   Its related to Limasaurus, which has a Beaked one, but arent most noasaurs like Masikasaurus?

I think the only noassurid skulls we have are a tiny piece of Noasaurus upper jaw, Masiakasaurus, and Limusaurus. So, no way to know. It's most closely related to Limusaurus though.

[Takama]

Ok I know Sauropods left there young to fend for themselves.

But is it still possible that some of the smaller species were Careing parents?

I was planning on Commissioning a Diorama inspired by the Sideshow Stegosaurus Diorama only instead of Stegosaurus. its Amargasaurus, with a Young one next to it.   Can the baby be the adults Child?

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I don't see why not.  The young might rejoin the adults later and they could have offered some protection.

[Halichoeres]

I'm sure there was a wide variety of life histories among sauropods, given how long they persisted and how diverse they were. That said, as far as I know, known trackways are of similar-sized animals. It seems like juveniles formed their own single-cohort herds, like fish, rather than mixed-age herds like, say, elephants.