My Ceratosaurus "pet theory"

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah, turns out even giant sauropods were warm blooded. I always assumed they would have been cold blooded. It now seems that the orthodox idea is that all dinosaurs were warm bloods (until new evidence can prove otherwise).

It never made sense to me that meat eating dinos would be warm blooded, and sauropods cold blooded. Sauropods wouldn´t have lasted- they would have been eaten alive by the much faster theropods.

I also don´t think sauropods were the placid "big cows" we see in movies. I'm pretty sure they were nasty, ill tempered, quick reacting creatures. They were coexisting with multi-ton, fleet footed killers with mouthfuls of razor-sharp teeth. You don´t survive in such a world being a "big cow".

Galvasean

My rationalizing sauropods being cold blooded was due to food intake. They must have had to eat so much being warm blooded. Although apparently mesozoic vegetation was much more nutritious than previously given credit for so that would no doubt help.
Re cows; well the modern domesticated cow is not a patch on wild ones (buffalo et all). In the wild they are not so docile. I'm sure sauropods could be fierce if need be. Some had whiplash tails (occasionally with clubs and/or spikes on them), while others like Brachiosaurus had massive forelimbs which could probably squash an unfortunate predator. There's no way they would have been the evolutionary success story they were if they had no means of fending off predators (I'm looking at you Dinosaur Planet...)

Galvasean

Quick query, was ceratosaurus a capable jumper? Jurassic Fight Club said so, although that's hardly a reliable source.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

My rationalizing sauropods being cold blooded was due to food intake. They must have had to eat so much being warm blooded. Although apparently mesozoic vegetation was much more nutritious than previously given credit for so that would no doubt help.
Re cows; well the modern domesticated cow is not a patch on wild ones (buffalo et all). In the wild they are not so docile. I'm sure sauropods could be fierce if need be. Some had whiplash tails (occasionally with clubs and/or spikes on them), while others like Brachiosaurus had massive forelimbs which could probably squash an unfortunate predator. There's no way they would have been the evolutionary success story they were if they had no means of fending off predators (I'm looking at you Dinosaur Planet...)

Not only whiplash tails... if the latest Diplodocus studies are any indications, the whips were covered on keratinous blades, which means not only would they hit predators but also slash through their flesh with very messy, painful and potentially deadly results. As if the whip wasn´t enough already to break bones...

It would be kinda like one of those spiked chains or those metal whips with razors used by some martial artists. I think this goes way beyond buffalo nastiness

Galvasean

Haven't heard of that new Diplodocus revelation before. Got a link or source?

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Haven't heard of that new Diplodocus revelation before. Got a link or source?

I think it was published in the same infamous paper that described "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus", which ended up being nothing more than Diplodocus longus, I believe. The fossils are very well preserved, though, and by studying the animal's tail they came up with the keratin blades conclusion.

http://www.dinosauriainternational.com/content/Diplodocus.html

Galvasean

Hmmm, THAT paper. I might wait until a few more independent investigations come to a similar conclusion before taking it as fact.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmmm, THAT paper. I might wait until a few more independent investigations come to a similar conclusion before taking it as fact.

Yep, but compared to the other ideas suggested in the paper (filter-feeding "Amphicoelias", Apatosaurus, Diplodocus and Barosaurus being all conspecific), the bladed whip idea sounds quite reasonable

Alvin T. Grey

Galvasean wrote: »

My rationalizing sauropods being cold blooded was due to food intake.

Which is ironic because it's my reasoning why they were warm blooded........
Weird that.

If we consider the size of the animal, and the reletivly low nutritional value of plants, then we have to consider the time it took to get that amount of calories in....

We think they were hearding animals, so that means that multiple animals ate the trees in the same area at once. That's a lot of deforestation.

Which follows that they had to move along grazing as they went, much like the equivelant heards of buffalo and wildebeast do today. or they would have quickly devistated an area like locusts.

So in order to eat they had to move, in order to eat a lot they had to...eat alot. So IMO they couldn't afford to be torporific. They couldn't waste the time. So they had to be warmblooded to be able to eat during dark or cold periods.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Which is ironic because it's my reasoning why they were warm blooded........
Weird that.

If we consider the size of the animal, and the reletivly low nutritional value of plants, then we have to consider the time it took to get that amount of calories in....

We think they were hearding animals, so that means that multiple animals ate the trees in the same area at once. That's a lot of deforestation.

Which follows that they had to move along grazing as they went, much like the equivelant heards of buffalo and wildebeast do today. or they would have quickly devistated an area like locusts.

So in order to eat they had to move, in order to eat a lot they had to...eat alot. So IMO they couldn't afford to be torporific. They couldn't waste the time. So they had to be warmblooded to be able to eat during dark or cold periods.

I think this whole thing deserves a new thread :> Interesting topic, plus it has nothing to do with Ceratosaurus anymore haha

Galvasean

I'll split the thread...









Later :pac: