random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: UsefulNotes / PrehistoricLifeLargeTheropods

24th May '13 5:10:50 AM Spinosegnosaurus77

Send Spinosegnosaurus77 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

It's probably best to move Sigilmassasaurus; it's almost certainly not Carcharodontosaurus, probably isn't carcharodontosaurian and may not even be avetheropodan (McFeeters et al. 2013).

Changed line(s) 49 (click to see context) from:

to:

Added line(s) 58 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 61,63 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 70,71 (click to see context) :

11th May '13 9:23:47 AM Spinosegnosaurus77

Send Spinosegnosaurus77 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 153,154 (click to see context) from:

Even though some incomplete specimens had already been found before 1985 (like ''Majungasaurus'', ''Indosuchus'', and ''Genyodectes'' [[note]]the latest one was once thought one of them but has been recently re-classified as a more primitive ceratosaurian[[/note]]), abelisaurids were recognized as a group only in that year after the contemporary discover of its two prototypes: the unofficial one is the “horned” ''[[StockDinosaurs Carnotaurus]]''; the official one, ''Abelisaurus''. Both from Late Cretaceous Argentina, these dinosaurs didn’t look so similar; ''Abelisaurus'' skull was long-snouted and totally horn-lacking, more similar to a miniaturized ''Giganotosaurus''. However, the shape of the orbits, the narrow lower jaw, and other “small” things indicate that it was a close relative of ''Carnotaurus''. Always remember that in systematics external appearance is usually a minor factor. Unfortunately, the only thing we know from ''Abelisaurus'' is just the skull. Just one year after were found in Argentina the even scantier remains of the third abelisaurid recognized as such, ''Xenotarsosaurus''.

to:

Even though some incomplete specimens had already been found before 1985 (like ''Majungasaurus'', ''Indosuchus'', and ''Genyodectes'' [[note]]the latest one was once thought one of them but has been recently re-classified as a more primitive ceratosaurian from the Early Cretaceous[[/note]]), abelisaurids were recognized as a group only in that year after the contemporary discover of its two prototypes: the unofficial one is the “horned” ''[[StockDinosaurs Carnotaurus]]''; the official one, ''Abelisaurus''. Both from Late Cretaceous Argentina, these dinosaurs didn’t look so similar; ''Abelisaurus'' skull was long-snouted and totally horn-lacking, more similar to a miniaturized ''Giganotosaurus''. However, the shape of the orbits, the narrow lower jaw, and other “small” things indicate that it was a close relative of ''Carnotaurus''. Always remember that in systematics external appearance is usually a minor factor. Unfortunately, the only thing we know from ''Abelisaurus'' is just the skull. Just one year after were found in Argentina the even scantier remains of the third abelisaurid recognized as such, ''Xenotarsosaurus''.

11th May '13 9:22:32 AM Spinosegnosaurus77

Send Spinosegnosaurus77 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

AFAIK, Marshosaurus has been pretty solid as a piatnitzkysaurid since… what, late 2008-early 2009?

Changed line(s) 113,116 (click to see context) from:

Among other "modern" megalosauroids, there is one which has received a deceptive name: ''Piatnitzkysaurus'' was not discovered in Russia as it seems, but in Argentina. A smallish animal (4-5 m long), it is one of the few dinosaurs known from Jurassic South America (most dinosaurs from this continent are either Triassic or Cretaceous). It shared the habitat with the much larger primitive sauropod ''Patagosaurus''; these two animal were found together in the 1970s and desribed by Jose Bonaparte, the Argentinian paleontologist who named most South American dinos between the 1970s and the 1990s; among the others, ''Saltasaurus'', ''Carnotaurus'', ''Amargasaurus'', ''Riojasaurus'', and the "mouse-lizard" ''Mussaurus''. ''Piatnitzkysaurus'' has recently become the prototype of its own group, the piatnitzkysaurids, just placed outside the proper megalosaurians (megalosaurids + spinosaurids).

Most megalosaurids belonged to one of two branches: the larger, more robust megalosaurines and the smaller, slenderer afrovenatorines (traditionally "eustreptospondylines", but ''Eustreptospondylus'' itself may not belong to the group). The first branch includes ''Megalosaurus'' itself, ''Torvosaurus'' (see below) and former ''Megalosaurus'' species ''Duriavenator'' ("Dorset hunter"). The second branch is much more diverse & widespread, containing five or six taxa. ''Afrovenator'' ("African hunter"), which lent its name to the group, has had an interesting ScienceMarchesOn story. When it was named in 1994, it was thought to come from the Early Cretaceous. However, work carried out in 2009 suggests it is far older, instead hailing from the Middle Jurassic. The afrovenatorines also include the only Asian megalosaurid, ''Leshansaurus'' (originally considered a metriacanthosaurid allosauroid). These two, known from fairly good skeletons, are far more complete known than most other afrovenatorines. For example, ''Piveteausaurus'' ("Piveteau's reptile") is known only from a ''Ceratosaurus''-like braincase, which has caused much confusion (some thought the entire animal was smaller than a man). The original skeleton of ''Poekilopleuron'' ("varying ribs") was lost in WorldWarTwo, and the remaining specimens are also very fragmentary (in fact, it may even be an allosauroid); former ''Poekilopleuron'' species ''Dubreuillosaurus'' ("reptile of the Dubreuillo family") is known from a pretty decent skull. Other megalosauroids are of uncertain placement, for example the North-American ''Marshosaurus'' (whose name onours famous palaeontologist Othniel Marsh).

to:

11th May '13 6:06:00 AM IlPianetaDeiDinosauri

Send IlPianetaDeiDinosauri a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 115,116 (click to see context) from:

to:

11th May '13 5:50:25 AM IlPianetaDeiDinosauri

Send IlPianetaDeiDinosauri a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 153,154 (click to see context) from:

Even though some incomplete specimens had already been found before 1985 (like ''Majungasaurus'', ''Indosuchus'', and ''Genyodectes'') [[note]]the latest one was once thought one of them but has been recently re-classified as a more primitive ceratosaurian[[/note]], as a group abelisaurids were recognized only in that year after the contemporary discover of its two prototypes: the unofficial one is the “horned” ''[[StockDinosaurs Carnotaurus]]''; the official one, ''Abelisaurus''. Both from Late Cretaceous Argentina, these dinosaurs didn’t look so similar; ''Abelisaurus'' skull was long-snouted and totally horn-lacking, more similar to a miniaturized ''Giganotosaurus''. However, the shape of the orbits, the narrow lower jaw, and other “small” things indicate that it was a close relative of ''Carnotaurus''. Always remember that in systematics external appearance is usually a minor factor. Unfortunately, the only thing we know from ''Abelisaurus'' is just the skull. Just one year after were found in Argentina the even scantier remains of the third described abelisaurid, ''Xenotarsosaurus''.

to:

11th May '13 5:48:35 AM IlPianetaDeiDinosauri

Send IlPianetaDeiDinosauri a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 153,156 (click to see context) from:

Even though some incomplete specimens had already been found before that (like ''Indosuchus'' and ''Majungasaurus''), as a group, abelisaurids were recognized only in 1985 after the contemporary discover of its two prototypes: the unofficial one is the “horned” ''[[StockDinosaurs Carnotaurus]]''; the official one, ''Abelisaurus''. Both from Late Cretaceous South America, these dinosaurs didn’t look so similar; ''Abelisaurus'' skull was long-snouted and totally horn-lacking, more similar to a miniaturized ''Giganotosaurus''. However, the shape of the orbits, the narrow lower jaw, and other “small” things indicate that it was a close relative of ''Carnotaurus''. Always remember that in systematics external appearance is usually a minor factor. Unfortunately, the only thing we know from ''Abelisaurus'' is just the skull.

But other relatives are much more known: for example, ''Aucasaurus''. Discovered in the 2000s also in Late Cretaceous South America, ''Aucasaurus'' was one of the smallest members of the family (only 5 m long). Despite not showing neither horns nor a shortened skull, it (along with the more poorly known ''Ilokelesia'') was one of the closest relatives of ''Carnotaurus''. And, like the latter, had a strange look: forelimbs even more reduced than ''Carnotaurus'' itself, tiny stubs ''without any digits''.

to:

But other relatives found in more recent years are much more known: for example, ''Aucasaurus''. Discovered in the 2000s also in Late Cretaceous Argentina, ''Aucasaurus'' was one of the smallest members of the family (only 5 m long). Despite not showing neither horns nor a shortened skull, it (along with the more poorly known ''Ilokelesia'') was one of the closest relatives of ''Carnotaurus''. And, like the latter, had a strange look: forelimbs even more reduced than ''Carnotaurus'' itself, tiny stubs ''without any digits''.

11th May '13 5:40:52 AM IlPianetaDeiDinosauri

Send IlPianetaDeiDinosauri a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 173,174 (click to see context) from:

to:

9th May '13 1:42:05 PM Spinosegnosaurus77

Send Spinosegnosaurus77 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 163,164 (click to see context) from:

Ever since they were recognized as a group, the abelisaurids have posed many problems for paleontologists. Arguably the biggest of these was their relationship to other theropods. As noted before, they show some similarities to tyrannosauroids (indeed, the abelisaur ''Indosuchus'' was once considered a tyrannosaur, and the mysterious large theropod ''Labocania'' is similar to both groups), while it was also briefly proposed that they were late megalosaurids. However, since at least TheNineties or so, they have been found to be ceratosaurs close to the typically much smaller noasaurids. With one mystery solved, however, another arose: when & where did the earliest abelisaurids live, and what did they look like? This question went unanswered for nearly twenty years. In 2012, the paleontological community received the long-awaited answer in the form of ''Eoabelisaurus'' ("dawn Abelisaurus"). Hailing from the Middle Jurassic of Argentina, its arms were longer than those of the more advanced abelisaurids, but still shorter than those of the tyrannosaurids.

to:

Ever since they were recognized as a group, the abelisaurids have posed many problems for paleontologists. Arguably the biggest of these was their relationship to other theropods. As noted before, they show some similarities to tyrannosauroids (indeed, the abelisaur ''Indosuchus'' was once considered a tyrannosaur, and the mysterious large theropod ''Labocania'' is similar to both groups), while it was also briefly proposed that they were late megalosaurids. However, since at least TheNineties or so, they have been found to be ceratosaurs close to the typically much smaller noasaurids. With one mystery solved, however, another arose: when & where did the earliest abelisaurids live, and what did they look like? This question went unanswered for nearly twenty years. In 2012, the paleontological community received the long-awaited answer in the form of ''Eoabelisaurus'' ("dawn ''Abelisaurus''"). Hailing from the Middle Jurassic of Argentina, its arms were longer than those of the more advanced abelisaurids, but still shorter than those of the tyrannosaurids.

8th May '13 1:30:00 PM IlPianetaDeiDinosauri

Send IlPianetaDeiDinosauri a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 163,164 (click to see context) from:

Ever since they were recognized as a group, the abelisaurids have posed many problems for paleontologists. Arguably the biggest of these was their relationship to other theropods. As noted before, they show some similarities to tyrannosauroids (indeed, the abelisaur ''Indosuchus'' was once considered a tyrannosaur, and the mysterious large theropod ''Labocania'' is similar to both groups), while it was also briefly proposed that they were late megalosaurids. However, since at least TheNineties or so, they have been found to be ceratosaurs close to the typically much smaller noasaurids. With one mystery solved, however, another arose: when & where did the earliest abelisaurids live, and what did they look like? This question went unanswered for nearly twenty years. In 2012, the paleontological community received the long-awaited answer in the form of ''Eoabelisaurus'', another addition to the list of Jurassic South American dinosaurs. Hailing from the Middle Jurassic of Argentina, its arms were longer than those of the more advanced abelisaurids, but still shorter than those of the tyrannosaurids.

to:

8th May '13 1:25:01 PM IlPianetaDeiDinosauri

Send IlPianetaDeiDinosauri a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

This list shows the last 10 events of 174. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy