The dinosaur thread

From what I am reading, the short answer is that we dont know. Some experts claim that the largest pterosaurs were more heavily muscled, for their size, than modern birds. Then again, there seems to be no consensus regarding how much they weighed or what they ate. So far, it seems that their hind legs were too weak, and their chest muscles were not properly designed to lift more that a fraction of their own weight. The latest opinion seems to be that the largest pter's, like the Quetzelcoatus, hunted small animals while walking around on land, like a gigantic heron.

I dont suppose their was anything preventing a flying reptile from evolving to carry larger prey, but it would have to have been a different line from the ones we have uncovered.

Would grasping feet even be compatible with a quadrupedal flyer? (i'm not talking about pterosaurs, just in general)

Bats, but I don’t think they use their feet to grasp prey.

It's more that an animal is more likely to evolve quadrepedal movement if they dont need their feet to be the grasping instruments. Really its a "chicken and egg" thing- everything on an animal evolves together, like morphing jigsaw pieces. You cant change one element without changing the entire animal.

There's no way to make this up: 1st preserved dinosaur butthole is 'perfect' and 'unique,' paleontologist says: "The first dinosaur butthole ever discovered is shedding light where the sun don't shine. The discovery reveals how dinosaurs used this multipurpose opening — scientifically known as a cloacal vent — for pooping, peeing, breeding and egg laying."

Apparently, dinosaur butts were uniquely different from those of any other kind of animal. Who knew?

Hmmm, makes me wonder. I mean cladistically birds are therapods after all. Is this a possible split between the Ornithischia and Saurischia perhaps.

We need more assholes.

Edited by KnightofLsama on Jan 21st 2021 at 7:13:11 PM

Man, I somehow forgot about the conversation that I had been involved in here. That said, I'm glad to see that someone had fixed the relevant entries in the interim.

~Spinosegnosaurus77 (this post): What relevance does that have on the matter?

Edited by MarqFJA on Jan 1st 2022 at 1:06:26 PM

By definition, a nomen oblitum hasn’t been used since 1899. If it was used in 1956, it’s not a nomen oblitum.

Edited by Spinosegnosaurus77 on Jan 2nd 2022 at 6:21:25 AM

"In its present meaning, the nomen oblitum came into being with the fourth, 1999, edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. After 1 January 2000, a scientific name may be formally declared to be a nomen oblitum when it has been shown not to have been used as a valid name within the scientific community since 1899, and when it is either a senior synonym (there is also a more recent name which applies to the same taxon, and which is in common use) or a homonym (it is spelled the same as another name, which is in common use), and when the preferred junior synonym or homonym has been shown to be in wide use in 50 or more publications in the past few decades."

Okay, then it comes down to what they mean when they say "valid name".

I think they mean something like "no one has used it for that purpose since our grandpa's day."

Oh, "valid name" has a formal definition. Here's what I think is the most applicable kind of subjectively invalid names:

IINM Diplodicus is far more used than Amphicoelias. That said, this only makes it viable for petitioning the ICZN for invalidation, which if accepted would make it an objectively invalid name (and thus a nomen oblitum).

Edited by MarqFJA on Jan 5th 2022 at 12:38:10 PM