Jurassic park

[JimmyDavid]

I know a bit about dinos and Jurassic park was one of my favorite movies ever ( the scene where the t-rex attacks them in the rain outside the fence, is the most dramatic scene ever shot, in my opinion).
But i was watching part 3 (again) and still don't understand where they got the idea that a Spinosaurus could ever kill a t-rex. It's absurd. I't like a battle between a croc monitor and a Komodo...
The fact that they made the spinosaurus steps sound heavier than the t-rex's is itself a wrong fact. Any average t-rex was larger and heavier than a Spino.
Spinos don't even run second, since Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus are also larger (even than a t-rex).
Spinos were just a long, slender and shy dinosaur that had mostly fish for a diet.

[Katt]

A spino (spinos were still quite a long therapod) being able to kill a T-rex, that bothers you more than say, dilophosaurs with frills and spitting posion? Not to mention, they're bigger in real life?

How about velociraptor which in reality is only a bit bigger than a chicken being man sized in the movie? Considering that Utahraptors are actually man sized? Then again, they were discovered after the books were written.

Oh and that fact the stegosaurs tail spikes were horizontal, not vertical, same with the dorsal plates.

So many things wrong with JP I, II and III, but the movies are still kick butt.

I love how the "velociraptors" have a hierarchy.

I took "dinos" in University, one of my favourite classes, a real eye opener, especially learning about T-Rex.

[JimmyDavid]

I think you mean Compsognatus was the size of a chicken. (?) But yeah, velociraptors were not too big either. Maybe 3-4 feet tall.

[concept3]

velociraptors were covered in feathers and were about the size of a sheep. So three feets is pretty close. I watched a program, they found the best preserved fossils of a raptor in China. I could not find any links on the net though/

[JimmyDavid]

Velociraptors had feathers? I never hear of that. are you sure?

[Katt]

Oops, yes, velociraptors are bigger than I remembered, but I wasn't thinking compy's.

I've heard the feathered dinosaur thing. In fact, I've seen the fossils of those chinese raptors.

T-Rex chicks are thought to have been covered in down.

I don't think the feathers dinos had are like the feathers birds have now.

[VI Reptiles]

Before they had scales they had feathers, they were more bird like. Just saw this on the discover channel :)


VI Reptiles

[JimmyDavid]

Are Dinossaurs part of reptilia? I think an animal must have a scale covered body to be in reptilia.
Then again, so they must be cold blooded and some scientists are starting to say that some dinos were not.

[JimmyDavid]

Nevermind. I think dinosauria is a group itself. It's just that i picture dinosaurs as reptiles.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
Then again, so they must be cold blooded and some scientists are starting to say that some dinos were not.
I've heard this too...
I believe the idea behind this is not so much that dinosaurs had some internal mechanism for maintaining homeostasis (constant temperature regardless of environment - like humans) but, rather that the sheer size of some of the animals would cause the body temperature to be slightly elevated compared to the outside environment. This heat production would come about through regular metabolic/physiological processes such as digestion, locomotion, etc. Since the surface area to volume ratio decreases as an object gets larger, these beasts would not be able to dissipate heat effectively (large volume compared to considerably small surface area in most cases, relatively speaking), hence a net build-up of heat.
I think to say that a dinosaur may have been warm-blooded is misleading, as most people think of endothermy when they hear that word.
I am by no means a palaeontologist but this is what I seem to recall from lectures.
Cheers,
Ryan

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Yes, Dinosauria are a subsister of all modern living reptillia which makes pretty much makes them reptiles.

But then again, It's who's classification you wish to follow.
Zane

[Scales Zoo]

Originally posted by RMBolton
I've heard this too...
I believe the idea behind this is not so much that dinosaurs had some internal mechanism for maintaining homeostasis (constant temperature regardless of environment - like humans) but, rather that the sheer size of some of the animals would cause the body temperature to be slightly elevated compared to the outside environment. This heat production would come about through regular metabolic/physiological processes such as digestion, locomotion, etc. Since the surface area to volume ratio decreases as an object gets larger, these beasts would not be able to dissipate heat effectively (large volume compared to considerably small surface area in most cases, relatively speaking), hence a net build-up of heat.
I think to say that a dinosaur may have been warm-blooded is misleading, as most people think of endothermy when they hear that word.
I am by no means a palaeontologist but this is what I seem to recall from lectures.
Cheers,
Ryan

My gut feeling has always been exactly what you wrote.

Snake eggs give off heat, our large monitors and pythons are warmer than their environment. Metabolic processes create heat, proven science - and the larger the reptile, and surface area stuff is exactly what I've been thinking, and it makes sense!

Ryan

[Katt]

I'd like to ask, what exactly is a reptile?
Dinos weren't reptiles, they were quite different from the large reptiles that lived before them (like Dimetrodon).

Reptilia is an outdated and invalid classification.

[Cake]

Im on the same lines as RMBolton, but would like to add some more info to the warmblooded/coldbloobed debate

There is also inertial homeothermy to be conisdered when talking about large exothermic(cold blooded) animals. A large body size once warm takes a long time to cool down, its all surface area to volume ratios. Its the same priciple that allows the leatherback sea turtle to venture into the cold north atlantic in search jellyfish, returning to the gulf stream when their body temperature falls.

Inertial homeothermy would allow individuals to "warm up" during hot periods and then become active during cooler periods, expoiting niches that were not previosly availible.

Some large dinosaurs have also exhibited bone histology similar to endothermic animals in which they contain structures similar to haeversian(sp?) systems, which is a charecteristic of endothermic(warm blooded) animals.

The long neck length of the brontosaurus leads some reasearchers to think that it may have possesed a four chambered heart. Which is another endothermic charecteristic.

[JimmyDavid]

Katt, a reptile is a creature with scales, cold blood and a back bone.
I think dinosaurs had all that, i just don't understand what makes them different from modern reptiles, then.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Cake
There is also inertial homeothermy to be conisdered when talking about large exothermic(cold blooded) animals.
Isn't this the basis of my post?

Originally posted by Cake
The long neck length of the brontosaurus leads some reasearchers to think that it may have possesed a four chambered heart. Which is another endothermic charecteristic.
I've also read about the possbilty of a four-chambered heart to overcome the forces opposing blood flow to the head, interesting.
As an aside, the name Brontosaurus was formally removed from the records of palaeontology in 1974. Not that it really matters (what's in a name, really?), but the so-called Brontosaurus is really the Apatosaurus.

And Cake is right on the money with the bone histology aspect. I completely forgot about the presence of Haversian canals in the bone of certain dinosaurs (possibly suggesting endothermy).

Cheers,
Ryan

P.S. Has anyone heard of the new $25 million museum opening in Kentucky this spring? It hopes to lure Americans interested in learning how dinosaurs and man co-existed millions of years ago...

[Gary D.]

Jimmy you just described a fish.

From my understanding of prehistoric evolution modern reptiles and Dinosaurs evolved simultaneouslt from previous relatives which survived the Permian extinction (crocodillians were survivors of this extinction as well). Aves would have descended from Dinosauria. So while dinosaurs may arguably classed as reptilia (versus their own Dinosauria) they were far more closely related to aves than modern reptiles.

[Lioness]

im sorry jimmy..
but i've been thinkin of this for a while now..ever since i saw ur pic in ur avatar. and now since u brought up a dino convo i just have to say it..
u kind of resemble barney rubble (sp?)
hope u dont take it personally..

[Katt]

Dinos, crocs and birds are evolved from archosaurs (archosaria) and are not reptiles.

Here's a little page that explains very simply why dinos aren't reptiles, basically lizards walk with their legs on the side (think of an iguana dashing), dino's had legs that moved directly beneath like cats or dogs.

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/faq/dino-faqs/pdq240.html

A bit of on archosaurs.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosy.html


Reptilia used to include snakes and lizards, crocodilians and turtles, however, these animals do not share major characterisitcs aside from egg laying, scales and ecotothermy/poikilothermy.

However, there are several major differences between crocs, squamates, and turtles to show they do not belong together. Considering they have different ancestors as well, there is no reason to put them together aside from superficial morphological similarities.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/index/vertebrata.html


Just to rebutt you Gary. Bird's aren't dino's either.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/dinobird.html

[katev17]

Geez I've just learned how to make a phylogenetic tree, and I tell you, it's one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. It's so hard to classify different taxa into certain groups... it all depends on what traits you're looking at, therefore it's all pretty relative...

Anyway, I was taught last week that the group reptilia is believed by cladists to be nonexistant because the only traits used to classify them are 'surface' traits... and to be able to justify that the group reptilia really is a group, you'd have to include birds in it, and most people aren't really going to accept that...

That's just what I've learned. (Hey, it seems as though I actually am learning something here at university...!)

Kate

[Cake]

Ryan I apologize for adding some more information to this thread. I thought that I should provide some backup information before I stated an opinion. We are talking about the same physical properties, I simply added and example as to how inertial homeothermy benifits a current Cheloniidae, Dermochelys coriacea .

As for incorrectly naming Apatosaurus I am by no means a paeleontologist. I simply used the common name that is generally used by the public. If I had of been aware that this was a scientific forum I would have ensured that I used the correct ICZN sanctioned name.

Edited to remove a section that was inappropriatly petty

[Katt]

Originally posted by RMBolton

P.S. Has anyone heard of the new $25 million museum opening in Kentucky this spring? It hopes to lure Americans interested in learning how dinosaurs and man co-existed millions of years ago...

Are you serious?! hahaha, no way!! That's hsyterical.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Cake
Edited to remove a section that was inappropriatly petty
Dang, I wish I'd checked here sooner ;)

Originally posted by Cake
There is also inertial homeothermy to be conisdered when talking about large exothermic(cold blooded) animals.
This reads as if you're adding a new aspect to what I wrote, which lead me to believe that I was not clear, which prompted me to write "Isn't this the basis of my post?"

Originally posted by Cake
Ryan I apologize for adding some more information to this thread.

Why would you apologize for adding information to this thread? This is a discussion, it goes two ways - your posts are as valuable as the next person. If you fear reprisal, then perhaps you shouldn't post. There's a "quote" feature for the express purpose of discussing a particular aspect of someone's post.

Originally posted by Cake
If I had of been aware that this was a scientific forum I would have ensured that I used the correct ICZN sanctioned name.
Again, it seems like you're taking a passive-aggressive shot at me for furthering this discussion. I see nothing in my post that should have elicited any defence action from you. It's an interesting piece of history, the Brontosaurus hoax, and I thought I'd mention it, since you used the name - no big deal.
I recall that in the late 80's, the U.S. Post office issued four dinosaur stamps, including one entitled Brontosaurus. The public was outraged and the Post office was accused of fostering scientific illiteracy. I remember it all very clearly, it was quite homourous how everyone got bent out of shape about it. Steven Jay Gould published a humourous essay on it.

Originally posted by Katt
Are you serious?! hahaha, no way!! That's hsyterical.
I am dead serious, I can't make this stuff up. I'd post the link to the Star article, but since the museum is called the "Museum of Creation", it might be a little too religious for the forum.

Cake... friends? (though I would be interested in reading the section that was inappropriately petty).

Cheers,
Ryan

[JimmyDavid]

Gary D, reptiles evolved from fish. So, in many ways, reptiles are just fish that developed lungs.

[Katt]

Yes, most land vertebrates evolved from fish, so we are all essentially fish.

[Cake]

Instead of getting upset at three words why dont you read the whole paragraph. When you do you will see it follows the simple sturcute of.....Intro.....Evidence.....Adaptive value to the animal. If the words "There is also" upset you so much I will go back and edit them out for you.

Again, it seems like you're taking a passive-aggressive shot at me for furthering this discussion. I see nothing in my post that should have elicited any defence action from you.
Maybe it was the way I read it then. You are however correct that it was a shot at you.

Why would you apologize for adding information to this thread?
My apology was sarcastic.

As far as me editing my previous post, I did so because I made a stupid comment and know when I am wrong. It was posted for a little while before I removed it. I wrote the edited comment so if anyone had read it before I removed it they would know that I knew I was wrong. If your that curious about it ill pm you with it if you would like.

Moving on. I have no problem with you, nor do I want one. As far as my comments in this post, they are simple exlanations and not intended to offend you, please do not take them as such. I admit my wrongs and my previous post was in mean spirits and for that I do apologize.

Id be interested in reading that article from the star, If you wouldn't mind sending me a pm with it i would greatly appreciate it.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Cake
You are however correct that it was a shot at you.

You're a credit to polite discussion...

Originally posted by Cake
they are simple exlanations and not intended to offend you, please do not take them as such
Couldn't have said it better myself, though you'd have been well advised to heed your own advise prior to your second post.

[Cake]

So let me get this straight.....I admit to being an a$$, apologized, and you are still upset. Im not sure I understand. You made a accusation about me taking a shot at you, I did, so I admited and apologized. Is this not the polite thing to do?

However, now instead of accepting my apology you decide to continue to attack me. Lets call it a day, go home and have a beer (speaking metaphorically)

[Removed_2815]

Like you said in a PM, we are butting our heads for no reason. I didn't mean for you to think that I was ever attacking you; I thought you were ripping into me...
Anyway, we are now both being silly, let's accept each other's mutual apology and be done with it.
Cheers,
Ryan

[Siretsap]

Amen, ;-)

See people, there is a way to attack each other in polite ways ;-)

[Cake]

Done and Done.

[Removed_2815]

:thumbsup:

[clint545]

That was beautiful guys. An example has been set:)

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

NOW that WAS INTERESTING. lol:D
rICK

[Cake]

hahahaha......lets all hold hands and run through the meadow.

[KrokadilyanGuy3]

Hmm..
I cannot find anything describing Reptilia being out dated. All crocodilian biologists to my knowledge are still using this basic Cladogram as the just of crocodilians. Dinosauria follows archosaurmorpha.

Reptilia
|--Squamata
`--Archosauria
|--Aves
`--+--Rhynchocephalia
`--+--Testudines
`--Crocodylia

Even called up a few CSG members (Biologists) to make sure I'm not being left in the dark. Everyone is informing me that reptilia still is in order and archosauria still follows as and crocodilians are in fact reptiles. Also, I cannot find anything on the net disregarding Reptilia being obsolete.
Even the links you posted included reptilia as a classification which claim reptilia includes any anapsids and diapsids, even birds.

Any links telling me why reptilia was removed and who made this basis would be great.
Thanks,
Zane

[Gary D.]

edit: oh never mind...