tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.comments2024-03-15T01:29:44.048-07:00Mark P. Witton's BlogMark Wittonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comBlogger2352125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-35002860530459353832023-05-30T14:15:59.837-07:002023-05-30T14:15:59.837-07:00That barosaurus in the background has caught a fis...That barosaurus in the background has caught a fish. It's an interesting bit of speculation.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847122481807279472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-7620303781482363272023-05-26T20:50:27.881-07:002023-05-26T20:50:27.881-07:00Dammit, Mark, I need the expense like I need (anot...Dammit, Mark, I need the expense like I need (another) hole in the head. I'm going to try to hold off, hanging my hat on my poor comprehension of Czech (by which I mean I can tell if something is in Czech but that's the end of my comprehension). Maybe when I get to August, where I get 3 paychecks (so one is unencumbered by monthy expenses. I will have to be strong and I hate that, so cut it out!Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174422312354863164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-34401306482559069612023-04-01T02:45:29.083-07:002023-04-01T02:45:29.083-07:00Thanks, Davide!Thanks, Davide!Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08416697986196712578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-3549866022554971522023-04-01T01:55:10.685-07:002023-04-01T01:55:10.685-07:00Regarding monitors teeth and gums, it's explai...Regarding monitors teeth and gums, it's explained in the supplementary materials:"This ‘free’
<br />gingival tissue is somewhat mobile so as not to interfere with feeding and seems to occur
<br />essentially regardless of lizard tooth morphology (occurring even alongside the flesh-cutting ziphodont teeth of varanids, for example), diet and tooth function.".Davide Gioiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00541804529581203322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-75002702821585491522023-03-31T21:16:22.588-07:002023-03-31T21:16:22.588-07:00Aligator foramina are scattered about because they...Aligator foramina are scattered about because they detect motion in the water. Interesting article I found about it. <br /><br />https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/mystery-bumps-81815994/ <br /><br />The bit about how 'alligators have bumps only on their jaws and mouths while others have them all over their bodies' is interesting. I remember reading that tyrannosaurs had them on their faces because they liked to chew on each other's heads. The extra nerves probably made it even more enjoyable then it sounds.kmichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430854438111260663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-41350864418657575062023-03-31T05:49:57.646-07:002023-03-31T05:49:57.646-07:00Well, Mark, congratulation on this new paper! I gu...Well, Mark, congratulation on this new paper! I guess this long-running controversy was overdue a formal treatment. It's good to see multiple independent lines of evidence.<br /><br />That said, the lip-foramen argument looks very equivocal based on the evidence presented here. In relative size and number, the foramina in the tyrannosaur look like a nice intermediate between the croc and the lizard, so that this doesn't seem to argue in a compelling way for either condition.<br /><br />"Varanids take these enlarged gingivae to an extreme, hiding almost all of their formidable teeth with enormous gums." — Are they able to use these teeth? Are the gums maybe more flexible than ours, so that they "push down" when the animal bites? Or is all that tooth crown wasted, embedded in gum?<br /><br />P.S. I am contractually obliged to point out what shame it is that this work was published in a journal with draconian and arbitrary length requirements, such that much of the real science is relegated into supplementary information.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08416697986196712578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-57639888776837045422023-03-03T04:07:11.453-08:002023-03-03T04:07:11.453-08:00One difference between horned dinosaurs and horned...One difference between horned dinosaurs and horned mammals that leaps out is that while among the latter, horns are pretty much a herbivore monopoly, horned predatory dinosaurs were reasonably common. I'm not sure what this tells us, but presumably *something*.<br /><br />(Poor old *Ceratosaurus* was a staple of childhood dino books, but seems to get little attention nowadays. We probably can assume it's horn wasn't primarily for fending off allosaurs, though.)Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-8566745964952016922023-03-01T06:35:37.112-08:002023-03-01T06:35:37.112-08:00I have zero scientific credentials but I work with...I have zero scientific credentials but I work with some cranes and geese and can confirm that although they are definitely soulless creatures of the Devil they are most certainly not automatons and in fact would be a lot less trouble if they were.Draarthroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539513665540609312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-48213354518112403972023-03-01T01:52:34.909-08:002023-03-01T01:52:34.909-08:00I think you're being very kind to Matthew, to ...I think you're being very kind to Matthew, to be honest! I entirely agree that we should look at historic works critically (my body of work clearly demonstrates this approach) and yes, Matthew's text contains some sensible comments on mass and movement mechanics. But it's not unfair to draw attention to his stereotyped portrayal of dinosaur behaviour, given how thick he lays it on ("difficult to start and difficult to shift or to stop", "movements, directed and controlled by a reptilian brain, must needs be largely automatic and instinctive", "its slow stride quickening into a swift resistless rush, might well end in unavoidable impalement"). His dinosaurs sound more like unwieldy robots than real animals. It's not blasphemy to look at older science and point out where we think it was wrong.Mark Wittonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02524696111911168322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-9371766694767949962023-02-28T23:39:51.060-08:002023-02-28T23:39:51.060-08:00Andrea's comments are interesting, especially ...Andrea's comments are interesting, especially when contrasted with a recent paper that claimed tyrannosaurs were as intelligent as a chimpanzee smoking a pipe on roller skates. But do modern large reptiles suffer from having 'the inferior reptilian brain'? Do saltwater crocodiles, large monitor lizards, ostriches, or leatherback sea turtles stumble around in a confused daze, bumping into food occasionally by mere instinct? Are they unable to run, learn, or make coordinated movements because their brains are tiny and weak? The limitations of the crocodilians and monitor lizards are a result of their bodies biochemical limitations rather then a lack of intelligence or an inability to sense or react to the world around them.<br /><br />The 'dino renaissance' began because animal behavioral sciences changed. Before the '50s and '60s animals in general and reptiles in particular were thought to be incredibly dimwitted, incapable of using tools, learning, or abstract thought. Now we know reptiles use tools and are capable of planning and can learn. I've been watching videos of monitor lizards hand-raised for the pet trade. Their ability to adapt and learn is most impressive, very bird-like.<br /><br />A large part of the bias in the early years of zoology and paleontology was religious. Animals were viewed as not possessing souls or intelligence with Man as the purpose of Creation. Reptiles were viewed as especially sinister and vile, associated with The Devil, The Serpent, and our darkest most primitive impulses. Birds were also considered creatures of instinct, 'bird-brained' soulless automatons.kmichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430854438111260663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-83094695398531422652023-02-28T20:43:11.481-08:002023-02-28T20:43:11.481-08:00I've seen enough footage of modern (small and ...I've seen enough footage of modern (small and large) carnivores getting rammed, gored, stabbed, tossed, butted, trampled, bitten, kicked, tripped, eviscerated, and sat on to think it's likely their Mesozoic counterparts were on the receiving end of similar treatment. Regardless of the original reason for evolving such equipment. (which does seem to become more effectively lethal the larger the animals became) Poke the bull, get the horns. (and I'm extremely disappointed you missed an opportunity to illustrate this happening at high speed, with extra double helpings of lots and lots of gore and splatter)<br /><br />However the biggest advantage, as or more important then large size, is gregariousness. I can imagine a large carnivore approaching a hadrosaur breeding ground getting mobbed by hundreds or thousands of stampeding, bitey duckbills. (another illustration I'd like to see...)kmichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05430854438111260663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-86547826373524993242023-02-28T20:19:43.683-08:002023-02-28T20:19:43.683-08:00As someone who supports a critical (and not a prio...As someone who supports a critical (and not a priori negative) re-evaluation of pre-Renaissance palaeontologists, I read Matthew's (1915) words about giant dinosaurs intriguing and illuminating. He pointed out the physical and mechanical constraints of a giant body size to an animal with a reptilian level of brain organization. Of course, such idea has become "blasphemy" after half a century of "Renaissance" propaganda, yet science is not a religion, so I think that we should be open to include such constraints into account when we discuss about the dinosaurs species with body sizes way well above those of any extant bird or reptile.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-60901530446056490352023-02-28T17:23:23.357-08:002023-02-28T17:23:23.357-08:00This raises two questions:
1. Combining all of th...This raises two questions: <br />1. Combining all of the evidence that you listed in this blog with the recent Zuul intraspecific combat paper, it's easy to see how ceratopsian horns and frills, ankylosaur clubs, and even ceratosaur horns (mostly Carnotaurus) and ornithopod thumb spikes (mostly Iguanodon and Lurdusaurus) likely all evolved more so for intraspecific rather than interspecific combat. However, what about thagomizers? Intraspecific combat usually is damaging but not potentially fatal. However, given that one Allosaurus pelvis struck perhaps fatally by a Stegosaurus spike, I'm not sure if I can see stegosaurs regularly stabbing one another. <br /><br />2. If predators care most about bang for their buck, and even single lions will target much larger water buffalos, does this mean that the age-old "large ornithopods as mere theropod food" trope is true then? It seems that in most ecosystems, large ornithopods are the largest non-sauropod herbivores in the ecosystem. While I used to interpret this as, in lieu of horns / clubs / thagomizers, a defense mechanism that essentially made them faster "mini-sauropods," now I wonder if this would've made them preferred predator food. I imagine that if I were a tyrannosaur, I'd still probably prefer the local hadrosaur, even at adult or near adult size, over the local ceratopsian, ankylosaur, or sauropod, simply based on the maximized potential reward-cost ratio. Sounder1995https://www.blogger.com/profile/05124496714655577191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-22373097744685943182023-02-09T12:04:05.730-08:002023-02-09T12:04:05.730-08:00It is completely possible, as Brian Engh has put ...It is completely possible, as Brian Engh has put forwards, that dinosaurs may have colour shifted to brighter display colourations during the breeding season. Much like many bird and reptile species. I can't see why this could not be the case with therapods. Crocodiles like false gharials can change their camoflague from dark to light coloured so if a therapod is frequently hunting in different enviroments at different times of the year(such as in forests and open country(looking at you allosaurus- which we know for a fact went everywhere)) the shade and colouration of its camoflague shading may have changed to suit the enviroment.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847122481807279472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-27325585858912667472023-02-09T11:50:34.166-08:002023-02-09T11:50:34.166-08:00Nope. You can easily see them from a mile away. Pa...Nope. You can easily see them from a mile away. Particularly in low light when white markings really stand out.vdinetshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17859400777586965277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-85954397012573353342023-02-09T11:48:00.759-08:002023-02-09T11:48:00.759-08:00African wild dogs are camoflaged. Their markings w...African wild dogs are camoflaged. Their markings work really well as camoflague.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08847122481807279472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-77207345018474660162023-02-06T17:19:12.286-08:002023-02-06T17:19:12.286-08:00The main reason many large mammalian predators are...The main reason many large mammalian predators are orange, golden etc. is not that their prey doesn't have color vision, but that mammals have never evolved any other bright pigments that could be used in hair. Tigers, foxes etc. have major problems with species that are not their primary prey and are not color blind giving alarm calls and scaring their primary prey away. BTW, there is still no explanation of bright red coloration in some fox subspecies but not others, it is hugely counter-adaptive as far as we know.vdinetshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17859400777586965277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-66327830092545551632023-02-06T17:14:58.397-08:002023-02-06T17:14:58.397-08:00African wild dogs also have zero camo and prominen...African wild dogs also have zero camo and prominent individual markings. We know nothing about theropod hunting techniques or family bonds. So orcas and wild dogs are as poor analogs as any other extant species.vdinetshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17859400777586965277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-47851920067490987592023-02-06T16:03:03.307-08:002023-02-06T16:03:03.307-08:00One thing I'm curious about is the impact of f...One thing I'm curious about is the impact of full color/near UV vision that dinosaurs likely had. The most vividly-colored big cats can largely achieve bright colors because of ungulate prey being restricted to monochromatic vision (same principle as "hunter orange" camo employed for deer hunting). Since extant archosaurs all have excellent color vision, would a prey base with a (presumably) wider spectrum of vision have any significant compounding impacts on predator coloration?Gunnar Tribelhornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11136161905391693349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-81701484382254504192023-02-06T15:57:07.119-08:002023-02-06T15:57:07.119-08:00Well orcas are still countershaded, they engage in...Well orcas are still countershaded, they engage in pursuit or novel predation techniques (depending on population), rely on tight-knit familial bonds, and are aquatic. It is unlikely most large terrestrial theropods were a good analogue for the isolated case of the killer whale. Gunnar Tribelhornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11136161905391693349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-11899896520499990922023-02-05T16:56:34.426-08:002023-02-05T16:56:34.426-08:00It seems that one feature of dinosaurs not shared ...It seems that one feature of dinosaurs not shared by large mammalian predators is that the dinosaur prey & hunters likely had color vision, while large mammals do not. This must have had an effect on the type of camouflages. Sandy Petersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11437722999488762286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-6320907863401009272023-02-02T15:48:51.139-08:002023-02-02T15:48:51.139-08:00Killer whales, the largest extant predators of ver...Killer whales, the largest extant predators of vertebrates, have near-zero camouflage and are colored for intraspecific signaling.vdinetshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17859400777586965277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-32903540253478182612023-02-01T04:18:52.160-08:002023-02-01T04:18:52.160-08:00Any plans to do case studies w/big ornithischians ...Any plans to do case studies w/big ornithischians & sauropods? Hope so! BTW, 2 things you said reminded me of "Stoat kills rabbit ten times its size - Life | BBC" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNbqvqf3-14 ): 1) "We're specifically interested in[...]big animals that hunt and kill relatively large prey items. Predators that subsist on smaller, bite-sized animals don't qualify" (What about small hunters/killers of relatively large prey items?); 2) "Bigger predators instigate more vigorous reactions than smaller ones, such that prey species react sooner, flee further, or initiate more aggressive counter-responses" (Is that why none of the other rabbits seem bothered?).raptor_044https://www.blogger.com/profile/10538231485096397412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-44046103454788027172022-12-27T09:46:28.061-08:002022-12-27T09:46:28.061-08:00Where might one purchase prints of some of Conway&...Where might one purchase prints of some of Conway's paleoart? I'm a bit ahead of the curve on this subject as I already have some work by Hastings and Amos hanging in my house, regarded very much as "serious" art.AJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088091327851742375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3653345901774701895.post-59759766078833576142022-12-18T18:09:35.733-08:002022-12-18T18:09:35.733-08:00I'm sympathetic, but on the topic of 'why ...I'm sympathetic, but on the topic of 'why isn't palaeoart just regarded as art?', I think you might be a little too close to the matter.<br /><br />My initial thoughts put the problem down to two things:<br /><br />1) Relatability. You skated close to this with the comment about 'lower animals' but didn't quite touch on it. The problem with dinosaurs in themselves is that they're a) 'reptiles', and b) reptiles that no-one has any hope of seeing, experiencing, or interacting with. We look at something like Charles Burton Barber's 'A Special Pleader', and though sentimentalised and a little anthropomorphised, we can identify with the expression and body language of the dog, especially if we've kept dogs ourselves. Even something like Giacomo Balla's 'Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash' conveys the familiar whirring motion of a small dog walking quickly, and might crack a smile. (Though to be frank, to ask 'why wouldn't the general public be interested in cubist palaeoart?' in this context is to tie your shoelaces together in preparation for a trip up Ben Nevis.)<br />There's plenty of art of elephants striding stoically across a flat plain, a theme that's adapted plenty of times for sauropod art, but what makes the elephant artwork generally more desirable than the sauropod equivalent? I think it's our modern relative closeness to elephants, through zoos and documentaries, the revelation of their intelligence and emotional ties, the (rightful) efforts to make us sympathise with their endangerment. What can we do with sauropods? They can be depicted as majestic but that's about it. Can we show a scene of them caring for young? Probably not. Do we paint them with beady, lizardlike or birdlike eyes? Would it help if we showed sauropods with soft, cowlike eyes? Would that be right? How would we know?<br />There's a lot we know but still too much we don't, and sorry to say, but that latter part essentially means the same as 'made up'. Dinosaurs are too distant, too unknowable, not mammalian enough. If it weren't for concrete remains the question might possibly be "why isn't dragon art more meanstream?"<br />Art of extant theropods throws a kind of a spanner in my works. Though I'd say birds in art are still representative of contemporary, interactable nature, even domestic situations.<br /><br />(And for what it's worth, I'd say elephants inhabited the same role as mere 'fantastic beasts' when all europeans had were medieval woodcuts and illuminations. Not really any chance of rectifying the situation for dinosaurs, in the same way.)<br /><br />So 2) dinosaurs in culture. Yes, they're still seen as kiddy fare or movie monsters, for reasons I've mentioned and more. I've felt enough despair when pop culture commentators look at a feathered Velociraptor and moan "science ruined dinosaurs!" But what can you do when a certain movie franchise (which admittedly started out fairly well) is the main point of access to palaeontology for most people? It's an uphill battle, and not helped by the fact more documentary-focused screen versions are few and far between, expensive, often riddled with inaccuracy and sensationalism themselves, or hidden - as the guys at SV-POW! like to say - behind a paywall. (Apple TV, for the luvva Mike! Who has Apple TV?!) Dry fossils on display in a museum are impressive, but again, for most it's a day out for the kids, a chance to say "brr, I'm glad they're not around today!" and go home again.<br />How would someone change that? Are John's ideas about palaeoart the ideal, or only the next step? Can you use them to change a whole society's mind about dinosaurs? Would you first need to educate it about about the fact that Gustav Klimt was actually a thing...?Warren JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743987856127631574noreply@blogger.com