Jump to content
Soulking

Dinosaurs

Recommended Posts

I never said they were the exact same. "Akin" means "like", not "exactly the same".

 

I think Spiny still had a strong bite and, judging by the shape of the snout and teeth, was more akin to a crocodile than the T-rex's jaws, which I assume are more comparable with a tiger or wolf.

 

Yes, it mostly speared up fish and possibly other small dinos. Doesn't mean it had a weak bite, though. Weaker than many, yes, probably weaker than most crocs because no, the jaws weren't quite as robust. I never said they were.

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post

The thing the spinosaurus has going for it are those claws.

user posted image

Now judging from this even though it may be a little inaccurate. It is a huge weapon and best one for the spinosaur.

Share this post


Link to post

That I definitely agree with. c: If Spiny won fights against T-rex, it probably used its dagger-claws. o3o

 

On some other popular dino fights, who do you think would win in these match-ups?:

-Allosaurus vs Stegosaurus

-T-rex vs Triceratops

-Protoceratops vs Velociraptor

 

and of course, other dino match-ups we can think of.

 

My votes are pretty much for Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and Velociraptor. o3o

Share this post


Link to post

More like

50/50 for all 3 if we take experienced hunters

We're going with hunters first time

Then it's the herbivores edge

Share this post


Link to post

I love Dinosaurs smile.gif I've been obsessed with them since second grade. I think it's amazing how many different kids there are, and I love the really weird looking ones, like Einosaurus, Therizinosaurus, Amargosaurus, etc.

 

still, Triceratops is the best biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Triceratops gets slaughtered by Trex sometimes so I really doubt they could put up a fight against a sauropod.

But i'm gonna guess this is a opinion.

In that case I believe my favorite dino is carnotaurus and Giganotosaurus.

aka

user posted image

And

user posted image

 

Share this post


Link to post

For some reason as a child I didn't really like Carnotaurus. I thought it was scary and really odd looking. idk it was just frightening. o3o

 

I do like Giganotosaurus, though I think I like Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Albertosaurus, Cryolophosaurus, and Acrocanthosaurus. c:

 

I think Diplodocus would win in a fight between it and Brachiosaurus. o3o But out of all the sauropods, I feel like one like Shunosaurus would win because of its tail club.

Share this post


Link to post

I've got a T-rex skull staple remover on my desk =P I mostly use it for for stabbing things; staples are rarely involved. My favorite is probably Deinonychus though, featherless version plz.

Share this post


Link to post

When I was a little girl I used to be obsessed with dinosaurs and I loved learning about them and collecting dinosaur toys. My particular favorite are the velociraptors.

Share this post


Link to post

Aww I really like feathery Deinonychus. :c In fact, it wasn't until artists started drawing it with feathers that I liked it. I always thought it was ugly pretty much any and every time I saw it. :\ idk maybe artists just like making it look awful or something.

 

idk, I just think that these look awesome

 

whereas all of these guys here just don't appeal to me. :\ I mean, I do see a few interpretations around that look okay, but more often than not they look gross and...old? idk how to describe it. I guess part of it is because I'm not too fond of most lizards in general, so that super wrinkly reptilian look for dinos really turns me off. I do like Jurassic Park's version of Deinonychus, even if they called it Velociraptor. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Feathery raptors are ok

Feathery tyrannosaurids are not

user posted imageThis is great

user posted imageThis is good

user posted imageThis isn't good

Edited by Soulking

Share this post


Link to post

I'm actually alright with even feathery Tyrannosaurs.

 

I rather like these guys:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredsci.../04/y_huali.jpg (this one is getting a bit too extreme, imo, but I think it's still okay)

http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/fi...annus_huali.jpg

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1399185/SgSJk.jpg

_by_nebezial-d57k63e.jpg' target='_blank'>http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/198...ial-d57k63e.jpg

http://tientjevoortrex.naturalis.nl/media/...by_pheaston.jpg

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/115...tat-d4v6nv1.jpg

 

No one is sure if Tyrannosaurs had feathers or not, but some guess that it may have had something like a downy layer of feathers, like what most of the above picture portray. So basically they might have looked fuzzy all over, like the second, third, and fifth pictures show.

Share this post


Link to post
I do like Jurassic Park's version of Deinonychus, even if they called it Velociraptor. :P

I thought Jurassic Park's velociraptor (movie version) was actually based on the utahraptor? =o

 

~

 

While I cannot disagree with the research stating many dinos probably had some light covering of feathers, I do find a lot of the feathered raptors to be visually unappealing. That posted t-rex though, actually looks pretty good IMO - actually, so do all of Eef's pics (in fact some of those are downright amazing!). =o I think my problem with the feathered raptors I saw was just that it was when the idea was first being introduced to the public with any kind of effort and a lot of the recreations were just sloppy compared to the completely-scaled versions, so I didn't like that.

 

~

 

Thanks to the Land Before Time, I've always had a soft spot for triceratops. I love dinosaurs, though - actually, I find many animal predecessors really fascinating in general.

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post
I thought Jurassic Park's velociraptor (movie version) was actually based on the utahraptor? =o

 

~

 

While I cannot disagree with the research stating many dinos probably had some light covering of feathers, I do find a lot of the feathered raptors to be visually unappealing. That posted t-rex though, actually looks pretty good IMO - actually, so do all of Eef's pics (in fact some of those are downright amazing!). =o I think my problem with the feathered raptors I saw was just that it was when the idea was first being introduced to the public with any kind of effort and a lot of the recreations were just sloppy compared to the completely-scaled versions, so I didn't like that.

It's weird. I think, looking back on it, the JP Raptors are very close to Utahraptor in size. However, at the time, even though Utahraptor had been discovered, it was really obscure, so they probably based it more on Deinonychus which was the largest somewhat popular raptor at the time. I guess?

 

When I look at references of the JP Raptors and size refs for both Utahraptor and Deinonychus, Deinonychus seems a bit too small and Utahraptor seems too large.

 

----

 

Yeah, I agree. I remember when I first saw feathery raptors, I was like "What the heck IS that!? It looks ugly! Like some deformed bird." I despised the idea that they were feathery for a while, but then I started to grow into them and now I really love them, especially since it's definitely proven that the raptors all had feathers of some sort.

 

If only we could see how they really looked! That would be amazing. I think even more than that, I'd really like to see how they behaved. I've seen quite a few things saying how all dinosaurs were relatively stupid compared to animals now and that really makes me sad. :c

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post

It's weird. I think, looking back on it, the JP Raptors are very close to Utahraptor in size. However, at the time, even though Utahraptor had been discovered, it was really obscure, so they probably based it more on Deinonychus which was the largest somewhat popular raptor at the time. I guess?

 

When I look at references of the JP Raptors and size refs for both Utahraptor and Deinonychus, Deinonychus seems a bit too small and Utahraptor seems too large.

 

----

 

Yeah, I agree. I remember when I first saw feathery raptors, I was like "What the heck IS that!? It looks ugly! Like some deformed bird." I despised the idea that they were feathery for a while, but then I started to grow into them and now I really love them, especially since it's definitely proven that the raptors all had feathers of some sort.

 

If only we could see how they really looked! That would be amazing. I think even more than that, I'd really like to see how they behaved. I've seen quite a few things saying how all dinosaurs were relatively stupid compared to animals now and that really makes me sad. :c

Yeah, I looked up size charts before posting to double check and noticed the same thing about the sizes, so maybe it was a mix. =o

I remember now why utahraptor is in my head - for some reason it was mentioned on some museum plaque somewhere that they thought the utahraptor could have inspired JP's velociraptor's due to the size and possibly the fact that as they had been newly discovered they were in the news at the time? /can't remember completely

 

Glad I wasn't the only one disappointed with the original representations for feathery raptors, though!

 

~

 

Oh, man, I wish we could see how they looked and know how they acted for real-for real!

 

That was one of the things I enjoyed about The Lost World (JP 2) was how they went into a little bit about breaking the common research stereotypes. Even if the books and movies are not a good accurate base, they did have some really neat ideas. (One of the reasons I really liked the dilophosaurus they did - aside from the awesome frilled lizard frill - was due to its venom spitting. I was super disappointed when I learned that was just creative license, lol.) Like, how far they went to show how intelligent and organized raptors were? Awesome. 8D

 

I think we downplay how smart many animals actually are. I mean, a lot of animals have some kind of culture or something reminiscent to culture and if that's not the coolest thing, then I dunno what is. =U

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

I love dinosaurs as well, I didn't even know there was a thread for talking about them^^

 

and yeah Jurassic Parks Velociraptor was either based on the Deinonychus, or the Utahraptor I read it somewhere.

 

Also their frilled lizard I believe was based off of the Guanlong or one of the others with the head crest. I actually think the feathered raptors look beautiful.

 

I love the Balaur raptor I didn't even know it existed until a Dinosaur site I joined had it listed as a dino. I tend to like the Ankylosauruses.

 

Although they're not dinosaurs since they're classified as Marine Reptiles, but I enjoy the Mosasaur and Plesiosaurs as well. My favorite dino of all time has always been a Velociraptor and a T-rex, Gotta love Chomper from Land before time xd.png

 

I've watched Dinosaur (the two parter movie), Dinosaur (the one with the iguanadons and Carnatorsaurs), Land Before Time, and Walking with Dinosaurs (The one with the Apachyrhinosaurus) I spelled that totally wrong xd.png. One of my main interests as a job would've been a paleontologist since I love dinosaurs so much. I just don't care much for Brontosauruses or Duck Bills (forgot their names).

Edited by LunarMoonlite

Share this post


Link to post
I think we downplay how smart many animals actually are. I mean, a lot of animals have some kind of culture or something reminiscent to culture and if that's not the coolest thing, then I dunno what is. =U
Well, idk, I was reading stuff that was saying they were hardly even as smart as dogs and cats. I guess I can believe that. I'd say they have intelligence closer to birds and reptiles and smaller mammals like rodents or some such creatures.

 

Basically, the article I was reading (just last night in fact), which I'm actually kind of skeptical about, was saying that since we can't really test their IQ, we judge their intelligence by EQ, or encephalization quotient, which is their brain size compared to overall size, and thus even the carnivores, which were most likely the smartest dinos, are dumber than many of the animals now. :\

 

I was reading these articles. There's also this.

 

I really don't believe they were "stupid". I guess they definitely relied more on instincts than lots of problem solving, sure, but I still wouldn't say they're stupid. :\

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post

One of my main interests as a job would've been a paleontologist since I love dinosaurs so much.

I'm a geologist and I seriously thought about specializing in paleontology, but OH MY the classes are boring as dull. My prof told us about how one of his class' labs for the whole year was to sit in a room full of thousands of fossils and draw them all - learn all their names and taxonomy and etc. and so that's what we did for lab. Drew and drew and drew. All brachiopods and corals and other things with slightly minor differences to them and that's what our lab tests were based on. I like dinosaurs, but learning about fossilized shells is slightly less exciting, lol. So I just research paleontology as a hobby. xP

 

(It probably would have helped if we had another paleontologist on board so there could be more than just the one intro class, though...)

 

Well, idk, I was reading stuff that was saying they were hardly even as smart as dogs and cats. I guess I can believe that. I'd say they have intelligence closer to birds and reptiles and smaller mammals like rodents or some such creatures.

 

Basically, the article I was reading (just last night in fact), which I'm actually kind of skeptical about, was saying that since we can't really test their IQ, we judge their intelligence by EQ, or encephalization quotient, which is their brain size compared to overall size, and thus even the carnivores, which were most likely the smartest dinos, are dumber than many of the animals now. :\

 

I was reading these articles. There's also this.

 

I really don't believe they were "stupid". I guess they definitely relied more on instincts than lots of problem solving, sure, but I still wouldn't say they're stupid. :\

 

Ooooh, I see. Yeah, I mean, really, there's no realistic way for us to be able to judge that. And since we think one way, we tend to base 'intelligence tests' around our own way of thinking, but many other animals think in many other different ways than us. They have different abilities than us. I think at this point, a lot of it is just that we do not understand how their thinking works and so we label them as 'simplistic' when it's really just our own ignorance/lack of good research in the area. So yeah, I agree - I'm sure they thought much differently than we did, but really, what does that really mean about their "intelligence level"?

 

I know recently there was something about the thought process of some animal that was suggested actually had a complex reasoning behind it and for the longest time we just judged it as animal instinct. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was about, though. =U Grr.

 

I do wann check out those articles you linked just to see what they're like, but I'll have to do it tomorrow. Getting so tired my eyes are crossing. >_e

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

@SockPupppetStrangler-lol I ended up deciding to major in Biology in college. I wanted to be a Zoologist but I'm not so sure on that goal now. Mostly I'm going to major in biology and when I get the degree idk what I want to do with it exactly^^

 

I've watched all the dino shows that they have on Netflix that was actually interesting to me ^^ my friend loves the Rahonavis one of the smallest Raptors but I think the Microraptor was small than the Rahonavis I'm not for sure >>

Share this post


Link to post

Raptors may or may not have hunted in packs. That goes for allosaurs too. Epanterias is most likely not a genus. So consider it A. Amplexus until we get further proof that this genus exists and has a difference large enough to get another genus for it. And dinos truly are stupid compared to modern animals. Especially the sauropods.

Now let's see which fight to start next. I've got it.

Ceratosaurus vs Majungasaurus

Ceratosaurus is not a wuss

Majungasaurus is not a wuss either

At parity. Aka equal sizes both 6m.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going with 50/49 in favor of ceratosaurus

One bite will end it in this fight as both have teeth capable of killing each other with a single wellplaced bite.

Share this post


Link to post
One of my main interests as a job would've been a paleontologist since I love dinosaurs so much. I just don't care much for Brontosauruses or Duck Bills (forgot their names).

You and me both! In fact, with all the new stuff being discovered, it actually really makes me want to be one again. But seriously, that was my DREAM JOB as a child. I drew so many dinosaurs and the skeletons and wrote up papers with all the information I knew about them and I played a bunch of games that taught me about all the dinos. XD I wanted to be one sooo bad because I loved learning more about them and still do.

 

Also it's Apatasaurus. Brontosaurus was never a real dinosaur. If I recall, it was an Apatasarus with a Diplodocus skull. Luckily though, I think Brontosaurus is pretty much synonymous with Apatasaurus now, so there's that. :P

 

And it's Hadrosaurs. c:

I'm a geologist and I seriously thought about specializing in paleontology, but OH MY the classes are boring as dull. My prof told us about how one of his class' labs for the whole year was to sit in a room full of thousands of fossils and draw them all - learn all their names and taxonomy and etc. and so that's what we did for lab. Drew and drew and drew. All brachiopods and corals and other things with slightly minor differences to them and that's what our lab tests were based on. I like dinosaurs, but learning about fossilized shells is slightly less exciting, lol. So I just research paleontology as a hobby. xP

 

(It probably would have helped if we had another paleontologist on board so there could be more than just the one intro class, though...)

 

 

 

Ooooh, I see. Yeah, I mean, really, there's no realistic way for us to be able to judge that. And since we think one way, we tend to base 'intelligence tests' around our own way of thinking, but many other animals think in many other different ways than us. They have different abilities than us. I think at this point, a lot of it is just that we do not understand how their thinking works and so we label them as 'simplistic' when it's really just our own ignorance/lack of good research in the area. So yeah, I agree - I'm sure they thought much differently than we did, but really, what does that really mean about their "intelligence level"?

 

I know recently there was something about the thought process of some animal that was suggested actually had a complex reasoning behind it and for the longest time we just judged it as animal instinct. I cannot for the life of me remember what it was about, though. =U Grr.

 

I do wann check out those articles you linked just to see what they're like, but I'll have to do it tomorrow. Getting so tired my eyes are crossing. >_e

Actually those classes sound kind of fun to me. XD I might get a bit tired of drawing, but I do really like learning things like names and taxonomy and anatomy and things like that. o3o Maybe I would enjoy it, who knows.

 

Let's just take paleontologist classes together so it'll be more fun! :DDDD

 

Really though, I don't think I'll actually ever go into paleontology except as a hobby. I really want to do game design and even the art and possibly programming and/or music. o3o I'd love to incorporate lots of dino goodness into my games, though. c:

 

---

 

I agree. I really don't think we give many animals much credit and we assume that brain size=smartness. While it's true that commonly, larger brains are in more intelligent animals, but I think plenty of animals are smart without even needing brains! >w<

 

Oooh! If you can find it, I'd like to read it.

 

And okay! The first two are actually kind of a fun read because the author is humorous. The last is just a heavily cited Wikipedia article. XD It's very technical so it might be boring for some but I liked it. I really want to look up more about dino intelligence and even behavior in general.

Raptors may or may not have hunted in packs. That goes for allosaurs too. Epanterias is most likely not a genus. So consider it A. Amplexus until we get further proof that this genus exists and has a difference large enough to get another genus for it. And dinos truly are stupid compared to modern animals. Especially the sauropods.

Now let's see which fight to start next. I've got it.

Ceratosaurus vs Majungasaurus

Ceratosaurus is not a wuss

Majungasaurus is not a wuss either

At parity. Aka equal sizes both 6m.

You have no idea how much I want Velociraptors (and even most raptors in general) to be pack hunters, even if it's a small back. I find the idea completely sound. They really do seem like the ambushing type that sneaks up on prey and attacks all at once like lionesses or wolves or something. XD I do believe it's proven that Utahraptor hunted in packs, so I can't see why Velociraptor, which came after Utahraptor, couldn't have similar behaviors!

 

I think I'm biased towards Ceratosaurus, but I like Majungasaurus's name so I vote for it. XD jk jk jk. In terms of actual ability and strength and everything, I do think Ceratosaurus would win. Just look at those chompers! o:

Edited by edwardelricfreak

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.