Takamas Question Thread

[stargatedalek]

so this would be more likely

Exactly! But the dewclaw should be just a pinch larger.

Stargatedalek - Well, that is all very interesting.  Do you have a link to any articles discussing these points you made above in more depth?  I confess that I no longer have time to follow the latest developments as closely as I once did.

Did the paper put out by Ibrahim, et al discuss all of this in detail?

The links in Kovu's post explain the same concepts far better than I could. And although I will disagree with Duane Nash on a lot of points (particularly his recent ideas of enlarged lips on Tyrannosaurs) his uncanny ability to think outside the box is exactly the sort of attribute best suited to a situation like that Spinosaurus finds itself in of late.

Although it comes to different conclusions, the proportions and muscle attachment analyses do come directly from Ibrahim et al. They deduced that Spinosaurus would have paddled, which is exactly the sort of conclusion one might initially come to (even with Baryonyx given its feet).

I've had my fair share of ideas regarding Spinosaurus (namely counterbalance from an enlarged structure over the hips), but after learning of the muscle attachments I'm pretty well convinced.

[Takama]

Thanks for the info on Spinosaurus. now on to one of his cousins

I made it a rule to only commission Adult animals for my line. So Baryonx is out since its a juvenile

So i decided to go after Suchomimus, but its known from sub adult remains (a teenager?) so i cant use him either.

But is Suchomimus really only known from sub adult remains?

I have a Book http://www.amazon.com/DinosaursThe-Grand-Tour-Everything-Zuniceratops/dp/1615192123/ref=pd_sim_14_10?ie=UTF8&dpID=51VnhQ410IL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR123%2C160_&refRID=0YW1GSST1MCHFCP21JEC  that says that when it was fully grown it may have grown to be as big Spinosaurus itself.  Is there any credibility to this?

[Kovu]

The subadult size could be AN adult size, just not the MAXIMUM adult size. I think the current measurements range from 34' to 36'. Maybe the subadult skeleton that measurement is based off of was just the Sucho World's late bloomer. Maybe he would've reached 45'+ if he hadn't been introduced to fossilization.

Therefore, your model could be an adult who stopped growing/became skeletally mature at relatively younger age, without reaching the maximum length for the species. It's like with people, we're not all 7'7" centers. Most of us are counting our blessings if we reach 6". Your 34' Suchomimus could be the 5'9" of the Sucho world.

Also, with humans, females tend to reach skeletal maturity before males do. You never know, something similar could've happened with dinosaurs. And men -on average- tend to be taller than women.

[Takama]

I think i will just avoid subadult animals for now. Too many variables.

I have a Secret project in the works that Wont be commercially sold, but i will share with you all.

[tyrantqueen]

The subadult size could be AN adult size, just not the MAXIMUM adult size. I think the current measurements range from 34' to 36'. Maybe the subadult skeleton that measurement is based off of was just the Sucho World's late bloomer. Maybe he would've reached 45'+ if he hadn't been introduced to fossilization.

Therefore, your model could be an adult who stopped growing/became skeletally mature at relatively younger age, without reaching the maximum length for the species. It's like with people, we're not all 7'7" centers. Most of us are counting our blessings if we reach 6". Your 34' Suchomimus could be the 5'9" of the Sucho world.

Also, with humans, females tend to reach skeletal maturity before males do. You never know, something similar could've happened with dinosaurs. And men -on average- tend to be taller than women.

Yup, good old sexual dimorphism. Men have to be bigger and stronger to bring home the bacon.

[Takama]

Ok so my next qustion is this

I want a Rearing Amargasaurus, but theres alredy a rearing one made on Shapeways thats in the same pexact pose i had in mind.    Now i want my own take on this creature so i cant buy it.   But Is it possible for the animal to rear up like this



And look behind it like the tenotosaurus in this picture?

[Dinoguy2]

I think i will just avoid subadult animals for now. Too many variables.

I have a Secret project in the works that Wont be commercially sold, but i will share with you all.

As this recent paper explained, there's really no such thing as an "adult" dinosaur. Just a spectrum from sexual maturity subadult to slowed growth at bigger sizes. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/2/20150947

Thinking something is either an adult or a subadult/juvenile is a little too mammal\bird centric. Dinosaurs didn't grow that way.

[Takama]

Ok is this possible or impossible for the Dinosaur depicted

[Dinoguy2]

Ok is this possible or impossible for the Dinosaur depicted

Diplodocids could rear in a tripod do I guess dicraeosaurids probably could too. The tail should be on the ground for support though.

[Takama]

But can Amargasaurus twist it's neck like that?

[Dinoguy2]

But can Amargasaurus twist it's neck like that?

It couldn't twist it's neck, but this looks more laterally deflected than twisted. It looks twisted due to the perspective I think.

[Takama]

What ever its doing i want to make a model thats in this exact pose.   

[Lanthanotus]

As this recent paper explained, there's really no such thing as an "adult" dinosaur. Just a spectrum from sexual maturity subadult to slowed growth at bigger sizes. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/2/20150947

Thinking something is either an adult or a subadult/juvenile is a little too mammal\bird centric. Dinosaurs didn't grow that way.

Can't access the full text, but the matter of this text seems somewhat weird to me,... why should there be no consensus on how to define an adult? Adults are sexually mature animals (in case of humans, being "adult" is related to some more characteristics or attributes obviously), it does not matter if the individual animal is fully grown in size and mass. While mammals and birds stop growing more or less around the time they reach sexual maturity, reptiles keep on growing to different rates. A male crocodiles for example may reach sexual maturity with a length of 3 m, but may grow another 2 or 3 (or even more) during the rest of its life, nevertheless, its an adult croc from 3 m onwards.

[Dinoguy2]

As this recent paper explained, there's really no such thing as an "adult" dinosaur. Just a spectrum from sexual maturity subadult to slowed growth at bigger sizes. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/2/20150947

Thinking something is either an adult or a subadult/juvenile is a little too mammal\bird centric. Dinosaurs didn't grow that way.

Can't access the full text, but the matter of this text seems somewhat weird to me,... why should there be no consensus on how to define an adult? Adults are sexually mature animals (in case of humans, being "adult" is related to some more characteristics or attributes obviously), it does not matter if the individual animal is fully grown in size and mass. While mammals and birds stop growing more or less around the time they reach sexual maturity, reptiles keep on growing to different rates. A male crocodiles for example may reach sexual maturity with a length of 3 m, but may grow another 2 or 3 (or even more) during the rest of its life, nevertheless, its an adult croc from 3 m onwards.

Because paleontologists generally have labeled anything with infused vertebrae as "subadult" or "juvenile" and we now know that dinosaurs reached sexual maturity long before their bones fused. I agree that "adult" should mean sexually mature when it comes to dinosaurs but then you'd need histology to know if a specimen is mature or not and it would totally destroy the idea of "adult size" in dinosaurs. That idea needs to die but it will take a heroic effort to kill it, it's pretty entrenched.

People need to learn that "adult size" and "maximum possible size" do not exist, and start worrying about average mature specimen size. Which is unknown for almost all dinosaurs because nobody ever did histology on them.

Long story short, our current idea of dinosaur size is totally skewed. Imagine if the answer to "how big is a crocodile" was "20 ft" because that's the size of the world record specimen. Totally misleading.

[Lanthanotus]

Long story short, our current idea of dinosaur size is totally skewed. Imagine if the answer to "how big is a crocodile" was "20 ft" because that's the size of the world record specimen. Totally misleading.

However such misleading information can be found in almost every book about animals, may they be extinct and prehistoric or quite agile and existent. Even in specialist literature such data often enough recites maximum sizes without any additional information that such is a recorded maximum rather than an average/common size.

Thanks for the clarification on the bone histology, Dinoguy.

[Takama]

Ok Now for a Qustion i am wondering about

How many of you approve or disapprove of a Feathered Ceolophysis?

I see maney latest Artworks restor it with feathers, but it is not a Colurosaur. Also, if i feather this species, will i have to do it for Dilophosaurus as well?

[HD-man]

How many of you approve or disapprove of a Feathered Ceolophysis?

I see maney latest Artworks restor it with feathers, but it is not a Colurosaur. Also, if i feather this species, will i have to do it for Dilophosaurus as well?

Depends. If you're going for an "All Yesterdays"-type interpretation, then I approve. However, if you're going for a "most likely based on what we currently know"-type interpretation, then I disapprove. Like you said, Coelophysis is a non-coelurosaur. As far as we currently know, only non-tyrannosaurid coelurosaurs were definitely feathered.

[DinoLord]

I'm not sure how likely pennaceous feathers are, but some sort of filamentous integument is definitely reasonable.

[Dinoguy2]

How many of you approve or disapprove of a Feathered Ceolophysis?

I see maney latest Artworks restor it with feathers, but it is not a Colurosaur. Also, if i feather this species, will i have to do it for Dilophosaurus as well?

Depends. If you're going for an "All Yesterdays"-type interpretation, then I approve. However, if you're going for a "most likely based on what we currently know"-type interpretation, then I disapprove. Like you said, Coelophysis is a non-coelurosaur. As far as we currently know, only non-tyrannosaurid coelurosaurs were definitely feathered.

Kulindadromeus was definitely feathered too. Some of its filaments are weird half-scale-type things (though not really very different from the tail feathers of enantiornithines, which BANDits also describe as scale-like feathers) but some are definitely stage 3 feathers.

It's looking more and more like phylogenetic bracketing is useless for broad patterns of feather distribution. The underlying genetics were there, and switched on and off in essentially random groups of dinosaurs on essentially random body segments. Feathers don't get "locked in" until Maniraptora. So the answer to the question "does x group of dinosaurs with no skin impressions have feathers" is "no clue, do what you want".

As you point out, many non-tyrannosaurid coelurosaurs have pretty much full-body feather covering. Tyrannosaurids have scales on body segments where some other coelurosaurs would have feathers. (And most people forget that even Yutyrannus has scales on the underside of the tail). Some coelurosaurs have feathers on body segments where birds have scales (feet etc.). A few ornithischians have advanced feathers, Psittacosaurus has simple filaments of some kind (which even if they're not feathers they look a lot like them, so does it really matter for a reconstruction?), while most groups of larger species have full body scales. Genetics makes this not a nice, neat linear thing like people seem to want it to be.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

As this recent paper explained, there's really no such thing as an "adult" dinosaur. Just a spectrum from sexual maturity subadult to slowed growth at bigger sizes. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/2/20150947

Thinking something is either an adult or a subadult/juvenile is a little too mammal\bird centric. Dinosaurs didn't grow that way.

Can't access the full text, but the matter of this text seems somewhat weird to me,... why should there be no consensus on how to define an adult? Adults are sexually mature animals (in case of humans, being "adult" is related to some more characteristics or attributes obviously), it does not matter if the individual animal is fully grown in size and mass. While mammals and birds stop growing more or less around the time they reach sexual maturity, reptiles keep on growing to different rates. A male crocodiles for example may reach sexual maturity with a length of 3 m, but may grow another 2 or 3 (or even more) during the rest of its life, nevertheless, its an adult croc from 3 m onwards.

Happy reading......https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295263981_Ontogeny_and_the_fossil_record_What_if_anything_is_an_adult_dinosaur