HOME | DD

yoult In reply to SheepWithATie [2015-01-05 15:48:45 +0000 UTC]

That's a common colour combination in seabirds. Actually it's based on cormorants.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yoult In reply to RoFlo-Felorez [2012-03-21 17:48:46 +0000 UTC]

Actually there is no evidence neither for nor against protofuzz in Megalosaurids. At the moment there is a new fossil in examination, which could be proven as a juvenile Megalosaurid with Protofuzz, but I rather think it will be end as a Compsognathid.
I see featherlike integument as a basal trait in Dinosauria if not all Archosaurs (like Pterosaurs [in which the integument is called "Pycnofibers"] and Crocodiles [modern species don't sport any hair- or featherlike integument, but in fossil species it's not so implausible as their ancestors were actually warmblooded animals]). So fuzzy Spinosaurs aren't that unlikely, but of course pure speculation at the moment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RoFlo-Felorez In reply to yoult [2012-03-21 18:35:28 +0000 UTC]

ive kinda wondered that too, cus i always hear that theropods like tyrannosaurs and dromaeosaurs sported feathers, but then i wondered "what about the other large theopods? did they have feathers too?"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yoult In reply to felipe-elias [2011-09-14 17:36:55 +0000 UTC]

So far no. I know that Beside Baryonyx and Suchomimus all Spinosaurids were rarely fossilized found, but for this two I think the skeletal evidence is too less.
Your Oxalia-skeleton is great, but I'm not sure why all people tend to give him such high spinals like Spinosaurus.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

felipe-elias In reply to yoult [2011-09-17 22:57:22 +0000 UTC]

Because its very close relationship with Spinosaurus, perhaps...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yoult In reply to felipe-elias [2011-09-18 00:14:55 +0000 UTC]

It is indeed. But Baryonyx and Suchomimus are very close related too (highly likely the same genus) and look different enough to appear as two different animals.
In recontructions like yours I would prefer calling the animal Spinosaurus quilombensis. Also Spinosaurus' spines are at the moment not surely known for what their purpuse was. I'm unsure if Oxalaia would've needed them too in a quite different ecosystem. But more research and findings may help better than pure speculations like my words.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

felipe-elias In reply to yoult [2011-09-18 00:35:33 +0000 UTC]

Alcantara ecosystem is much more like North Africa than you're assuming, but very well.
I agree about Spinosaurus quilombensis, because honestly I cannot see enough to consider it as a separate genus. And concerning my Oxalaia, tall neural spines are based on fossil evidence - an isolated vertebrae with part of a large neural spine from the same fossil locality.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

yoult In reply to felipe-elias [2011-09-18 00:49:51 +0000 UTC]

Okay thank you for the information about the neural spines, I didn't know about it. It seems also Oxalaia is the southamerican counterpart of Africa's Spinosaurus, or even the same genus.
You've confinced me, I will try to make an Oxalaia-liferecontruction when getting some time. And I hope you'll do also, your Spinosaurs are always a fest for the eyes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0