[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/an/ - Animals & Nature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: downloadfile-1.jpg (35 KB, 474x302)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
I want a fried chicken edition, and whatever dinosaurs you like.
>>
File: 1636032968942.jpg (147 KB, 807x490)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
>>
File: dinos.jpg (97 KB, 800x770)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>
dinosaurs were cute
>>
Perfection
>>
dino feet are sexual
>>
File: gunter-nikodim-x-369.jpg (348 KB, 1920x1080)
348 KB
348 KB JPG
>>3970598
the chad scaly lipped tyrannosaurus versus the virgin feathered croc-faced t rex
>>
>>3970642
you are not only one who does think like that
>>
File: Ugly lips.jpg (189 KB, 1280x720)
189 KB
189 KB JPG
>>3970598
>>3970693
These look good
Part of the problem with the dissatisfaction with modern rex reconstructions is that paleoartists don't have nuance and illustrate rex with the flappy retarded looking nigger lips because they think they have to accentuate and emphasize the lips or else nobody will notice.
>>
File: E3FjEYDUcAQ3Ios.jpg (59 KB, 567x425)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>
>>3970172
i want fried chicken
>>
>>3970172
If synapsids are stem mammals thwt meabs dinosaurs are stem birds
>>
>>3971711
if you call a chicken as a dinosaur you will not be wrong
>>
I miss them bros
>>
File: 1636213782360.jpg (1.08 MB, 1024x1126)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
>>3972017
imagine how cool it would be to get pressured under your pet rex's paws but not to death
>>
Dino discord
https://discord.gg/WZdQ8kV2
>>
File: stomp study.webm (1.99 MB, 1280x720)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB WEBM
>>
>>3972102
Imagine getting stepped on my T-Rex haha
>>
File: 3x16ms6uxgx71.png (185 KB, 1080x560)
185 KB
185 KB PNG
Here, the do's and dont's of drawing feathered raptors
>>
>>3972179
soul vs soul
>>
File: dino.webm (1.29 MB, 1280x720)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB WEBM
>>3970874
>>
File: carter[1].png (120 KB, 297x262)
120 KB
120 KB PNG
>>3972121
>>
>>
File: 1545230963673.jpg (405 KB, 1600x839)
405 KB
405 KB JPG
>>
>>3972416
Only time I ever wished I was a Mexican
>>
>>3972040
Have you linked it to the /an/cord
Could help it grow
>>
>>3972409
Would have been even better if he pushed his legs into their faces
>>
File: FDoM8RoWEAEbegM.jpg (165 KB, 4096x1638)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
here's your giant megalosaur senpai
>>
>>3973516
why don’t you fags just research which dinosaurs have the most complete fossil records of it bothers you so much? you clearly capable of it considering you like to point out the incomplete ones so much.
>those are all fake too!
well poisoning kikes need not apply.
>>
>>3972731
/an/cord is shit, how many times has it been shut down and rebuilt?
ffs the last one I was on had it's own raid channel to mass report threads, that's all it took for me to literally delete the discord app.
>>
>>3973516
At least megalosaurids have a true megatheroppd taxon now and aren't theropodlets
>>
File: FDZQxvTXIAARq7z.jpg (198 KB, 1254x1149)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
anyone know a good website or book or whatever with accurate, update dinosaurs reconstructions for reference? suck when i want to get into making paleoart but all raptor references are JP looking outdated shit.
>>
>>3973896
Scott Hartman skeletals. The guys does it for a living. Integument and lips and shit is up to you to research, but there's not actually that many soft tissue evidence known and most of what we infer is done so by bracketing.
>>
>>3972683
poop water
>>
File: teste.png (1.8 MB, 2000x2000)
1.8 MB
1.8 MB PNG
>>3973993
thanks man. i'm still trying to get a hang of it, there's a lot i still need to study. i'll still finish the shading on this one.
>>
>>3974811
>>
>>3974942
A nice and simple drawing
>>
>>3974942
Neato
>>
>Nigersauras
Over 100 million years ago, the Nigersauras was an elephant-sized animal that lived in what is now West Africa.
>>
>>3973896
http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/index.html
>>
>>3972023
it really bugs me that those tyrannosaurs are lacking lips.
>>
>>3972179
>bird eyes
Debatable. Dromeosaurs had very large eyes proportionally and likely were hunting in low-light conditions, so vertical pupils were more likely for those predators.
>>
>>3973896
>tfw nothing looking like Victorian dinosaurs in the fossil record.

>>3975237
>SHEEEEEEEE-IIIIIT
>>
>>3973896
Potofgreedsaurus chaotic evil
>>
>>3970881
This, also making them a giant puffball with the feathers, coloured some acid colour, because "who knows what colour they'd be", like that would make sense with a predator.
>>
>>3975853
>owls, nightjars, potoos
There’s nothing to suggest vertical pupils were more likely
>>
File: Edmontosaurus_scale.png (45 KB, 1168x426)
45 KB
45 KB PNG
Look at how big they get! I imagine even a Tyrannosaurus wouldn't go for an adult.
>>
i wanna fuck a dino
>>
>>3972179
>no bro everything has to look like a dull north American bird
shieeeet
>>
>>3976909
Well, most dinosaurs are bird sweetie
>>
>>3976894
me first
>>
>>3976977
And yet clearly you've never seen birds beyond your common goose or duck.
>>
>>3976878
>Hadrosaurs in real life: Multi tonne power houses that could pose a significant threat to even the largest predators
>Hadrosaurs in media: theropod half me size scary
>>
>>3976992
Imagine their tail swipes
>>
>>3971721
Only in a certain sense. It's like calling a man an ape.
>>
>>3977046
Birds/dinosaurs and a human/ape aren’t really comparable. If you want to call a house cat and a lion both cats then a human is an ape
>>
>>3977046
>>3977121
yeah it too abstract like saying that anything is an object yep that is true but it makes no sense because it is obvious
>>
Apes are monkeys
>>
>>3977924
monkeys are tree shrews

tree shrews are actual shrews

actual shrews are mammals

mammals are reptiles

reptiles are amphibians

amphibians are fishes

fishes are tunicates

you get it
>>
>>3977929
tunicates are objects
objects are... <Error>
>>
>>3977929
Mammals aren't reptiles
Reptilomorphs aren't reptiles
>>
>>3970693
>an upright but still girthy rex that isn't a fat cunt manlet
add some horns and this might be my favourite t rex reconstruction
>>
>>3979330
>horns
nigga its a t. rex not a goat
>>
>>3977046
Or a featherless biped
>>
Feather dino are based
Featherless dino are cringe
>>
>>3980132
Horns like this are pretty likely
>>
>>3980735
semi feathered dino are fine to each of us
>>
File: z.jpg (1.4 MB, 1890x1947)
1.4 MB
1.4 MB JPG
Is there a function to the dewclaws of theropods? Cassowaries seem to do fine with just three toes, and ostriches have two toes that made them better runners. But theropods have had that dewclaw for hundreds of millions of years.
>>
>mogged by Sinraptorids (Guanlong)
>mogged by Allosaurids (Stokesosaurus)
>mogged by Ceratosaurids (Stokesosaurus)
>mogged by Megalosaurids (Stokesosaurus)
>mogged by Piatnitzysaurids (Stokesosaurus)
>mogged by Spinosaurids (Eotyrannus)
>mogged by Carcharodontosaurids (Too many to count)
>mogged by Neovenatorids (Moros)
>mogged by giant Dromaeosaurids in Asia for a while after Carcharodontosaurids and Neovenatorids
>mogged by Deinosuchus (12 meter 8 ton Alligator kek)
>mogged by Megaraptorans in Asia
>finally get less than 10 million years of complete dominance as the uncontested largest apex predator in your environment
>space rocks BTFOs you anyways at the height of your """dominance"""
It's a good thing T. rex and its ilk went extinct. They would've found a way to screw it up anyways.
>>
>>3976909
How many brightly coloured predatory birds have you seen
>>
>>3981350
At least they outlasted them
>>
>>3981771
Not really. They died off with carnosaurs and ceratosaurs at the same time. Alligators outlasted them. They didn't eben have one thing macropredatory carnivore guilds that spent most of their history as mesopredators nearly all have going for them. The fact that they're usually less prone to extinction than apex predators because they're usually less specialized and thus usually last longer. They didn't even have that one thing that everyone else had going for them.
>>
>>3980929
Might be useful for infants and juveniles individuals
>>
>>3970229
You're cuter
>>
File: faggot.jpg (1.51 MB, 2048x1366)
1.51 MB
1.51 MB JPG
>>3983648
Fag.
>>
Were Troodonts really this smart?
>>
>>3984037
Has this been scanlated? Also the feathered Tyrannosaurus makes me think that the "research" that the author did was just googling basic internet articles
>>
>>3984193
Ask the scientific advisor on where he draws the line for plumage.
Each chapter has his take on various topics such as postures or arm usage.
>>
>>3984037
Compared to the smartest kinds of virds today? No.
>>
File: Stegouros_elengassen.jpg (916 KB, 2158x2160)
916 KB
916 KB JPG
Thoughts on "Stegouros"? https://i.imgur.com/td3CePL.png
[spoiler]Only put quotation marks around the name because it's apparently not officialy published yet[/spoiler]
>>
>>3984037
what's the sauce on this manga
>>
>>3984401
The name is in the corner, Dinosaurs Sanctuary.
https://www.comicbunch.com/manga/bunch/dinosan/
>>
>>3984396
when you have a name that's in common usage but not published it will probably never be published because common usage prevents publication
>>
>>3981397
Vultures, secretary bird, barn owl, harpy eagle.
>>
>>3984446
Those are all well camouflaged in their habitat. The only bright colors are the red color bearded vultures get from dust bathing in iron oxide, and the orange face of a secretary bird. Since seccies don't have to worry much about their prey seeing them and booking it, that splash of color doesn't hurt their fitness much.
>>
What datasets do you use
>>
File: apex-predator.jpg (258 KB, 1000x1000)
258 KB
258 KB JPG
>>3972040
>>3972731
>>3973562
Stop plugging your disgusting discord shit. You're killing the board.
>>
Please stop posting dinosaurs with lips. Any land dwellings have lips that's why dinosaurs would have one, that is all.
>>
>possibly the coolest dinosaur ever
>>
>>3985210
Based Ankychad.
>>
File: FEsSM7MVQAALgLG.jpg (123 KB, 539x1024)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
Did the back of carcharodontosaur skulls look like allosaurs
>>
>>3985855
Antrodemuschads ww@
>>
File: P7040057.jpg (857 KB, 2140x2800)
857 KB
857 KB JPG
>>3985855
>Did the back of carcharodontosaur skulls look like allosaurs
No

Allosaurids are unique among Allosauroidea in the following synapomorphies:

1. Sloping angle of the occipital face
2. Ventrolateral declination of the paroccipital processes of the exoccipital-opisthotic
3. Bifurcation and buttressing of the basitubera of the basioccipital
4. Expansion of the superoccipital crest

They are however similar in the participation of the exoccipital in the foramen magnum and occipital condyle iirc
>>
>>3986017
*supraoccipital

spell check hates anatomical terms
>>
>>3986017
Thanks
Don't all allosauroids have nonflattened vertebral joints
>>
>>3986017
>>3986019
Based on how similar carcharodontosaurid and megalosaurid teeth are I'd expect them to have macrophagous adaptations in their cranial morphology more similar to Torvosaurus than Allosaurus honestly.

And we don't nearly know as much as about how Torvosaurus actually preyed on herbivores compared to either Ceratosaurus or Allosaurus.
>>
>>3986144
>Don't all allosauroids have nonflattened vertebral joints
yeah but that's not very informative since almost all vertebrates have nonflattened vertebral centra. Mammals are the only ones that normally have flat vertebral faces, and that has to do with how we stop growing at adulthood. Most other animals either grow as long as they're alive or limit their growth in ways that doesn't result in flat vertebral faces.

Dinosaurs in general usually have 2 or more different types of vertebral joints. 3 is pretty typical. Often the cervical verts are opisthocoelous, grading to amphicoelous in the body, and often procoelous at the tail. In between each change there may be a vert or two with a flat face on it. But generally there won't be fully amphiplatyan verts like are found in humans and other mammals.
>>
>>3986506
Are there any theropods with flat amphiplatyan verts other than T. rex?
>>
>>3986597
I wouldn't consider rex verts amphiplatyan, they're just a bit less curved than other dinosaurs. And like in other dinos, there are several different types of vert articular surfaces in T. rex.

that said, I don't know the answer. I don't know the vertebral condition of every dinosaur out there, or every theropod. Of the dozens I'm aware of, none are amphiplatyan.
>>
File: 2-allosaurusfe.jpg (668 KB, 3541x4060)
668 KB
668 KB JPG
>>3986148
You should really check out witmer's paper on cranial plasticity.

A couple quick points he mentions:

I. Endocrania are highly conserved, they don't change much. This is because most mutations to the endocranium are going to kill the animal. So evolution happens veerrrrryyyy slowly in the braincase.

II. Because of this even tiny differences can be meaningful

III. most differences in endocrania represent changes in skull stress patterns rather than direct evidence of particular behaviors or behavioral strategies.

IV. Most reptilian endocrania look pretty much the same. I'd guess the average person wouldn't be able to tell T. rex from Torvosaurus from a crocodile based on the occiput or endocranium. They're essentially identical.

So the odd parts of the Allosaurus occiput are pretty unique. They appear to be very specific specializations, as Bakker writes. Most reptile endocrania don't have any particular specializations. Of the few that do, it's things like size and location of muscle insertion scars or width at the paroccipital processes or height of the basioccipital below the condyle or whatever. Very tiny differences that most people would never notice or recognize as adaptations.

All of this to say megalosaur endocrania are pretty much identical in occipital view to carcharodontosaur or tyrannosaur skulls. Like it takes years of study to tell them apart, they don't really have any obvious adaptations. They're conserved, generalized, unspecialized braincases much like croc or lizard or even amphibian braincases. Not a lot of difference in most reptilian endocrania. Allosaurus is actually pretty weird in how different its occiput actually is. And even that isn't spectacularly different or anything. Most people wouldn't notice a difference at all.
>>
>>3986617
My anatomy is not great and it is very hard to actually visualize the descriptive writing without actually having a solid frame of reference to compare it to that comes with hands on work with dinosaur bones. I'm using a combination of your posts and diagrams of Daspletosaur endocrania to try and get a good handle on the shape and what to pay attention to as significant. Specifically for the 4 Allosaurid synapomorphies, is this what they are?
>>
File: cross-legged-owl.gif (139 KB, 600x450)
139 KB
139 KB GIF
>>3976894
>>3976982
Cross-legged owl does not approve of bestiality.
>>
>>3986659
yes, perfect.
I'll write a little more in a few minutes, I have to go do something. But I believe you got it exactly.
>>
>>3986682
I think my vocabulary is good enough for the other synapomorphies but what exactly does "buttressing" mean on the supraoccipital??
>>
File: B&B.jpg (341 KB, 985x676)
341 KB
341 KB JPG
>>3986690
Ok so regarding 1, the sloping face of the occiput, that's the entire back of the skull. Like in side view the back of the skull angles down and back instead of being straight up and down as is normal in large theropods.

>what exactly does "buttressing" mean on the supraoccipital??
The buttressing I mentioned is in the basitubera, the split knuckle looking bumps you marked as 3.

It's impossible to see from the back of the skull, but there's a box-like set of ridges just forward of those split knuckles that reinforces them. It's easy to see in ventral aspect.

Here I've marked the bifurcated basitubera with green on each tuber, and the buttressing supporting them is marked in red.
>>
File: bb2.jpg (315 KB, 896x680)
315 KB
315 KB JPG
>>3986747
for reference here's the same graphic without markings over the features
>>
>>3986617
>>3986659
>>3986747
>>3986752
Thanks for the indepth posts. From my experience in prior paleo threads I've suspected Allosaurid occipital morphology is really only specific to Allosaurus itself and other very close relatives. Not even other Allosauroids like Carcharodontosaurids or other Carnosaurs like Megalosaurids ever developed the same specializations. I'm not sure about Sinraptorids but judging by what I've seen so far they probably have a very generalist endocrania too.

But that does still beg the question of how exactly Carcharodontosaurids and Megalosaurids dispatched of their prey compared to theropods we do know more about in regards to their feeding mechanisms such as Tyrannosaurids, Ceratosaurids and Allosaurids. This just enhances my curiousity. I heard that Megalosaurids have really high mechanical advantage values per Sakamoto 2010. However, he noted we don't have complete enough skulls of any Megalosaurid (and probably Carcharodontosaurids/other relatively poorly researched theropods in regards to biting mechanics in general otherwise we would know more about them if they had better preserved remains) for comparative anatomy purposes using models like FEA. It's a shame really. Everything I can do just amounts to pure speculation.
>>3986602
I should have said their dorsals flatter relative to other theropod vertebrae. Maybe giving them a lesser range of motion in that part of the spine?
>>
>>3986747
>>3986752
Thank you, those will go into my folder.

You've cryptically hinted at it before, but this particular derived condition is useful for what exactly? Ventroflexion? How would that violently moving your skull out and away from your body help in capturing prey? No other aspect of Allosaurus anatomy seems suitable for striking like a snake or a a heron or something. Could it be a feeding/prey manipulation adaptation?
>>
>>3986775
>I heard that Megalosaurids have really high mechanical advantage values per Sakamoto 2010.
He also looks at Acro, who does a have a full skull known, and finds that it does not share the MA as Megalosaurus
What I find interesting about Megalosaurids, Torvosaurus in particular, is that it has fused interdetnal plates, deeply rooted teeth, and a recurved maxilla that reminds me of nothing other than Tyrannosaurids. Although its teeth don't seem to be built for it, the megalosaurids strike me as having a grossly overbuilt bite and I would not be surprised if they shared some hunting behaviors with Tyrannosaurids.
>>
>>3986775
iirc Bakker stated that the same occipital features were observed in Yangchuanosaurus, but I could be mistaken. It may have been Sinraptor. Or both. I haven't read up on this stuff in decades. I believe he considered them allosaurids based on the shared traits at one point.

Regarding feeding mechanics I leave that to other workers. Just my opinion but I kinda doubt any of these guys were actually that specialized or if they were, the specializations emerged with size/ontogeny. They probably used multiple feeding strategies at any one point in their lives, and multiple other strategies at different sizes. Most terrestrial predators do.

And yeah, endocrania are far more common than complete skulls, but still pretty rare. And theropods themselves are rare finds, any part of them.

>>3986776
Ah, ventroflexion would be jerking the skull downward or towards the body. You know how Bakker interprets that. Personally I could think of several uses for that movement, whether it's dragging itself up the side of a sauropod by its teeth or ripping flesh from bones of a dead animal on the ground. But there's no way to be certain, and again I suspect the trait had multiple uses.
>>
>>3986791
Yes, Acro is also interesting because it's lost almost all of the occipital traits of Allosaurus even though it lived in the same area and not long after. But perhaps Acro isn't a direct descendant of Allosaurus.

I agree on Torvo in comparison to tyrannosaurids. Actually Cerato is fairly similar in tooth size, tooth thickness, and heterodonty to tyrannosaurids as well.
>>
>>3986805
>whether it's dragging itself up the side of a sauropod by its teeth or ripping flesh from bones of a dead animal on the ground
another interpretation that seems likely is pulling the prey in closer to the body where it could be manipulated with the relatively powerful claws and arms.

there's a lot of things that could be good for.
>>
>>3986775
>Maybe giving them a lesser range of motion in that part of the spine?
yes, that is the accepted interpretation. Stiffening of the spine.

they're not nearly as flat as our spines though. And we have a pretty large range of motion. So it may have been more for compressive strength... like to absorb the shock of running full force into another gigantic animal.
>>
File: Allosaurus forelimbs.jpg (46 KB, 1024x371)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>3986805
Yes we've been over Bakker's questionable interpretation of it before. Pulling something towards the body starts to make much more sense.

>Ripping flesh from bones of a dead animal on the ground
I doubt they developed this highly derived state in a very conserved region just to do something that theropods could easily do already.

>Personally I could think of several uses for that movement, whether it's dragging itself up the side of a sauropod by its teeth
This is a suspicion that I've had for quite some time, but I've never wanted to share it because its somewhat extraordinary. More on that in a minute, though.

>>3986810
>with the relatively powerful claws and arms.
There's nothing "relatively" powerful about these monsters. The claws on a large allosaur might just be the most lethal tools of destruction on any forelimb ever. We also know they were covered in stress fractures so they were doing SOMETHING violent with them.

While his ideas on le ebin hatchet are somewhat implausible, I think Bakker is dead on about Allosaurus preying on sauropods. Every other Morrison scientist I've read dismisses him out of pocket because "sauropods are just too big" and Foster even comes up with a complicated ecological model to get around the simple conclusion that maybe, just maybe, the most common large predators in the Morrison might actually have just eaten the most common large prey.
Imagine a pair of Allosaurs climbing the flanks of a sauropod with their jaws and forelimbs. What exactly is it supposed to do to get them off?
>>
>>3986807
>even though it lived in the same area and not long after
Well, 30 million years later.

>Perhaps Acro isn't a direct descendant of Allosaurus.
Well, this would make sense, as the clade was showing up in Tendaguru at the same time Allo was just getting started in NA

>I agree on Torvo in comparison to tyrannosaurids
How do you think that could work, given the very slim profile of the teeth?

>Actually Cerato is fairly similar in tooth size, tooth thickness, and heterodonty to tyrannosaurids as well.
Thats very interesting. Especially since the animals have nothing else in common cept being armlets.
>>
>>3986817
>What exactly is it supposed to do to get them off?
yeah that's it right there. Grab a nice big bite, hook in the hand claws, pull up and then get the toe claws in. Then just keep chomping right up the side. The thing will be dead of shock, exsanguination, and disembowelment pretty fast and there's not a lot it could do about it.

The other argument against Bakker's brontophagy is we have at least 2 examples of Allosaurus attacking a living animal, and both are Stegosaurus. One a steg plate with an Allo bite that healed, the other an Allo hip with a Steg thagomizer spine shaped hole punched through it. But I agree, I'm pretty sure they preyed on sauropods even if we haven't found the fossils to prove it... yet.
>>
>>3986818
>How do you think that could work, given the very slim profile of the teeth?
they were fragile but certainly strong enough to do the job. And they were constantly replaced. The most common Torvo fossil we find is shed teeth, and they're not nearly as rare as the rest of the animal.

But again I leave that up to you to work out. I'm no expert on theropod feeding behaviors.
>>
>>3986818
>Especially since the animals have nothing else in common cept being armlets.
that's probably significant
>arms shrink
>teeth grow
I'd guess that says something about behavior by itself.
>>
>>3986791
So megalosaurids were like a more efficient version of tyrannosaurids using crocodile like biting motions to rip chunks out of their prey with large masseter adductors (not as large as Tyrannosaurs but higher MA helps compensate for it)? I can buy that. Their skulls are apparently very stress resistant too.
Still wondering how Carcharodontosaurids did it though. They have similar teeth but lower MA. Would being allosauroids give them the same joints in the skull that permit enlarged gape which I presume Torvosaurus doesn't have to the same degree? I also know Acro has DSDI values and more serrated teeth than T. rex, not sure if it abd other carcharodontosaurids has higher denticle densities like Megalosaurids like Torvo. I'll have to look into that.
>>3986805
So potentially both sinraptorids and allosaurids had the same occipital anatomy. That's useful to know.
>>
File: sinraptor.png (50 KB, 364x375)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
>>3987143
I'd have to do some digging to find Bakker's paper on sinraptors or Yangchuanosaurus.

Just glancing at the diagnoses for each, it appears both have downturned paroccipital processes but not nearly as much as Allosaurus does. Also the basitubera of Sinraptor don't really appear to be bifurcated, but they do appear to be buttressed by the walls of the basisphenoid recess. The basitubera are connected by a ridge of bone (butressed) rather than hanging down seperately (pedunculate).

regarding feeding in carchs, I mean it's clear they had no trouble getting and eating food. So I assume perhaps megalosaurs and tyrannosaurs were maybe going after faster, more active preys that placed more stress on the teeth and skull? Not to imply that carcharodontosaurs were strictly scavengers or anything. Just that perhaps they had killing methods like perineal ripping or strangulation that didn't stress the skull as much?
>>
>>3987263
I guess it would more sense if Sinraptorids had specializations similar to Allosaurus but were less extensively specialized compared to Allosaurus over all. They are more basal Allosauroids. And a study by Snively found that they actually should have more durable stress resistant skulls than Allosaurus when their skulls are the same lengths. The cranium of Sinraptor is at least as strong as the skull of Gorgosaurus when at parity to give you an idea. It's no small fry, it's comparable to admittedly one of more gracile Tyrannosaurids. It's possible Sinraptorids were either handling struggling prey or had stronger bites than Allosaurus or a bit of both.
As of recent studies, Tyrannosaurids had longer legs (especially tibias) than other megatheropods not necessarily to run faster but rather to have better stamina and more efficient locomotion when chasing down prey over LONG distances. Megalosaurids never seemed like particularly long legged theropods to me and Torvosaurus itself has a massively built thick limb bones with the most robust tibia of any Jurassic theropod. The latter don't really appear to be built for speed and long distance 'running' (giant megatheropods are speedwalking at best), it's more suited towards power rather than cursoriality. Their anatomy better corresponds with assuming the role of ambush predators more than Tyrannosaurids ever did judging from their hindlimb and hip structure alone.
Carcharodontosaurids don't have as weak bites as people tend to presume either. Sakamoto thinks Carcharodontosaurus itself could generate a level of force comparable to T. rex for what it's worth. They just couldn't pulverize bone in the same way T. rex could because of their dentition and unfused nasals. And Carcharodontosaurids should have craniums and mandibles at least as proficient at dissipating feeding related loads as well as Allosaurus can even scaled for their size. That was from the same paper by Snively I mentioned earlier.
>>
>>3987302
My sources:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223698
https://twitter.com/drmambobob/status/1409960979648106501
https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app51/app51-435.pdf
>>
>>3986817
Did any other allosauroids have 'an unusually low attachment point on the skull for the longissimus capitis superficialis neck muscle'?
>>
>>3987370
yeah, that's what we're discussing. Since the MLCS attached at the tip of the paroccipital process in all dinosaurs (and reptiles and amphibians), that's the same as saying "ventrolateral declination of the paroccipital process."

Any dinosaurs with paroccipital processes that decline ventrolaterally will have a low attachment of the MLCS. To my knowledge Sinraptor and Yangchuanosaurus had some ventrolateral declination of the paroccipital processes, but not to the extent of Allosaurus. So the muscle attachment was low, but not as low as in Allosaurus.
>>
File: MLCS.jpg (68 KB, 600x757)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>3987370
>>3987389
forgot pic

notice MLCS is low because POPR is low.
>>
>>3987393
Also note this is the same skull, "Big Al," that's posted in the thread above.

The paroccipital processes are distorted in this specimen. The right process in the picture is typical of Allosaurus sp. The one on the left is distorted upward by diagenesis. The entire skull is slightly twisted.
>>
>>3987302
As you know Torvosaurus is presumed to be from outside the morrison floodplains because of the paucity of body fossils aside from teeth. It's assumed to have lived in hills and mountains around the morrison basin. This may have some impact on the strength of the femur as well. Scrambling up and down slopes is a lot more stressful for a nearly-armless biped than walking across flat marsh and swamp and river bank.

I never really trusted the tyrannosaurid "fused and vaulted nasals" thing. Mostly because even if the nasals aren't fused, the hard palate is. So any dinosaur that had a skull that twisted when biting would fracture the thin bones of the hard palate. Like the fused vomers would just shatter under that kind of stress. But I never really cared enough to say anything about it because I doubt it matters. Fused and vaulted nasals would strengthen the rostrum, but clearly dinosaurs weren't distorting or breaking bones of the face just by biting things, even when the nasals weren't fused.
>>
>>3987302
Regarding bone-eating, I've seen a coprolite from the morrison formation, at a quarry where Allosaurus has been found. The coprolite contains multiple bone fragments. It's impossible to know exactly which large morrison theropod produced the coprolite, but it's clear that at least one of them was crushing and eating bones.

For that matter bones damaged by passing through the digestive tract of a theropod are fairly common finds in the morrison and other locations. I'd guess bone eating was just part of a theropod's job. T. rex may have been better at it than other theropods, but from what I've seen I doubt it.
>>
desu Trex looks better without lips
>>
>>3987389
>>3987393
>>3987399
Thanks for the clarification
>>
>>3987408
Torvosaurus would've also inhabited more densely forested areas of upper Jurassic North America too. Having longer legs wouldn't really aid it in such an environment. But a proportionally shorter and more stout femur and tibia would be useful for a powerful ambush predator that utilizes cover.
Allosaurus had fused frontals and parietals while T. rex had comparative gracile ones iirc.
>>3987409
I've heard about that too. Supposedly the largest osteophagy derived coprolite belonging to a carnivorous theropod on record was found in the Morrison, not Hell Creek.
>>
File: spinosaurus.png (495 KB, 762x569)
495 KB
495 KB PNG
>>3987425
>Allosaurus had fused frontals and parietals while T. rex had comparative gracile ones iirc.
yes exactly. Most of the Allosaurus endocrania we find have the skull roof fused to them. Which is weird since the rest of the skull didn't generally fuse.

>Supposedly the largest osteophagy derived coprolite belonging to a carnivorous theropod on record was found in the Morrison, not Hell Creek.
can confirm
It's just not well known is all. I'd bet we'll eventually find that those bone frags have scrapes on them that match Allosaurus denticle counts.
>>
>>3986819
FFS Diplodocids didnt need to evolve whip tails and their presence proves they needed to defend themselves from something.

>we have at least 2 examples of Allosaurus attacking a living animal, and both are Stegosaurus.

Which would make sense because an allosaur-sauropod fight wouldn't really leave any big tooth on bone or weapon on bone contact. The saurpod doesn't have any boney pieces jutting out to bite and we all know allo wasn't crushing bone like a rex would. Neither does it have a hard weapon to jam into an allo body. The type of pathologies that would result from such a fight would be in the flesh of the sauropod and probably not preserve in the bone. Likewise an allosaur that got a crushed or a fracture from a fall would never be identifiable as coming from a sauropod.

>>3987143
I've always seen Carch skulls as a pair of scissors. They don't need to be capable of massive amounts of force in order to use the wide, flat surface of the dentary and maxilla to carve up prey.

>>3987370
>>3987389
Allo also had very large M. tcap muscles iirc. These would connect with the expanded superoccipital crest and increase the power in ventroflexion. Also, giving it that strong bulging s curve.

>>3987408
>>3987425
>As you know Torvosaurus is presumed to be from outside the morrison floodplains because of the paucity of body fossils aside from teeth. It's assumed to have lived in hills and mountains around the morrison basin. This may have some impact on the strength of the femur as well. Scrambling up and down slopes is a lot more stressful for a nearly-armless biped than walking across flat marsh and swamp and river bank.
As far as I know this has never actually been mentioned in any publication and is something I made up independently for a college paper. Maybe me and some other paleontologist came to the same conclusion in a lecture or blogpost or whatever, but I've certainly never seen it in writing.

>>3987409
Maybe it ate a lizard or something.
>>
>>3986826
Eh, it might be significant, but I doubt that it means too much. The animals couldn't have more different proportions.
>>
>>3987431
Are fused frontals and parietals present in other allosauroids? I know carcharodontosaurs tend to have thickened frontals. Not sure about the conditions of their parietals.
>>
>>3987479
I've read that the interdental plates of giga kept its teeth sharp or something
>>
>>3987494
Whoa wtf
>>
File: Trike-braincase-320.jpg (16 KB, 320x433)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>3987479
>an allosaur-sauropod fight wouldn't really leave any big tooth on bone or weapon on bone contact.
unless it's a juvenile sauropod, which we have lots of. But no evidence of predation yet.
> we all know allo wasn't crushing bone like a rex would.
see
>>3987409
>>3987425
We actually know that some gigantic theropod was crushing bones and eating them, and it was almost certainly Allosaurus because they were the most common large theropod in the fauna by a factor of about 100X
>As far as I know this has never actually been mentioned in any publication and is something I made up independently for a college paper.
I think Bakker, Chure, and Foster have all published it, and I've said it several times here as well.
>Maybe it ate a lizard or something.
kek
I got pics somewhere I'll see if I can find them.

We're talking large chunks of cancellous bone, several cm across. I always assumed sauropod bone based on the size of the cells, but that's not a great metric with that many gigantic dinosaurs running around.
>>3987489
>Are fused frontals and parietals present in other allosauroids?
They're present in all adult dinosaurs. It's the normal condition. It's just weird in Allosaurus because none of the skulls we find are fully fused. Probably because they're all subadults. Even the huge ones.
>>
>Ceratosaurus is a distinctly different form, exhibiting a generally greater level of mechanical efficiency of the jaw adductors than the tyrannosaurids. This, combined with an adductor chamber apparently relatively larger than in Allosaurus (and Daspletosaurus), suggests that Ceratosaurus had a more lethal bite than Allosaurus and, possibly, than some tyrannosaurids.
>It should be remembered that these conclusions apply to individuals with skulls of the same size. Differences in body size would modify the conclusions.
So Ceratosaurus probably had a more lethal bite than Daspletosaurus. Allosaurus I'm not sure about because this model only took the jaw musculature into account and as we all know, the bulk of Allo's bite lethality would have come from its up and down neck motion. Daspletosaurus doesn't really have any similar excuse I can find.

Can someone more knowledgeable than I tell me how more derived tyrannosaurs like Tarbosaurus and T. rex (with relatively larger adductor chambers than Daspletosaurus) compared to Ceratosaurus in terms of bite lethality? I'm assuming they're all at parity for this comparison.
>>
>>3987536
It's more like sawing than crushing but the result is the same
>>
>>3986818
How big was veterupristisaurus again? I've heard reports of 11 meters+
>>
File: P7040007.jpg (491 KB, 1672x1254)
491 KB
491 KB JPG
>>3987541
Larger tyrannosaurs had more robust jaws and muscles.

I may be wrong on this but I believe Ceratosaurus actually had larger teeth for its size than rex. Perhaps the largest teeth of any theropod proportionately. Check Skull Length to Tooth Length ratios, SL:TL

Ceratosaurus had some extremely large teeth for its size. The jaws weren't particularly remarkable though.
>>
>>3987543
>It's more like sawing than crushing but the result is the same
nah, we have lots of examples of bones bitten by Allosaurus. That's a fairly common find. They bit about like any predator would and their teeth went through bone at least as well as a tyrannosaurids.
>>
>>3987263
>Carpenter (1998, p. 418) notes that a June 1887 letter by Felch to Marsh mentions Allosaurus remains from the type locality of Allosaurus fragilis that are twice the size of USNM 4734 (the A. fragilis topotype). For example, the posterior dorsal of the large Allosaurus recorded from the Felch Quarry has a width of 8.66 inches (22 cm) compared to 5 in (12.7 cm) for a similar posterior vertebra of USNM 4734. Recall that the type locality of the diplodocine sauropod Supersaurus is stratigraphically a bit younger than the Felch Quarry, so the giant Allosaurus from the Felch Quarry and the stratigraphic position of the Dry Mesa Quarry make clear than gigantic Morrison dinos were distributed across the Morrison Formation, not the just the uppermost part of the Brushy Basin Member (the type material of "Epanterias amplexus" and Saurophaganax was found high in the Morrison).
>Carpenter, K (1998). Vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Morrison Formation near Canon City, Colorado. Modern Geology. 23: 407–426.

I scaled from these measurements and got a 7.5-8.0 ton Allosaur.
Can anyone with access to papers more so than I do find any larger giant allosaurid remains bigger than this vertebrae? I'm limited to books and non paywalled pdfs. And statistically, there has to bigger described Allosaur remains from the Morrison in scientific literature than the ones I can find from my limited resources.

If anyone with access to backlogs or libraries that aren't available to the public can find any Allosaur specimens bigger than the Felch quarry one, I would really appreciate it. I'm aware of Bakker's 15 meter monster of masonville epanterias but that's oudated and has no precise measurements. I preferably want documents with specific listed measurements for the bones so I can scale and verify them as giant Allosaurs bigger than the Felch quarry individual. Thanks.
>>
>>3987547
What about that giant african ceratosaur
>>
File: copemarsh3.jpg (35 KB, 356x370)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>3987550
I don't personally know of any Allosaurus larger than that, but my experience is pretty much confined to Cleveland-Lloyd and a couple quarries in western Colorado.

That said, the specimen described by Felch in 1877 should be taken with a grain of salt since Allosaurus wasn't well understood at the time and it's possible Felch either misidentified the animal the bone came from or its position in the skeleton.

Also since Carpenter published that, Saurophaganax has been identified much lower in the formation than just the upper Brushy Basin.

Also Also, Felch's quarry was pretty much the same spot where Lucas found Amphicoelias fragilimus iirc. Another supposed gigantic dinosaur that may or may not have actually existed and which Carpenter has also attempted to resurrect.
>>
>>3987552
which one?
>>
>>3987550
Can't you just ask bakker for the measurements of the "15 meter" masonville individual?
>>
>>3987560
Ceratosaurus roechlingi
>>
>>3987558
I can't really find anyone who specializes in the highest strata of the morrison either where giant Allosaurs are more likely to be found
>>
>>3987561
I'm pretty sure its not as big as he claims since he says it's comparable to the epanterias with a 120 cm femur
>>
>>3987563
I think Rauhut reassigned most of that animal to Carcharodontosauridae
Madsen didn't have any problem with the teeth being Ceratosaurus as I recall, but they were premaxillary teeth so not great for telling size.
>>3987565
>I can't really find anyone who specializes in the highest strata of the morrison either where giant Allosaurs are more likely to be found
It's not really a specialty, like if you dig in the Morrison you dig in all of it. The strata aren't defined or well corelated. I've participated in digs in the Upper part of the Brushy Basin. It's just not usually super rich in vertebrate fossils.
>>
>>3987541
I think by "Tyrannosaurids" he means Teratophoneus or Alioramus. Not one of the most heavily built members of the clade.

>>3987536
>Juvenile
Still I don't think it would. At least not any that would be considered any different from generic tooth marks.

>See
Bakker disagrees. You may have found something legit but Bkkers comments on how rare crushed bone is in the mesozoic (outside of Tyrannosauridae) leads me to believe that its a rare find.

>I think Bakker, Chure, and Foster have all published it, and I've said it several times here as well.
Could you link them saying that anywhere? Because i came into a thread like this a couple years ago, ran the idea by you, and you acted like it was something new. Something like
>"Hm that would make sense give n Torvosaurus is frequently associated with montane sediments.

>We're talking large chunks of cancellous bone
Maybe its something all theropods could do but only resorted to when desperate.

>>3987544
They dont have enough of the animal to really tell lo. Roughly somewhere between an average A. fragilis and an Acro

>>3987549
Bruh I don't think thats true. Allos scratch bone. Rex pulverizes it. At least on the kill sites we find, coprolites excluded.

>>3987550
Theres a 12 m animal in Cleveland LLoyd, Bakker's got another giant 1.2 m allosaur femur from somewhere in Colorado. But yeah, /aq/ fag is right, Marsh Felch Allo is prob average.

>>3987558
>Saurophaganax has been identified much lower in the formation than just the upper Brushy Basin.
Was it actually Saurophaganax? Or just undiagnostic giant allosaur? While we're on the topic, what giant allosaurs are you aware of not from the top of the BB?

>>3987561
If you haven't noticed by now, Bakker is prone to exaggeration.

>>3987565
Theres very few people specializing in the Morrison these days period.
>>
File: fig9.jpg (38 KB, 450x458)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>3987582
>At least not any that would be considered any different from generic tooth marks.
yeah, it's pretty rare to ID healed tooth marks when there's multiple giant theropods around.
>Bkkers comments on how rare crushed bone is in the mesozoic (outside of Tyrannosauridae) leads me to believe that its a rare find.
Crushed, yes. That is rare. Digested bone is fairly common
>ran the idea by you, and you acted like it was something new
I don't want you to feel discouraged for independently coming to the same conclusion that multiple PhD's did. That's impressive. And I don't think you're wrong at all. You're just not the first to think it.
>Could you link them saying that anywhere?
check foster's book and Kirkland's monograph for references. I don't have my papers out tonight.
>Maybe its something all theropods could do but only resorted to when desperate.
I think it's probably pretty hard to avoid when you eat raw animals. As mentioned, we have lots of examples of bones chewed and eaten by Allosaurus. It wasn't an uncommon behavior. The coprolites are rare.
>Allos scratch bone. Rex pulverizes it. At least on the kill sites we find,
I think it was carpenter that did the write up on the steg plate chomped by Allo. And Bakker that described sauropod bones chewed by them.
>Was it actually Saurophaganax? Or just undiagnostic giant allosaur?
diagnostic Saurophaganax material. Can't remember who wrote it up but I think wikipedia has the reference.
>If you haven't noticed by now, Bakker is prone to exaggeration.
kek
>>
>>3987582
Isn't the cleveland lloyd 12 meter individual from a 1976 publication? I remember they did a survey back in 2002 of the same quarry and no Allosaurus from there could've feasibly grown to Saurophaganax tier sizes.
>>
>>3987588
On the topic of Saurophaganax, I heard it has the longest tibia of the Jurassic. It's around 95 cm but is that the restored length or the length of the already broken fragment?
>>
>>3987588
>Crushed, that is rare
Well thats an entirely different scenario because you don't have to have teeth that can pulverize bone to just rip limbs off and swallow whole. That behavior is not indicative of allo being good at maticating bone.

I've got Fosters book on my lap and cannot find it. I'll check Kirkland next.

>Steg plate chomped
Was it chomped or just scratched?

>Sauropod bones chewed
Literally listened to bakker on a podcast last week saying we never find heavily chewed bones in the Morrison

>Diagnostic Saurphaganax
The only other specimen mentioned in Wikipedia was Petersen Quarry Allo from NM and it is definitely not diagnostic
>>
what the hell is allosaurus tendagurensis?
>>
>>3987550
I'm actually building a document listing all known info on legendary dinosaur specimens such as the Monster of Masonville, Elephant Butte Tyrannosaurus, the Ceratopsipes track, and The Broome Titanosaur. Its still in progress and would love some contributions.

That said, as far as I know, there are 6 iant allosaurs knon from the Morrison. The S maximus holotype, the Petersen quarry allosaur, the Frrench Quarry Allosaur (looking for more info on this one), the monster of masonville, Bakker's other giant femur from somewhere in Colorado, and whatever the hell Madsen was looking at when he described a 12 m animal.
>>
>>3987607
Can I get some info on the french quarry one? Let me guess, it was something something 12 meters
>>
>>3987612
Thats why I said I need more info lol. I only know it exists because one of you anon's mentioned it in a thread a month ago.
>>
>>3987614
Someone should contact Carpenter to see if that giant vertebra is still in a collection somewhere. I have a feeling the placement is off. Depending what where it is, the animal it belonged to could've been bigger or smaller.
>>
>>3987633
You can scour everyone of Marsh and Cope's letters over the years of excavating the Morrison and possibly find an Allosaur bigger than the Felch quarry individual from one offhand comment or something along those lines. However, whatever they documented was likely stowed away in a damp cellar and crumbled into dust a long time ago. And I don't think anyone in their right mind wants to waste time reading 100+ year old letters for that.
>>
>>3987636
Speak for yourself. I would love to help discover a giant allosaur, torvosaur or sauropod that was lost to time.
>>
>>3987633
>>3987636
Maybe try consulting Carpenter about the existence of other gigantic Allosaurids brought up in Marsh's letters since he clearly has access to them.
>>
>>3987633
>Someone should contact Carpenter to see if that giant vertebra is still in a collection somewhere
If it were, I would've given you measurements and photographs instead of references to a letter from the 1800's.
>>
>>3987645
If there were such enormous remains even in some obscure letter I'd imagune we should know about them already
>>
>>3987645
>since he clearly has access to them.
He should since they sell them in the gift shop of his museum.
>>
>>3987633
I could do it for you if you want
>>
Are there any examples of amniotes which are definitely neither sauropsids or synapsids? Like a stem amniote from which sauropsids and synapsids could have descended from
>>
>>3988115
>Are there any examples of stem amniotes
Yes

>Are there any DEFINITE examples of Stem Amniotes?
No lol

Check Wikipedia. It’s quite good for this sort of thing.
>>
>>3987605
>I've got Fosters book on my lap and cannot find it. I'll check Kirkland next.
You're asking me to rummage through 20 years of remembered reading and come up with a single citation. It may not be in any of the sources I mention. It may be in Madsen's Allosaurus osteology or even the Ceratosaurus osteology. It may be in Foster's book but in one of the dry boring parts you skipped. I don't know where I read it, I just know I've read it before. It's a common trope. I've read the same thing about ankylosaurs in the Hell Creek. They're said to be from some dry desert near the formation because they're not common in the formation.
I'd guess when you first said that you thought Torvosaurus was from higher ground I assumed I had already told you that and you forgot I said it and were pretending it was your own idea not realizing you were talking to the person that had told it to you in the first place. Or you just forgot that it wasn't your idea. Either way I didn't want to embarrass you and point out that I had told you that before. And it's not just Torvosaurus- Ceratosaurus is also thought to have lived in high ground outside the morrison basin for the same reasons.

You have a habit of pretending to be a paleontologist online, and it's not actually my job to correct you when you screw up. Which is pretty often. But not my business.
>Was it chomped or just scratched?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314890308_Evidence_for_Predator-_Prey_Relationships_Examples_for_Allosaurus_and_Stegosaurus
>Literally listened to bakker on a podcast last week saying we never find heavily chewed bones in the Morrison
I doubt it
>The only other specimen mentioned in Wikipedia was Petersen Quarry Allo from NM and it is definitely not diagnostic
You're the expert.
>>
>>3988120
Wikipedia mentions “stem amniotes” existing and says they resembled lizards and lived in the Carboniferous, but doesn’t mention specific fossil species of them, only fossil species of very early synapsids and sauropsids.
>>
>>3988133
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptiliomorpha#Origin_of_amniotes
>>
>>3988130
>Desert Ankylosaurs
Interesting lol

>one of the dry parts of Fosters book
I didn’t skip a single sentence if Foster’s book. I have a google doc with every significant fact that I didn’t know or question I now have. It’s now up to 10 pages and I’m only half through. I used the index to double check and look through every single reference to Torvosaurus and couldn’t find any mention of uplands or mountains.

>You’re pretending it’s your own idea.
I definitely came up with it before I started reading papers or posting on 4chan. I’m not asking you to cite it because my egos hurt, I’m asking you to cite it so that i have someone else to cite and my idea has more credibility. I want someone else to have come up with it first.

>you have a habit of pretending you’re a paleontologist
I don’t. I deny it if anyone asks me

>and it’s not actually my job to correct you
That’s literally the reason I’m talking to you because I want you to call me out on any of my ideas or understanding that’s verifiably false. That’s why I ask so many questions and why I run ideas by you.

>Bakkers podcast.
Paleonerds. It’s on Spotify or apple podcasts. He definitely says that.

>Petersen Quarry
No dorsals are preserved per the pictures in Jurassic West and Fosters own statement.

I’ll look at that paper when I get in from my imminent 11 hour road trip
>>
>>3988141
Thanks. Weird that they’re not on the “amniotes” page
>>
>>3988168
>That’s literally the reason I’m talking to you because I want you to call me out on any of my ideas or understanding that’s verifiably false.
none of this is verifiably true or false.

I tell you I've seen a large coprolite from an Allosaurus dig site containing crushed dinosaur bone from a large dinosaur. You can either believe or not, it doesn't matter. It's not published and it likely never will be unless I choose to post my pics of it here. And even then you'd have to trust me that the particular object stuffed full of crushed dinosaur bone is indeed a coprolite and did in fact come from a dinosaur quarry in the Morrison Formation. Which frankly I'm not going to give proof of since it's not my fossil to publish and I don't want to fuck with the work of future scientists that might want to publish it.
>He definitely says that.
an odd thing to say since as I recall it was Bakker that first described one of the better known cases of bone heavily chewed by Allosaurus. But even if he did not, Carpenter has certainly published it several times in passing.
>No dorsals are preserved per the pictures in Jurassic West and Fosters own statement.
Chure's diagnosis included far more than dorsals, even at the time of Foster's writing.
>>
>>3988172
Amniota is a mess. As anon said, there are no undisputed basal amniotes. Just like all the basal synapsids and sauropsids. There's no broad agreement on how these fossils are classified.
>>
>>3988168
For the record it was Jack Horner that taught me how to recognize bone fragments that had been eaten and digested based on uniform erosion of the periosteum. They were common in the Morrison when he taught me, and I've seen hundreds of them since.

As far as I know this sort of diagenesis has never been formally published, it's just knowledge that people who dig dinosaur bones have. I'd guess most of the small, disarticulated bones and fragments I've seen in the Morrison bear evidence of having passed through the gut of a carnivore. I've seen hundreds of examples. Evidence of mastication is never present. The strong stomach acid and grinding action of gastroliths removes all detail from the bones and fragments.
>>
>>3988217
A person may imagine other processes that could crush and erode bone aside from digestion. They could be tumbled in a river or scoured by wind and sand. But usually when a bone is eroded by weather it retains periosteum on one side, the side that was on the ground when it weathered. Bones that eroded on all sides could be tumbled in the rivers that buried them, but they're always found alongside bones that are NOT eroded. So it seems unlikely that heavily eroded bones would come to be buried alongside bones with no erosion at all by random action in a river alone. There is no particular process that accounts for this aside from the bones being coprolites themselves. Items that were eaten and digested and shat out or vomited up by theropod dinosaurs after having their surfaces removed, rounded, and fractured by digestive processes.
>>
>>3988217
>>3988222
These eroded, digested bones also happen to appear most commonly in quarries that contain another solid evidence of theropods chewing bones...

broken teeth.

It's possible that theropods accidentally bit into bone on occasion and broke a rando tooth. But the large number of broken teeth in many dinosaur quarries strongly indicates that it wasn't any accident. Gigantic theropods of the Morrison were regularly chewing on bones and breaking teeth doing it. All of them. Over the entire span of the formation. It's not some weird, rare occurance. It's normal to find shed theropod teeth in dinosaur digs.
>>
>>3988232
Added to this is modern analogy. Pretty much all large modern mammalian carnivores have been observed regularly chewing, breaking, and consuming bones- including those with teeth that would seem too delicate for the task. There's no reason to think ancient carnivores were any different.

The error springs from a false dichotomy.
The fact that tyrannosaurids are particularly well suited for biting bones does NOT indicate that other theropods never chewed bone. That would be silly. It just means tyrannosaurids did it a bit more often or could be somewhat less careful about how they bit and ate prey.
>>
>>3988179
If amniotes are monophyletic there’d have to have been stem amniotes slithering across the world at some point. Maybe they aren’t actually monophyletic and synapsids and sauropsids evolved independently from amphibians?
>>
>>3988222
Aren’t there definite chewed bones in Madagascar from Majungasauruses gnawing on sauropods and eachother?
>>
>>3988295
the other options are
1. amniotes were morphologically reptiles before becoming amniotes
2. amniotes were morphologically mammal-like reptiles before becoming amniotes

It probably won't surprise you to learn there are people that champion all of these options. We'll never know the answer without a time machine.

>>3988296
Yeah, we've found chewed bones from every formation that contains large carnivores afaik. It's just so common it usually doesn't get mentioned. Carnivores chewed on bones. That's not a surprise.
>>
>>3988319
>We'll never know the answer without a time machine.
I’m optimistic and expect such a machine within a few thousand years.
>>
>>3975853
Depends on the size of the raptor desu
Vertical pupils are good for helping to gauge height for an animal that is closer to the ground, like a housecat or a snake.
Larger (and therefore taller) predators don't have as much use for this, and thus tend to have round pupils.
Compare the aforementioned housecat to the big cats of pantherinae, which all have round pupils. Or even the cougar within the domestic cat's own family.
>>
>>3972683
I really really dislike this image.
Tyrannosaurs staring directly at me makes me very uncomfortable in a primal sort of way.
>>
>>3978829
depends on how you define the term reptile.
In your opinion does it cover basal amniotes? Or does it exclusively refer to diapsids?
>>
>>3972683
Tyrannosaurus rex is proven featherless
>>
>>3988379
More like has scales and no direct evidence of feathers
>>
>>3987606
I like to believe it's a piatnitzysaurid
>>
>>3987568
Other giant allosaurs known from more than just a single isolated bone very likely have matetial belonging to individuals of differing sizes. We know this is the case for Saurophaganax. It's also likely for the masonville Allosaur which I know has vertebra and skull fragments at least. Maybe Bakker was referring to one of the smaller specimens found in that locality.
>>
>>3988532
>Maybe Bakker was referring to one of the smaller specimens found in that locality.
Part of the problem is even if we have a complete skeleton we don't know how long an animal was because we don't know how much cartilage was between the vertebrae.

The rest of the problem is since we have no real method of measuring any theropod for exact length, any extrapolation will tend to magnify size differences. Like say a 2cm PM-1 tooth crown is typical of a 5m Allosaurus, but in reality that animal may have been anything from 4.5-6m because of variation in cartilage estimates,
scaling up also increases the margin for error. Say we find a 4cm PM-1 tooth crown. Now we've got an estimate of 9-12m for the body length. That's a pretty fucking significant difference in upper and lower size bounds. This is true any time we scale up from a single bone using smaller animals as the basis for extrapolation.

So what one worker might very reasonably conclude is a 15m Allosaurus, another might more cautiously call 12m, or even less.
>>
>>3988379
>proven
>>
>>3988595
We have it’s skin, which is just scales, as compared to yutyrannus, which had feathers in those spots. Jurassic Park was paleoaccurate after all.
>>
File: image0.jpg (283 KB, 1436x1919)
283 KB
283 KB JPG
>>3988532
>>3988591
I'm fairly certain the skull of masonville epanterias belongs to a 11-11.5 meter long animal
Not sure about the vertebrae
>>
are there any papers on acro's spines and whether they were used for muscle attachments like bison
>>
Is it possible some spinosaurines were so long legged?
>>
>>3977929
Lisamphibia (amphibians) is a crown group of non amniote tetrapods. Sauropsida (reptiles) is does not include synapsids.
pic unrelated
>>
>>3989054
and nowadays they are the smartest fish
>>
>>3989054
Lisamphibia does not equal amphibians
Sauropsida does not equal reptiles
>>
>>3988732
How did you estimate it? Not disagreeing, just curious.

Madsen figured 45 premaxillae, the largest was ~120mm along the tooth row and ~120mm from the ventral edge to the nasal opening vertically from the 3rd alveolus.

at first glance these premaxillae would appear slightly larger than the largest from Cleveland-Lloyd, which Madsen estimated as from an animal 12m plus.
>>
File: re.png (655 KB, 1200x631)
655 KB
655 KB PNG
>>3970598
Really like this. Obviously the kid in me would make the belly smaller but obviously that's just me liking the JP design too much.
On that note, I didn't actually mind their feathered interpretation in the preview they put out a few months ago. I also like NHK's feathered T. Rex, but that's pretty much because the colors were cool there.
>>
>>3989199
also, curiously enough, this would put Madsen's equations at

Premaxillary depth x 100= body length
or
Premaxillary tooth row x 100= body length

or
BL:PMd=100
BL:PMl=100

a nice round set of numbers.
>>
>>3970172
Bros, how do I get back into dinosaurs? I loved them as a kid but grew out of them in middle/high school. Now I'm really into Paleo again but have mostly been doing Cenozoic stuff. With how different things are it's been daunting to approach dinosaurs again. Are there any good books I can pick up to dip my toes into Mesozoic stuff again?
>>
>>3977929
Monkeys aren't tree shrews technically, tree shrews are a sister branch to a monkey ancestor. Also shrews and tree shrews are more distant iirc. Tree shrews fall under the bigger primate grouping on the very edge whereas shrews are in soricidae. Actually I think tree shrews are more closely related to rodents like mice.
>>
>>3989208
>Monkeys aren't tree shrews technically,
neither monkey nor tree shrew is a technical term
>>
>>3989209
Wait, what is the technical term for them then? Do we just go by their order names? It's not really like insectivore which groups a bunch of disparate animals together, everything we consider a monkey is pretty close.
>>
>>3989210
none of the listed groups have technical equivalents with the possible exception of mammals=Mammalia
>>
>>3989212
Oh I see. I must have used "technically" wrong then. Still don't think tree shrews are actual shrews though, they're two separate lines of mammals.
Actually another thing I was wondering? Are mammals actually reptiles? I heard from some places that stem mammals and reptiles evovled independently from amphibians.
>>
>>3989180
>Sauropsida does not equal reptiles
yes it does lol
>>
>>3989214
tree shrews aren't regular shrews except in the loosest outdated sense that mesozoic mammals were often called shrews

Again, outdated, but the earliest synapsids fit the old definition of reptiles because they had scales, were cold blooded, and laid eggs.
>>
File: Traditional_Reptilia.png (75 KB, 800x536)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>3989215
>yes it does lol
Nope. It excludes basal synapsids which were reptiles in the traditional sense.
>>
>>3989219
The traditional sense is wrong. Synapsids are no longer classified as reptiles, and reptiles are considered purely sauropsids.
>>
>>3989199
>>3989205
It wasn't my estimate but by the guy who made that diagram I posted
>>
>>3988725
That’s not proven, that’s just evidence it likely didn’t have a coat of feathers
>>
File: Dicynodont.jpg (295 KB, 800x600)
295 KB
295 KB JPG
Anyone know any good books on the topic of early Synapsids? Tried to get into Beasts Before Us but it's too pop-science for my tastes.
>>
>>3976878
Retard question here, but how do they know that these are 2 separate species, and not that one is male, and the other female?
>>
>>3989283
>The traditional sense is wrong.
that's what I said.
>Synapsids are no longer classified as reptiles, and reptiles are considered purely sauropsids.
both of those are traditional views, and they're both wrong.
Synapsids aren't reptiles and neither are sauropsids. If sauropsids were reptiles we'd call it Reptilia, not Sauropsida.
>>
>>3976878
>I imagine even a Tyrannosaurus wouldn't go for an adult.
We literally have an adult Edmontosaurus that survived an attack by T. rex. They very definitely went after those guys.
>>3989390
>Retard question here, but how do they know that these are 2 separate species, and not that one is male, and the other female?
it's actually a pretty good question.

We assume that males and females would be equal in number and so we'd find equal numbers of each type. So if we have like 500 of one species and 34 of the other they're probably not male and female of the same species.

If we find equal numbers of 2 similar sympatric species then someone will probably suggest that they're male and female of one species.
>>
>>3989294
Thank you. I was curious because most museums and paleontologists use Madsen's SL:BL figures but I've always considered them high. So I'm a bit surprised and interested when someone else comes in lower than Madsen on a body length estimate from a skull.

fwiw Madsen would estimate that skull at 13-15m for the entire skeleton. I agree 11 or 12 would probably be closer.
>>
>>3987541
so cerato had a lethal bite as trex at equal sizes
>>
>>3989433
Nah, cerato had larger teeth than rex I think, but that's about it.
It had a more gracile lower jaw, and a narrower back of the skull, meaning less muscle behind the bite.

T. rex was enormously overpowered for bite force.
>>
>>3989438
why does molnar think it has a stronger bite than daspletosaurus
>>
Are there any researchers here who specialize in cenomanian africa?:
I really want to know about spino's legs
>>
>>3989440
It probably did have a stronger bite than Daspletosaurus

But Tyrannosaurus has a much stronger bite than both of them.
>>
>>3989445
Tarbosaurus' skull barely looks any more laterally expanded than Daspletosaurus. Is it much weaker than T. rex too? I heard it does have adaptations for wider gape to compensate though.
>>
>>3989447
Yeah, the difference is actually pretty huge

especially considering the square-cube law. Even a couple inches wider at the back means dozens of pounds more jaw muscle. And rex was significantly wider.
>>
>>3989451
I think that tarbosaurus skull is a little too narrow but nevertheless the difference is still extreme
>>
>>3989455
yeah, also not all rex skulls are that wide.

All this is relative anyways. I don't think any of those animals would've had any trouble biting a person in half. Even the weakest of the bunch was absurdly deadly.
>>
>>3989459
Could megalosaurs operate more like one of those more narrow headed tyrannosaurs?
>>
>>3989464
Functionally, I think Tarbosaurus had lower MA than T. rex while Megalosaurids had higher MA.
>>
>>3989442
>I really want to know about spino's legs
Normally when a scientists finds 25 different dinosaur bones in one spot they ask, "I wonder what 25 different dinosaurs these came from?"

With Spinosaurus the guy instead said "I bet all 25 bones came from one dinosaur, let's see if we can make them fit together."

It's an interesting approach, but not one most scientists are likely to trust.
>>
>>3989442
I know the Molina and Larramendi's 2019 book included a long legged ecotype for Spinosaurines.
>>
>>3989466
>>3989466
I really think a longer legged Spino is plausible even if I can't prove it myself.
>>
>>3989469
Personally I agree, but just on pure statistics.

We have a few hundred extinct theropod species, it would be very strange if Spinosaurus was the only short legged one out of all of them. Not impossible, just really freakin unlikely.
>>
File: spinofeet.jpg (250 KB, 959x649)
250 KB
250 KB JPG
>>3989469
>>3989471
I was skeptical of that discovery ever since it was announced. You're right, there is no other theropod with short back legs. All related species featured long back legs, Baryonyx, Suchomimus, etc.

Honestly, the fossil evidence of Spinosaurus, along with Sigilmassasurus and Oxalia, are so scattered, it's impossible to come to a conclusion on what the animal really looked like.
>>
>>3989471
Even from the limited and fragmentary material we do have it seems like Spinosaurus had a lot of morphotypes, some of them might be longer limbed than others
https://twitter.com/tyrannoraptoran/status/1434894317554864133
>>
How deadly is spino's bite
>>
>>3989478
nice feet
>>
File: heronspino1.jpg (2.57 MB, 3392x2976)
2.57 MB
2.57 MB JPG
>>3989478
>>3989471
>>3989469
Evidence points towards Spinosaurus being a biped rather than walking on all fours, but then how did those stubby back legs support it? The tail definitely helps balance it better, but those legs would have to feature quite the muscles to hold up the whole animal. No way it moved that fast on land either. If anything, this would show that it had to be way more aquatic based than land based.

Evidence also shows that it was NOT a pursuit predator, a big negative for that theory is its sail, but rather hunted more like a Blue Heron or Egret. If Spinosaurus was more like a Heron, how would the short back legs support it in hunting? As far as I'm aware, there are NO short legged Herons. I'm still waiting on some new discovery that the juveniles had shorter back legs, and the adults had longer, or something akin to that. I'll be really surprised if the short legs stick.

>>3989487
Thanks.
>>
>>3989492
Is there a consensus on the heron vs gharial analogue? I thought it was still debated.
>>
>>3989479
Yes, even before all this there was speculation that we were dealing with at least 2 different species just based on the two types of teeth found. Serrated and non. Those don't seem like huge differences but they really are for dinosaurs.
>>
>>3989492
>I'll be really surprised if the short legs stick.
Me too but I expect I'll be dead before solid evidence is found either way. Articulated fossils from those strata are rare as fuck and tend to get sold on ebay.
>>
File: rex.png (301 KB, 1323x761)
301 KB
301 KB PNG
little comfy rex drawing by me, i miss them so much bros
>>
>>3989505
>two types of teeth found. Serrated and non.
Can I get a source for this? Serrated teeth really reminds of baryonychines more than spinosaurines
could there be a giant baryonychine in the middle cretaceous of africa? Either way, a spinosaur with serrated teeth is bound to be more terrestrial.
And anyways, how big are these serrated Spinosaur teeth anyways? Are they on par with the largest non serrated Spinosaur teeth referred to giant 12-15 meter Spinosaurus?
>>
File: spinoheron.jpg (441 KB, 1552x1168)
441 KB
441 KB JPG
>>3989494
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4U8dIv8d50

EDGE does a phenomenal job of explaining it.
But here is the basic gist:
>Nose position does not work for it to position its skull above the waterline like a croc.
>jaws more equipped for fast bursts and vertical lunges.
>eyes are similar to other theropods, not akin to Hippos or Crocs in how the eyes stick out above the waterline
>strong support for neck and head
>sail adds drag to animal in water if it was more akin to a gharial
>sail and rib cage causes body to be unstable in pursuit model
>sub-anguiliform, or eel like, tail which lags strong forward and backward patches of bone, which means it was not like a croc and was less efficient, nor was the tail that strong.
>pursuit predators have tails stiffened at ends, it's the opposite for spinosaurus.
>Dense bones, yet had high buoyancy meaning it would float back up.
>Large forelimbs, which reduced forelimbs are common with crocs
>ventriflextion, strong up and down motions of neck
>it angled its head downwards when comparing its skull to Irritator
>oxygen isotopes measurements compared to modern animals conclude a good number of teeth have spent a great deal of time in water, but many teeth also show they weren't in the water as much. This makes sense in the Heron model with its head facing downward.

This all points towards the 'waiting model', or that it acted more like an Egret or Heron.
>>
>>3989511
>Can I get a source for this?
Nope, it's all ebay as I recall

I have some of both types, they're the same size and shapes. I think we had an anon post a serrated one here a couple months back, and I have a picture of a non-serrated one somewhere on my computer.

>>3989510
nice
>>
>>3989518
Can i get a link from that ebay page
>>
>>3989532
Nope, ebay doesn't store completed sales for more than a month or so.

If you go on ebay and search "spinosaurus tooth" you'll likely find some that are serrated and a bunch that aren't.
>>
>>3989532
searching "serrated spinosaurus tooth" on google yields some results.

>http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/100480-serrated-spinosaurus-tooth-from-kemkem/
>>
>>3975237
>WE WUZ SAUROPODS N SHIEEET
>>
>>3989478
>>3989492
>>3989516
Spinosaurus continues to be the single biggest fuck you in palaeontology. Watch it end up not perfectly fitting the heron model and not fitting the gharial model at the same time
>>3989486
To something the size of a person, very. For a megatheropod, not very
>>
>>3975237
I think it’s cool desu
Bet you could saddle it and cruise around on it like Ark: Survival Evolved
>>
>>3989410
>If sauropsids were reptiles we'd call it Reptilia, not Sauropsida
What the fuck do you think “Saurus” means?
>>
>>3989960
>What the fuck do you think “Saurus” means?
lizard

the greeks would be very upset to see it being used for birds and not for basal amniotes and synapsids
>>
>>3989960
You see, the simple fact is if Sauropsida was the same thing as Reptilia, we'd have to call it Reptilia by the rules of precedence in taxonomy. The older name is valid, and any new names are junior synonyms that can't be used.

We call it Sauropsida because it is NOT the same as the old Reptilia. And it never will be.

You might say that's it's not the same because it includes birds, and that's true. But it's not the whole truth. Reptilia also included basal synapsids, and basal amniotes while excluding mammals. You could attempt to fix this by including birds and excluding mammals, but there's no particular reason to do that. Why include birds but exclude mammals? Because it hurts your feelings to have mammals called reptiles but you don't really care much about birds? Your feelings don't matter. If we're going to include birds we should include mammals, particularly since we don't know if mammals evolved from sauropsids or if sauropsids evolved from synapsids or neither. We don't actually know how the basal groups within amniota diverged.

So we don't use the term "Reptilia" anymore. It is not equal to Sauropsida, it's not equal to any taxon. All attempts to preserve it have failed.
>>
>>3990123
>You see, the simple fact is if Sauropsida was the same thing as Reptilia, we'd have to call it Reptilia by the rules of precedence in taxonomy
Yeah the manospondylus gigas in Jurassic Park was really scary
>>
>>3990138
To keep a later name you have to go to court and argue why the junior synonym should be kept while the senior is discarded. Then a judge and jury of taxonomists has to agree with your argument.

This has never been attempted with "Reptilia" because most scientists favor getting rid of it. The main reason is if "Reptilia" is accepted it is extremely likely that Mammalia will wind up in the clade anyways.

This is because evolution doesn't happen the way you guys imagine. There's almost never a clean split into 2 lineages that then start to evolve distinct traits. What actually happens is the MRCA of the 2 lineages already shows traits of one or both of the lineages. Meaning it will be classified as one or the other.

So the MRCA of sauropsids and synapsids will almost certainly be classified as either a synapsid or a sauropsid. And whether sauropsids evolved from synapsids or synapsids evolved from sauropsids, they're going to wind up in the same clade. So either option results in mammals being reptiles, and both options make "Reptilia" the same thing as Amniota. Meaning we then have to decide if we want to keep the name "Reptilia" or if we want to keep Amniota.
>>
>>3990199
>we then have to decide if we want to keep the name "Reptilia" or if we want to keep Amniota.
And since Amniota is historically monophyletic already, while "Reptilia" has always been paraphyletic, the obvious choice is to dump "Reptilia" and keep Amniota. It's already a clade, and "Reptilia" will never be.
>>
>>3990199
>So the MRCA of sauropsids and synapsids will almost certainly be classified as either a synapsid or a sauropsid
Incorrectly. The most recent common ancestor of both clades could not have been a sauropsid or a synapsid because of how clades are defined, though the amniote common ancestor of both clades could very well be misclassifed as a synapsid or sauropsid because all we have to go on is morphology, not genetics.
>Meaning it will be classified as one or the other.
Traits don’t define clades. Common ancestry does, and traits are merely used to infer relatedness. The common ancestor of synapsids and sauropsids might have had a skull which lacked temporal fenestra like anapsids, one hole like synapsids, or two holes like diapsids, which could lead to paleontologists misclassifying it, but by definition such a creature could only be an amniote and not a member of the clades “synapsidae” or “sauropsidae”. As it currently exists, “sauropsidae” includes reptiles and nothing else, so it may as well be synonymous with “reptilia” reborn as a clade that excludes mammalian ancestors.
>>
>>3990208
You're assuming that one clade could not have evolved from the other, this is almost always wrong. It's extremely rare for 2 sister clades to arise at exactly the same time with no overlap, and if that happened we're just going to identify basal traits in one or the other that were present before the split, making one or the other older.

You are correct about it being incorrect though. We probably won't find the MRCA of the 2 clades if it was even preserved. And if we do find it, we'll incorrectly identify it as either a synapsid or sauropsid. This may have already happened, there's no way to know without genetic information.

But no scientist alive agrees with the /an/ mistake that the 2 lineages magically appeared completely distinct from each other. That doesn't happen in nature. In real life one evolved from the other so they're going to wind up in a single clade with either mammals being sauropsids or reptiles being synapsids. The only reason this hasn't already happened is because we don't have genetic information on the MRCA.
>>
>>3990208
>As it currently exists, “sauropsidae” includes reptiles and nothing else,
Also this is of course false.

Birds are not reptiles, and neither are pterosaurs. Not would any warm-blooded dinosaur be a reptile.
Conversely the basal synapsids were reptiles.

there is no way to fix this. "Reptilia" is inherently paraphyletic, and any change to make it monophyletic is going to result in mammals being considered reptiles.
>>
>>3990221
>You're assuming that one clade could not have evolved from the other
The way the clades are defined precludes this possibility. Sauropsidae consists of all amniotes more closely related to modern reptiles than to mammals, and vice versa for synapsidsae. Animals which are the common ancestor of both mammals and reptiles could not, by definition, be sauropsids or synapsids regardless of their morphology.
>>
>>3990295
>The way the clades are defined precludes this possibility.
there are more than 4 ways for clades to be defined, that's just one of them.

this is the error here. It's not a new error, I've been trolling /an/ based on just this one error for over a decade now.
>>
>>3990226
Reptilia has been redefined as a clade by modern taxonomy, embedded within sauropsidae or embedded in it. Birds and pterosaurs are reptiles, but not synapsids like pelycosaurs, dimetrodon, mammals, etc.
>>
>>3990298
>Reptilia has been redefined as a clade by modern taxonomy, embedded within sauropsidae or embedded in it.
yes, and this redefinition is rejected by almost every taxonomist alive.

you guys just haven't gotten the memo and in reality it'll probably be another 50 years before you catch up.
>>
>>3990297
>there are more than 4 ways for clades to be defined
Clades are defined purely and only by common ancestry, typically by basing them around particular living or fossil species/clades. For example, ceratosauria is defined as all therapods which share a more recent common ancestor with ceratosaurus than with aves. Sauropsidae can be defined as all amniotes which share a more recent common ancestor with Serpentes than with Homo sapiens, or what have you.
>>
>>3990300
That’s not true at all.
https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/53/5/815/2842963
>>
>>3990305
do you think 2 taxonomists are almost every taxonomist alive? You must be joking.
>>3990303
Clades are defined purely and only by common ancestry,
nope, but it's cute you think that.
>>
>>3990306
>do you think 2 taxonomists are almost every taxonomist alive?
No, but it’s an actual citation, unlike your unsourced generalization.
>nope
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html
>>
>>3990311
>it’s an actual citation, unlike your unsourced generalization.
yes, it's hard to prove that nobody is using a certain name to someone that doesn't read science and would need to spend literally decades to check every paper on the topic. There is no citation that people AREN'T using the term "Reptilia" because they're not using it.

yeah, your introductory article on cladistics doesn't tell you where you went wrong at all. You should do what scientists do and try to see why you're wrong instead of why you're right.
>>
>>3990311
The specific misunderstanding comes from how stem and node based clades deal with chronotaxa and sister taxa.

One example is Allosaurus:

Allosaurus existed before the rise of Saurophaganax and it existed after the split as well. We don't retroactively rename all Allosaurus before Saurophaganax just because the clade branched. We also don't rename Allosaurus after the split just because Saurophaganax split off. We continue to consider all Allosaurus both before and after the split to be Allosaurus.
So Saurophaganax automatically belongs to any clade Allosaurus.

We have the same situation with Pan and Homo. Pan existed before the split that led to Homo, and it existed after the split. We don't retroactively rename Pan just because Homo diverged from it. All Homo belong to any clade Pan. Even though their MRCA is Pan, and lots of ancestors before the MRCA are also Pan.

In real life the MRCA of any sister taxa are already named, and they're not renamed just because the taxa diverged. Making any descendants members of the parent clade, and plenty of previous ancestors behind the MRCA also members of that same clade.

Stem and node based clades deal with this problem differently, and result in different names (taxonomy, systematic paleontology). But the upshot is that all sister taxa have a MRCA that would be classified as belonging to one taxon but not the other because the name and diagnosis applies to ancestors before the MRCA.
>>
>>3990790
>the upshot is that all sister taxa have a MRCA that would be classified as belonging to one taxon but not the other because the name and diagnosis applies to ancestors before the MRCA.
or to put it in terms of this discussion,
The MRCA of synapsids and sauropsids will be classified as either a synapsid or sauropsid. This doesn't change just because the clade branched.
>>
>>3990791
>The MRCA of synapsids and sauropsids will be classified as either a synapsid or sauropsid.
meaning all sauropsids will belong to any clade Synapsida
OR
all synapsids will belong to any clade Sauropsida.

this doesn't change just because the clades split. One resides within the other. We just don't know which is true yet.
>>
>>3990790
>We don't retroactively rename all Allosaurus before Saurophaganax just because the clade branched.
Meaning the MRCA of Allosaurus and Saurophaganax was Allosaurus
> We don't retroactively rename Pan just because Homo diverged from it
meaning the MRCA of Pan and Homo was Pan
>We don't retroactively rename Sauropsida just because Synapsida diverged from it
meaning the MRCA of Sauropsida and Synapsida is Sauropsida
>>
>>3990798
This is just a function of stem or node based cladograms

in node based format Homo doesn't include any Pan but Pan includes Homo. Saurophaganax doesn't include Allosaurus, but Allosaurus includes Saurophaganax. Synapsida doesn't include Sauropsida, but Sauropsida includes Synapsida.

and since junior clades belong to parent clades, it doesn't matter. Because while Saurophaganax excludes Allosaurus, it descended from Allosaurus so it's automatically part of Allosaurus anyways. Just like Homo doesn't include any Pan, but since Homo descended from Pan, Homo is a type of Pan anyways.

Any time you draw a line to exclude an ancestor you automatically include them anyways by making everything behind your line part of the group on the other side.
>>
are there any giant torvosaurs on par with the largest allosaurs?
>>
>>3991408
Pretty sure there’s some fragmentary ones that are likely just about 5 tonnes, so scraping megatheropod status just behind things like Acrocanthosaurus
>>
>>3991408
See allosaurus tendagurensis and megalosaurus ingens
>>
>>3991408
Almost all of the Torvosaurus that have been found are as large as the largest Allosaurs. It was a much larger dinosaur than the average Allosaurus.
>>
>>3991681
I'm talking about epanterias and saurophaganax which were larger than both torvosaurus or allosaurus on 'average'
>>
>>3992070
>which were larger than both torvosaurus or allosaurus on 'average'
Larger than the average Allosaurus, yes.

Not larger than Torvosaurus though.

Size estimates get exaggerated. "Epanterias" and Saurophaganax are exaggerated.

if you're going to compare exaggerated Allosaurus then you should compare them to exaggerated Torvosaurus. Bakker exaggerated the size of "Epanterias," and he also exaggerated the size of Torvosaurus.
Torvosaurus was larger.

People that don't exaggerate the size of Allosaurus and Torvosaurus also agree that Torvosaurus was larger.

no matter how you slice it, Torvosaurus was larger than the largest Allosaurus, whether you call them "Epanterias," or Saurophaganax.
>>
File: Capture9.png (57 KB, 566x508)
57 KB
57 KB PNG
>>3992216
I'm talking about the Epanterias remains Bakker didn't assign to the genus and Saurophaganax is bigger than Torvosaurus (Edmarka included) on average. Foster's 2020 book is a pretty recent source.
>>
>>3992319
Yes, you and Foster are both trusting Chure, Madsen, and Bakker's exaggerated estimates of Allosaurus, "Epanterias," and Saurophaganax while ignoring Bakker's exaggerated estimates of "Edmarka rex" and "Brontoraptor," which may not have been found before Foster published his book and certainly weren't described so they probably weren't included anyways.

Either way, you're assuming Bakker, Madsen, Chure, Holtz, Mateuse, and several others are all using the same metrics to estimate size, which you already know is false.
>>
>>3970229
True
>>
>>3992319
If you want accurate info, the only way I can think of to find it is to consult Bakker.

He claimed to have found the largest Allosaurus on record, "Epanterias."

He also claimed to have found the largest Torvosaurus on record, "Brontoraptor."

He claimed that "Brontoraptor" was larger than "Epanterias."

So whether you agree with his size estimates or not- and I don't- that doesn't change the fact that the largest Torvosaurus he found was larger than the largest Allosaurus recorded (including Saurophaganax).

So Torvosaurus is larger based on largest specimen known, and it's much larger based on average size. Saurophaganaz may or may not be Allosaurus, but whether it is or not, new finds have dropped the average size of Saurophaganax since Foster did his math.

You don't believe the new finds are diagnosable to Saurophaganax, I doubt Saurophaganax is a valid genus. But that doesn't matter. If we pretend Saurophaganax is a valid genus we have to also pretend any specimens assigned to the genus are valid.
>>
>>3984037
Aww cute little turkey dino
>>
>>3992327
Foster really doesn't take accounts of supersized allosaurids that seriously, he doesn't think the peterson quarry individual is that big. I really doubt he would discount large estimates for Torvosaurus while not doing the same for Saurophaganax. And I'm pretty sure 2020 is way after when Bakker proclaimed Edmarka as a T. rex sized animal.
>>
>>3992345
>I really doubt he would discount large estimates for Torvosaurus while not doing the same for Saurophaganax.
He had to because at the time of publication there was only one size estimate for Saurophaganax and dozens of different estimates for Torvosaurus.

He was free to discount Bakker's finds but had no choice but to accept Chure's.
>>
Can we talk about pterosaurs here? I've never been a fan of the idea that Scleromochlus is a good analogue for early pterosaurs because of how much even the most basal true pterosaurs rely on their front limbs and how reduced their hind limbs are. I find it much more likely that something used its arms for something (perhaps brachiating? not sure if the shoulder joints of pterosaurs would support this, not an expert) and developed its wing membrane from there, likely as assisting in gliding. If you can jump off the ground/trees to get away from predators, and you used your front limbs for it, and then you get a membrane that stretches between your limbs and out to your final hand digit (perhaps like a modern flying squirrel or something) you'd have a far better pterosaur ancestor, imo. The main component I think is that the arms have to already be robust for it to quickly develop powered flight, which would coincide with their seemingly rapid appearance in the fossil record. What do y'all think?
>>
>>3992340
Is he referring to the masonville epanterias?
I heard that the largest tibia of the Jurassic belongs to Saurophaganax too. I doubt that Torvosaurus was larger on average. I can't find a single source that says this.

I asked this question in the first place because this thread seems to be fall of people talking about 6 ton plus Allosaurs while all the largest Torvosaurs I know of from the Morrison top out somewhat above 5 tons.
>>
>>3992345
>I'm pretty sure 2020 is way after when Bakker proclaimed Edmarka as a T. rex sized animal.
sorry, I thought you meant the 1996 publication because the data doesn't appear to have changed since then.
>>
>>3992347
>>3992354
I see you misread by accident. It's okay. It just seems like to me if we take exaggerated dubious accounts for both, there is no Torvosaurus equivalent of Felch Quarry or whatever Madsen found. And as far I know, he gives no specific size range for Brontoraptor while the Masonville Epanterias is supposedly 15 meters.
Might have something to do with the fact that Torvosaurus was discovered after most Dinosaurs had obscure letters to give them esoteric gigantic specimens.
>>
>>3992352
>Is he referring to the masonville epanterias?
what other "Epanterias" has he found?
>I heard that the largest tibia of the Jurassic belongs to Saurophaganax too.
Bakker's finds haven't been described last I checked, so they're not even in the competition. Nobody counts them until they're published.
>>
>>3992360
I believe the Felch Quarry specimen to be wrongly identified or measured or both.

Most Torvosaurus specimens were larger than the largest Allosaurus Madsen found, and about the same size as Bakker's "Epanterias."
>>
>>3992361
That 1.2 femur he apparently refers to Epanterias or so I've heard. A couple of caudals (CPS 99). Probably come from an animal much smaller than another animal that's purportedly 15 meters long.
>>
>>3992362
I'm referring to the 12 meter individual Madsen briefly mentioned. Not even most T. rex specimens were over 12 meters long. I doubt this would be the case for either Torvosaurus or a giant Allosaurid.
>>
>>3992351
I always wondered why smaller pterosaurs seemingly got outcompeted by early birds
>>
>>3992364
Madsen, Holtz, Bakker, Chure, and Mateuse have all estimated allosaurids 12m or longer

I doubt any of them are right, but that doesn't change the size of the actual fossil.

3 of those people (Holtz, Bakker, Mateuse) have estimated Torvosaurus fossils 12m or larger. Again, I don't agree with their estimates, but I have to assume they're using the same math to estimate Allosaurus as they are Torvosaurus.
>>
reminder there is a carcharodontosaurid 65 cm ilium fragment with over half of it broken off (130 cm ilium)
>>
>>3992364
The main difference between the two animals is that less than 10% of Allosaurus are estimated in the 11m and above range, while almost all Torvosaurus specimens fall in that size range using Madsen's calculus.
>>
>>3992378
The other obvious difference is that even the Allosaurus estimated in the 12-15m range are subadults, while almost all Torvosaurus in that size range are assumed to be adults.

It's possible we'll find even larger examples of either Torvosaurus or Allosaurus, but if histology is any indication, Allosaurus may have gotten much larger. But we have no fossils larger than Chure's Saurophaganax and Bakker's "Epanterias" afaik. Certainly nothing yet as large as the Felch Quarry specimen, if real. If larger Allosaurus existed we should at least find teeth from them if not bones.
>>
>>3992378
>>3992383
Is that from madsen's 1976 osteology
>>
>>3992387
No, this is stuff anyone that studies Allosaurus knows. Holtz in particular has commented in lecture on Allosaurus being subadults. A fact I can personally verify. Also the speculation about cranial pleurokinesis in Allosaurus was published as a possible explanation of the fact that none of the Allosaurus skulls we find were fused as you'd expect in adults.

The percentage of animals above 11m is from Madsen's osteology. The size of Torvosaurus is just based on my reading of every Torvosaurus paper I can find along with Bakker and Holtz' comments on unpublished specimens.
>>
>>3984037
Probably no smarter than average parrot
>>
insert penis in dino
>>
https://streamable.com/s5vnum
Most accurate T-Rex replication, based on the most recent papers ever.
>>
>>3992387
I was mistaken, Madsen does mention that skulls were all disarticulated aside from braincase/frontal units. He attributes this to maceration, but that seems an unlikely explanation given the fact that teeth were generally found in sockets.
>>
File: Big Al.png (31 KB, 321x205)
31 KB
31 KB PNG
>>3992387
>>3992498
Also Madsen estimates the largest Allosaurus as 13m, rivaling T. rex in size. This is apparently the same math Holz, Bakker, and others have applied to "Epanterias," Saurophaganax, and Torvosaurus.

I don't believe it to be accurate, but whether it is or not doesn't change the ratio of size between the various genera as actual fossils.
>>
>>3992541
Or to simplify, if the largest Allosaurus from Cleveland-Lloyd is 12m, and the holotype of "Epanterias" is 13m, then Bakker's "Epanterias" would indeed be around 15m,
and so would several Torvosaurus specimens, including Bakker's 2 from Como Bluff.
>>
>>3992545
Do we have any material to scale 12 meter+ Torvosaurus from?
>>
>>3992387
>>3992541
>>3992545
Regarding comparisons to T. rex, the largest is currently estimated at 12m long

this doesn't mean that Allosaurus, "Epanterias," Saurophaganax, or Torvosaurus were actually larger than "Sue" the T. rex.

it just means the size of those animals was exaggerated in the math used by Madsen and others. If "Epanterias" or "Brontoraptor" is actually 15m long then "Sue" is even longer. 16m maybe. Or 17.

These are just differences in how the length is estimated, not differences in the actual fossils. Allosaurus wasn't as large as Torvosaurus or T. rex. The math used to calculate length has just changed over time.
>>
>>3992548
>Do we have any material to scale 12 meter+ Torvosaurus from?
see
>>3992556

We can look at the material Holtz and Mateus used to figure their 12m+ animals from, but neither of us is likely to agree that it's 12m.

All we could likely agree on is that it's larger than Bakker's "Epanterias" and Chure's Saurophaganax.
>>
>>3992548
>>3992561
In fact I think even Mateus agreed that his 12m+ Torvo was actually 11 or less.

But that just means the largest allosaurids also get shrunk down in size.
>>
>>3992548
If the largest T. rex is 12m long that makes Torvosaurus 10-11m, Saurophaganax and "Epanterias" 9-10m, and the largest Allosaurus about 9m.

Assuming "Epanterias" and Saurophaganx aren't just large Allosaurus.

Adjusting the estimate down on one dinosaur requires adjusting all the others down also.
>>
>>3992584
conversely if we figure "Epanterias" at 15m and Saurophaganax at 13m+, that makes Torvosaurus 15m+ and T. rex "Sue" 17m+

It's all relative. We have to use the same math on different dinosaurs across the board whether the math is high or low. No matter how you cut it, T. rex is bigger than Torvo. Torvo is bigger than "Epanterias," Saurophaganax, and Allosaurus.
>>
>>3992589
Also just for fun,
The largest Ceratosaurus is almost as big as the largest Allosaurus.
>>
>>3992589
I was using different calcs in a vacuum for all of them and got mass estimates that way. Which is what everyone else was doing for the last decade. Foster's book was written in 2020 and he did the same thing.
>>
>>3992548
The upshot of all this speculation is that "Sue" the T. rex varies in length from 12-17m depending which formula we use.

that's the height of a 2 fucking story building. Not insignificant. The actual fossils don't vary that much in length. They don't vary at all. What varies is the estimates for how much the bones shrunk before fossilization, and how much cartilage was between them.

weight estimates are even worse since they rely on converting the femoral thickness of a quadruped to a biped (inaccurate) and also a difference of a few mm in femoral thickness can translate to a difference of literal tons in weight. And bones can easily shrink a few mm in thickness before fossilization.

None of this is an exact science. We don't actually know how long or how heavy these animals were. We know minimum numbers, but that doesn't tell us accurate numbers.
>>
>>3992619
>Foster's book was written in 2020 and he did the same thing.
again, his chart is the same as the one he published in 1996 as I recall it. Meaning he hasn't updated it at all.

not that he can update it. Bakker's shit that wasn't published in 1996 still isn't published now.
>>
>>3992619
>Which is what everyone else was doing for the last decade
some were

others were using Madsen's formulas which I believe are high
>>
>>3992626
>others were using Madsen's formulas which I believe are high
and at least one (Mateus) started off using Madsen's formulas and then lowered them.
>>
>>3992625
The first edition of his book was published in 2007 and I couldn't find any documents by him which show that.
>>
>>3992619
You or some other anon itt mentioned Torvosaurus having the largest femoral diameter of the 3 or more gigantic theropods of the Morrison.

You tied this to cursorial ability. That's a novel approach. Most paleontologists would tie it to weight.

We assume Torvosaurus had the thickest femora of all Morrison theropods because it was the largest of all Morrison theropods. Simple as
>>
>>3992634
>The first edition of his book was published in 2007 and I couldn't find any documents by him which show that.
He was my professor in 1996 and I don't think the chart has changed any. I'll look into it.
>>
>>3992635
I prefer not to use limb regression for EXACT weight estimates. The margin of error is too high for my tastes. However, it is a good idea to get a decent idea of how robust and heavily built an animal was, especially compared to other animals.
>>
>>3992639
>The margin of error is too high for my tastes
You and me both

but it does seem to support the idea that the largest Torvosaurus were larger than the largest Allosaurus, "Epanterias," Saurophaganax.

Torvo is a bit of a mystery. But it was a fuckhuge dinosaur. Bakker knows far more about that than me, but even what I know indicates Torvosaurus was usually larger than the largest allosaurids.

I love Allosaurus, it's my pet. I don't like admitting that it was dwarfed by Torvosaurus. But it probably was.
>>
>>3992636
>He was my professor in 1996 and I don't think the chart has changed any
as usual, Chure's thesis of 1995 fucks up everything.
>>
>>3992640
Robustness of bones matters most when both animals are around the same length but one is significantly bigger in physical dimensions that doesn't really matter. Also the most recent GDIs place Allo and Torvo at around the same weight at equal lengths anyways. Before that Allosaurus was actually more massive at the same length.
>>
>>3992672
>the most recent GDIs place Allo and Torvo at around the same weight at equal lengths anyways.
yes, meaning a thicker femur translates directly to a heavier animal.
>>
>>3992674
and a heavier animal is also a longer animal

meaning we have some allometry in femur length, but either way Torvosaurus was larger and longer
>>
>>3992672
where it gets confusing it SL:BL

we agree on femora, but the size of the largest allosaurids and Torvosaurus ISN'T based on femur length. It's based on skull length. And that varies a lot from Allosaurus to Torvosaurus.
>>
>>3992674
>>3992675
Torvosaurus doesn't really have a longer femur than Allo or Torvo as a longer femur would correlate with a longer animal better. In fact, it seems to be shorter legged and less suited for floodplains as noted by several scholars.
If two animals have femurs of equal length but one is thicker that's more likely to mean one weighs more at same lengths not necessarily that one animal is longer than the other.
That's how I see it.
>>
>>3992678
>That's how I see it.
you may be right

personally I think if an animal is heavier it's also longer.

but that may be false. It's possible that Torvo is a chonk that weighs twice as much while being the same size.

but based solely on skull element size, even adjusting for the fact that Torvosaurus had a skull almost 50% longer than Allosaurus of the same length, I'd confidently guess that Torvo was slightly larger than Allosaurus, "Epanterias," and Saurophaganax in total size and at least 10 times larger in average size assuming "Epanterias" and Saurophaganax or purely size-related genera.
>>
>>3992681
Yeah I don't think SL:BL is a great indicator either. It really depends on if the skull is big and heavy it necessites a massive body to keep it in place like T. rex. Or you could have a really long lightweight skull like Spinosaurus. Torvosaurus is probably somewhere in between these two extremes.
>>
>>3992686
>It really depends on if the skull is big and heavy it necessites a massive body to keep it in place like T. rex
sort of

the hips are the center of balance. Right?

If we make the weight forward of the hips heavier or farther forward we have to make the weight behind the hips either heavier or farther back. Simple physics

if we don't make the animal heavier in the tail we have to make it longer.

Torvo had a longer, heavier skull

there's no indication its tail was heavier than Allosaurus. So it must have been longer.

longer tail equals longer dinosaur.
Longer skull equals longer tail

it all adds up to Torvo being longer than Allo
which several paleontologists have said.
including me.
>>
>>3992689
It's a shame torvosaurus is nowhere near as complete as allosaurus so we can't be 100% sure.
It also means we also have less specimens and when scaled without outdated methods, the larger Allosaur material tends to result in a larger animal than Torvosaurus. Maybe if we had a better sample size for Torvosaurus we would have a better idea of how big it was compared to the other predators.
>>
>>3992686
>>3992689
The alternative to this is holding the weight of the skull closer to the hips by assuming an S shaped posture of the neck. Like birds do

but this is already assumed based on how much heavier the skull and neck is than the tail. Probably all theropod dinosaurs did this or they'd fucking fall over on their stupid faces.

and if the posture is the same in both theropods, the only variable left is weight. And we know Torvosaurus heads weighed more than Allosaurus.
>>
>>3992692
>the larger Allosaur material tends to result in a larger animal than Torvosaurus
literally nobody believes this, that's what I'm telling you

the only reason Foster published this is because the largest Torvosaurus aren't published, the smallest Saurophaganax aren't published, and the two genera aren't being measured with the same yardstick
>>
>>3992696
Thats why I was confused at earlier GDIs where Torvosaurus' mass was so low. It's somewhere between Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurids in terms of how stocky and stout its bauplan was from what I've gathered. The original Torvosaurus GDI gave it a really sausage like body with a chest girth less than Allosaurus or even onr of the more robust Ceratosaurus species if I'm betting.
>>
>>3992704
those were figured before any Torvo spinal series were known.
>>
>>3992701
I checked an online database and brontoraptor seems much smaller than Bakker's exaggerations. I mean even more so to a greater degree than Epanterias. It reinds me of another giant megalosaur, das monster von minden, that got downsized from 15 to 8 meters. It's absurd.
>>
>>3992706
Really? I'm talking about GDIs from the 2010s.
>>
>>3992710
>It's absurd.
c'mon we both know Bakker exaggerates

Britt, Kirkland, Holtz, and Mateus not so much.

if you have actual figures on Brontoraptor or Edmarka we can do the math. I don't.
>>
>>3992720
CPS 1003 was referred to Brontoraptor right? It includes a 83 cm femur. That's practically on par with the downgraded Das Monster von Minden.
>>
>>3992726
again, femoral length is traditionally corelated to cursorial ability while width is associated with size.
>>
>>3992729
Femur length is associated with axial length though. I find it hard to believe an enormous theropod would have a femur under a meter.
>>
>>3992730
There's also a 93 cm ilium
>>
>>3992730
>Femur length is associated with axial length though.
nah, we use the ratio as a diagnostic formula but there's no set BL:FL ratio among different taxa
>>
>>3992731
I'm not saying you're wrong.

but we'd need to compare the ratios to other animals to make any judgement. Even then it's possible that Torvosaurus is just a midget. Or a giant. Compared to others.
>>
>>3992732
My problem is that I can't see an 83 cm femur belonging to an animal beyond a certain length, let along a theropod greater than 11 meters. At some point, the theropod becomes Majungasaurus like in its low and long configuration. That type of condition is an oddity among theropods and I'm not inclined to believe thise proportions would apply in most cases. Exceptions are exceptions to the norm after all. They're rare for a reason.
>>
>>3992736
Anyways I need to sign off. It was nice talking to you guys.
>>
>>3992736
SL:BL is an exception in Torvo already

I'm going to go hang out with a girl. Pretty and young. I will read what you write tomorrow.
>>
>>3992738
Hope you have fun. It's funny to think Torvosaurus potentiallg has even wackier proportions than any of the current restorations. Though I am cautious about extrapolating SL:BL to FL:BL for body proportions.
>>
>>3992742
personally I think Torvosaurus had perfectly average proportions for a meg. But that just means it's the largest theropod in the Morrison Formation. Which most people already accept.
>>
>>3992846
>Nevermind. I found out how Foster got his aggregate weights for his theropods
>based on long-bone circumference, John S. McIntosh estimated the weight of S. maximus to have been about 2720 kilograms ( almost 3 tons )
All the weights he used were derived by femur circumference.
So what this tells me is that there's an unpublished Saurophaganax femur more robust than any Torvosaurus (Edmarka included) femur out there.
>>
>>3992351
Of course we can talk about pterosaurs here, they ARE dinosaurs after all.
>>
>>3992979
bait
>>
>>3993361
Why are you so certain they're not dinosaurs? Where's the evidence they're Ornithodirans or some other type of Archosaur instead of Dinosaur or - more likely - a Dinosauriform?
>>
>>3980929
Climbing actually
>>
>>3992892
>>
>>3992892
>>3994062
Also as per our discussion, this 11m reconstruction is estimated at 13m by others. Bakker would call it 15m
>>
>>3988364
Same



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.