Comments: 61
redrex96 [2019-08-11 10:44:20 +0000 UTC]
Wish They Were In Walking With Dinosaurs Right.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
PyroPuncherZ [2019-01-19 11:10:25 +0000 UTC]
Are you ever gonna do Tyrannosaurus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Patchi1995 [2019-01-03 08:32:24 +0000 UTC]
Do we have evidences that Pachycephalosaurus might sometimes be a lot more like Hell Creek's rarest piscivorous dinosaurs, because of their sharp teeth, and may looked somewhat like ornithopods?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ninjakingofhearts [2019-01-03 06:25:44 +0000 UTC]
Only Anatotitan, Torosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus Rex are left.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kaijufanatic19 In reply to ninjakingofhearts [2019-01-03 23:25:12 +0000 UTC]
Actually, Anatotitan isn't a real dinosaur anymore. It's now an outdated synonym for Edmontosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The-Nerdinator In reply to ninjakingofhearts [2019-01-04 20:54:02 +0000 UTC]
Science doesn't care, Anatotitan has been sunk into Edmontosaurus and it doesn't look like it'll be undone. (If it makes you feel any better, which it most likely won't, it retains its species validity as E. annectens.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
SonicZilla150 [2019-01-02 20:19:02 +0000 UTC]
Very well done. I take it Anatotitan (Edmontosaurus) is next?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
tobyv23 In reply to TrefRex [2019-01-03 00:11:45 +0000 UTC]
How many left until the ultimate T. rex?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SonicZilla150 In reply to tobyv23 [2019-01-03 01:12:06 +0000 UTC]
After Edmontosaurus, then there'll be Torosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Triceratops, until, FINALLY, the KING shall return
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Patchi1995 In reply to SonicZilla150 [2019-01-03 08:35:08 +0000 UTC]
Edmontosaurus annectens must be also known as preferably Anatosaurus annectens.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SonicZilla150 In reply to Patchi1995 [2019-01-03 12:57:56 +0000 UTC]
Edmontosaurus annectens is also referred to as Diclonius, Trachodon, Hadrosaurus, Claosaurus & Thespesius
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Philoceratops In reply to SonicZilla150 [2019-01-06 02:09:17 +0000 UTC]
Well, those were in the days were dinosaur taxonomy was complete crap, but Anatosaurus was a name made specifically for annectens.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Patchi1995 In reply to SonicZilla150 [2019-01-03 18:39:05 +0000 UTC]
Even rarely as Edmontotitan annectens?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NRD23456 [2019-01-02 12:59:51 +0000 UTC]
Cool one! Who's next? Also happy New Year!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Allorock2 [2019-01-02 12:32:31 +0000 UTC]
Am I the only one who thinks Pachy looks adorable
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DINOTASIA123 [2019-01-02 12:08:33 +0000 UTC]
Friar Tuck
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
asari13 [2019-01-02 10:34:03 +0000 UTC]
cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wildgirl2000 [2019-01-02 05:32:36 +0000 UTC]
I, on the other hand, don't believe that Stygimoloch and Dracorex are juvenile Pachycephalosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jdailey1991 [2019-01-02 05:07:36 +0000 UTC]
It shouldn't be a debate--no piece of the body ever shrinks with age. This sort of transformation is, at the very most, strictly amphibious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
BionicleSaurus In reply to Jdailey1991 [2019-03-08 00:19:04 +0000 UTC]
All of the hornlets and other bony ornamentation on the three genera's skulls are in exactly the same orientation. Complex structures with that degree of similarity would be incredibly unlikely to exist among three distinct animals. Not to mention both Dracorex and Stygimoloch have the cranial bone density to prove that they've gotta' be juvenile forms of something, if not Pachycephalosaurus itself. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong but there's a lot of evidence contradicting you're 'no body part shrinks with age' claim for Pachycephalosaurus specifically, valid as it may be for the majority of species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jdailey1991 In reply to BionicleSaurus [2019-03-08 01:45:40 +0000 UTC]
Bone sponginess is a clue for age, not species. That is a fact that has been overlooked in the firestorm. We have found only one skull. That's it. If we want to be sure, we need MULTIPLE specimens. And the fact that there we have not found much on pachycephalosaurs in general poses that particular problem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BionicleSaurus In reply to Jdailey1991 [2019-03-08 03:36:10 +0000 UTC]
Exactly. I was trying to say that bone sponginess IS INDEED a clue for age, as it shows that Dracorex and Stygi were not fully grown.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dinodavid8rb In reply to Jdailey1991 [2019-01-02 05:23:38 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I don't want to believe Dracorex and Stygimoloch are baby Pachycephalosaurs, but I'm still so confused. They may be young judging from the bones, but why shrink long horns into bumps?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jdailey1991 In reply to Dinodavid8rb [2019-01-02 05:36:54 +0000 UTC]
The argument regarding the sponginess of the bones was faulty right at the start because they determine only age, and age has no specific connection with specific species.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jdailey1991 In reply to Philoceratops [2019-01-02 05:35:23 +0000 UTC]
Don't throw amphibians in an amniotic argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>