Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals thread, go.
Starting with a fluffy little bugger
dinosaurs aren't prehistoric animals.
>>2107940
whatever, fag
>>2107940
The majority of them are.
>>2107975
the majority of all dinosaurs are modern birds.
so no.
>>2107978
Most of which were around long before recorded history.
>>2107940
Please stop being ridiculously pedantic. You obviously know what people mean. Do you really expect someone to clarify that every time?
>>2107980
they're still around so they're not pre-historic.
>>2107984
>every dinosaur thread ever
>>2107984
OP here
had I said "non-avian dinosaurs" this pedantic shit would've probably said "but what about prehistoric birds?"
there's no pleasing this faggot, just ignore him
>>2107987
>me
>>2107984 was my only post in the entire thread. I know birds are dinosaurs, but going out of your way whenever anyone brings up dinosaurs in any context to show off how much you know birds are dinosaurs is retarded.
Bring it up if it's called for, but not every single time dinosaurs are mentioned.
(though it's probably fair to say the majority of dinosaurs are extinct, because we've had 230 million years of species coming and going, I highly doubt the number of species around today are more than the total amount of extinct ones, so good job being retarded anyway)
>>2108027
>I highly doubt the number of species around today are more than the total amount of extinct ones, so good job
not him but that's one of the more interesting problems in paleontology.
real dinosaur diversity in the Mesozoic appears to have been incredibly small. It was probably the least diverse and most conserved period of life since the Ediacaran.
it doesn't appear to be an artifact of preservation or a simple lack of fossils. Dinosaurs of the Mesozoic appear to have had very very few species and those species survived tens of millions of years longer than most modern ones do.
tl;dr: non-avian dinosaur species are less than 10% of known dinosaurs, and that appears to be accurate.
>>2107940
So, Bugguy, when did you stop using your tripcode?
>>2108037
Yes, but what about all the species of extinct avians?
>>2108093
avian diversity is relatively recent.
>>2108099
A quick google search is telling me there are less than 10,000 species of birds.
I'm not sure I'd believe there were less than 10,000 species of any sort of dinosaur that have gone extinct in the history of earth. (avian or not)
>>2108116
what you believe doesn't change paleofaunal censuses any.
>>2108119
Well yeah of course, but any sources on the species count being that low? That just seems so astronomically small.
Is that just counting the species we currently know of and not the load that have probably been not preserved, or not found, or only exist as unknown of misidentified fragments?
>>2108130
I don't even know of a single source on the subject.
google is good for non-avian dinosaur diversity. I found ~300 valid genera known out of an estimated 700-900 total. There are on average two probably valid species per genus, though lately the dinosaurs we're finding are less common and thus less diverse, so it's possible the ~600 unknown genera will produce less than 1000 new species.
Avian diversity from the Mesozoic is far easier to calculate since their teeth were diagnostic. It was pretty common to have 4 or 5 different species of birds in any given Late Cretaceous fauna.
teeth are far more likely to be preserved than other body fossils, so censuses taken from teeth are probably pretty accurate. But even if we assume most birds aren't fossilized we still wind up with less than 100 species estimated for the entire world at any one time. This is supported by DNA evidence which indicates all modern birds descended from a handful of species that survived the K-Pg event.
More recently birds are known from pseudo-fossils, and surveys of cave sediments, tar pits and mud bogs doesn't yield many unknown or extinct birds.
>>2108142
>don't even know of a single source on the subject.
didn't make sense.
what I mean is this comes from numerous sources, most of which probably aren't available online.
for non-avian dinos I'm looking at Foster's book. For avian diversity I'm paraphrasing Feduccia.
>>2108142
Oh, because every species that ever existed has managed to leave fossils, and get discovered and properly catalogued, of course.
>>2108273
if there's no evidence that it existed, then it didn't exist.
>>2108002
Utahraptor is best raptor. Prove me wrong.
![saurian_dakotaraptor_by_arvalis-d9ewtr5[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bqHxmjb.jpg "saurian_dakotaraptor_by_arvalis-d9ewtr5[1].jpg")
>>2108514
fight me
>>2108310
And if you close your eyes, no one can see you because you can't see them.
>>2108273
I've covered some of that already.
perhaps I wasn't clear enough though.
1. Non-avian dinosaurs are mostly megafauna and megafauna fossilizes extremely well.
2. Dinosaur bearing formations are heavily sampled and rarely produce new species.
3. the gaps in the dinosaur record come from missing rock units, not just unfound skeletons.
4. Teeth are extremely likely to be fossilized and we know of most extinct birds from teeth.
5. Knowing how many dinosaurs existed at two certain times allows us to guess how many existed in the gaps between those times.
6. We still estimate that we've only found somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of dinosaur species that have existed.
7. Even adjusting for all the dinosaurs we haven't found and probably never will, EXTINCT DINOSAUR DIVERSITY IS THOUSANDS OF TIMES WEAKER THAN MAMMAL DIVERSITY AND MILLIONS OF TIMES WORSE THAN MODERN BIRD DIVERSITY.
>>2108621
>MILLIONS OF TIMES WORSE THAN MODERN BIRD DIVERSITY
There aren't even millions of bird species, you dumbfuck. There's only about 2200 genera. But by all means, keep getting pissed off and typing in all caps to prove a point.
>>2107978
What about the modern birds that have gone extinct before recorded history?
>>2108632
>But by all means, keep getting pissed off and typing in all caps to prove a point.
I'm not pissed off an it's not to prove a point.
it's because the anon I was responding to somehow missed that part the first time I said it.
>>2108632
>There aren't even millions of bird species, you dumbfuck.
Most Mesozoic strata have 0 bird species. Technically 0:10,000 is more than millions of times, but whatever.
Im rollin for Goren
>>2108598
bad analogy.
'evidence' doesn't have to be fossils, but there's no reason to believe non-avian dinosaurs had much diversity.
>>2108640
name some.
Which non avian dinosaurs had feathers?
I assumed none in ornithischia, but apparently the chinese said there were feathered dinosaurs there too in '09.
>>2107978
How many modern birds are there and how many non modern bird dinosaurs were there?
>>2108655
Practically every member of the Coelurosaur family, possibly Carnosaurs too if those quill knobs on Concavonator mean anything, some Ornithischians like Kulindadromeus and Tianyulong.
youtube.com/watch?v=sGAixpQcqdU
Watch this video.
>>2108657
10426
less than 10% of that.
>>2108649
Yes, why would there be any reason to think a massive incredibly varied group of successful animals that around for more than 100 million years diverse?
>>2108744
we'd expect them to be very diverse but they're not.
that's what we're talking about.
they SHOULD BE diverse.
they're not.
that's strange.
the main reason is size.
the huge ones crowded other huge ones out.
the huge ones also started off small and crowded small ones out.
>>2108584
Almost certainly Utah raptor will win, and here is why:
They were about the same size (dakotaraptor being slightly smaller), but dakotaraptor was a much more gracile animal.
Utah raptor was a much more robust animal that was clearly a bruiser in comparison. A more sturdy and robust build meant less likely to be injured in a fight and likely a larger proportion of overall muscle mass.
Dakotaraptor's only real advantage was that it was likely a quicker and more agile animal. Though this is very good for hunting smaller prey, it will likely not trump Utah raptor in a full-on one-to-one close range fight.
Outside of this contrast, they were practically the same animal and would have not other major differences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU_aZQ4F5vU
>>2108665
That video makes it clear that feather production actually started around the common archosaur ancestor of dinosaurian and pterosaurs. Even many very primitive dinosaurs long preceding coelurosaur existence.
Meaning regardless if minimal, ALL dinosaurs likely had feathers
>>2110056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=865AoXifk7E
>>2110066
Tyrannosaurus was factually too brutish to ever trust around children. If anything, they were probably the very most aggressive and brutish dinosaurs ever discovered based on their frequent injuries evidently a result of constant fights; many even cannibalizing each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb12fBXssZg
They truly lived hard and died young.
>>2110062
I really liked the original 'Land Before Time'.
>>2108514
My nigga
>>2110404
>he knows birds are dinosaurs
>he still thinks feathers are basal
2014 called, they want their debunked science back.
>>2110459
>implying feather-like integument isn't basal
>>2110459
You are the dumbfuck here learn to read, I never said that the ornitischians there should be feather i specifically refered to theropods which even the most retarded ass out there would know were in fact feathered, yeah keep mobing goalposts anf putting words on me to deffend your idiotic jurassic park tier drawing s
>>2110504
>i specifically refered to theropods
I just figured you meant all dinosaurs because at least there's sort-of evidence for that. It was pretty well debunked last fall though.
But since you're saying they're basal in theropods I have to admit you're either a troll or remarkably uninformed.
>>2110545
>It was pretty well debunked last fall though.
Source please?
>>2110652
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/6/20150229
Are there any ancient animals that have an actual chance to still be around like Coelacanths?
>>2107939
Stegosaurus vs cerarosaurus
Did they taste like chicken?
>>2110071
T-rex were probably like komodos, utilizing all layers of the food chain by preying upon there own offspring who eat smaller prey.
>>2110933
Plenty!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
>>2107940
If you want to do away with paraphyletic groups you might as well call all tetrapods fish.
>>2112744
I think what he's saying is dinosaurs are extant.
also, all tetrapods are fish, loosely speaking.
>>2112822
hi bugguy
I like this pic
> ITT a thinly-veiled The Isle and Saurian thread
