Where is the apatosaur?

[Warren Dew]

Way back in #750, we saw Elan playing on an apatosaur in Tarquin's dinosaur stables. The other dinosaur types we've previously seen we've now seen used in Tarquin's army.

We haven't seen the apatosaur again, though. Any thoughts on where it is and what Tarquin uses it for?

[hamishspence]

Actually- we do see it again- used as a transport:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html

[Warren Dew]

Ah, I'd forgotten about that, thanks. I guess this world has brontosaurs instead of apatosaurs.

[hamishspence]

I'm told that there's a few palaeontologists- most notably Robert Bakker- who think that the species originally labelled Brontosaurus (currently labelled Apatosaurus excelsus ) is different enough from the older Apatosaurus ajax to be considered a different genus rather than just a different species. Hence Bakker sometimes calls it Brontosaurus excelsus.

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/

[Rogar Demonblud]

Also, it was likely too big to be brought through the wormhole.

[Warren Dew]

I'm told that there's a few palaeontologists- most notably Robert Bakker- who think that the species originally labelled Brontosaurus (currently labelled Apatosaurus excelsus ) is different enough from the older Apatosaurus ajax to be considered a different genus rather than just a different species. Hence Bakker sometimes calls it Brontosaurus excelsus.

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/
Interesting.

I figure stickverse can have brontosaurus even if ourverse doesn't, anyway.

[campkilkare]

Interesting.

I figure stickverse can have brontosaurus even if ourverse doesn't, anyway.

The fact that a bronotosaurus is just an apatosaurus with a different dinosaur's head stuck on it by mistake is actually specifically brought up by Roy in the strip hamishpence linked. Tarquin shrugs it off, saying essentially that putting a different animal's head on a creature to make a third kind of beast is pretty damn common in their universe. I think the specific reference he makes is to hippogriffs?

[Raphite1]

The incorrect head has nothing to do with the name; biological naming conventions don't work like that. The specimen with which the genus "Brontosaurus" was erected just turned out to be the same genus as a specimen that had already been named "Apatosaurus" years earlier.

[Giggling Ghast]

You know, it just occured to me how little sense it makes to have birds and dinosaurs in the same setting ...

[jere7my]

You know, it just occured to me how little sense it makes to have birds and dinosaurs in the same setting ...

Yeah. It's almost as silly as having humans and apes in the same setting. Or fish and amphibians.

[Raphite1]

You know, it just occured to me how little sense it makes to have birds and dinosaurs in the same setting ...

Dinosaurs and birds lived together for many millions of years. Birds are an insanely successful group of animals.

[KillianHawkeye]

You know, it just occured to me how little sense it makes to have birds and dinosaurs in the same setting ...

I know, right? It's not like humans coexist with monkeys in the real world or anything!

In all seriousness, if large dinosaurs hadn't been rendered extinct by a worldwide ice age, it would be perfectly reasonable for the larger specimens to still exist today alongside modern birds.

[Giggling Ghast]

Fair enough. I yield to greater knowledge than my own.

[F.Harr]

The "'pattie" is probably used as a beast of bourden and the "stggie" is trained for combat.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Allosaurus, Triceratops and Pterosaurs all have obvious military applications. The first is a powerful carnivore with the capacity to kill several enemies in a single round. Triceratops is a fairly well-armored herbivore with one hell of a charge attack. Pterosaurs aerial maneuverability makes them terribly useful to an army. Brontosaurus? Sure it can stomp things, and it's huge enough to soak a bit of damage, but comparatively its strengths lie outside of direct combat, being less well defended and less capable of damage dealing than the species that showed up with the army.

[kpenguin]

You know, it just occured to me how little sense it makes to have birds and dinosaurs in the same setting ...

No more than having primates and humans in the same setting, my friend. Birds are dinosaurs.

[Bird]

Moreover, it doesn't make a lot of sense to apply real-word cladistics to the Stick-verse, since its fauna gets popped into existence without evolution via god-magic. Whatever "relationship" ravens have to allosaurs in this setting, it isn't a phylogenetic one.

Blackwing referring to the allosaur as a "strong therapod role model" is a real-world joke, I feel, just like Roy talking about a Michael Jackson video.

[Valanarch]

Allosaurus, Triceratops and Pterosaurs all have obvious military applications. The first is a powerful carnivore with the capacity to kill several enemies in a single round. Triceratops is a fairly well-armored herbivore with one hell of a charge attack. Pterosaurs aerial maneuverability makes them terribly useful to an army. Brontosaurus? Sure it can stomp things, and it's huge enough to soak a bit of damage, but comparatively its strengths lie outside of direct combat, being less well defended and less capable of damage dealing than the species that showed up with the army.

My main question is why there aren't any ankylosaurs in the dino army.

[Comissar]

My main question is why there aren't any ankylosaurs in the dino army.

Not smart enough to be trained? Too slow to keep up? Much too unpleasant to be around for extended periods of time?

They may simply not be present in the OotSverse.

[Diadem]

In all seriousness, if large dinosaurs hadn't been rendered extinct by a worldwide ice age, it would be perfectly reasonable for the larger specimens to still exist today alongside modern birds.
Not really. Our atmosphere today is radically different from what it was back in the days of the dinosaurs. It had about twice the oxygen it has now, if I recall correctly. That's why everything back then became so ridiculously huge.

Animals (or insects, or plants) of that size are no longer possible today.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Brontosaurus? Sure it can stomp things, and it's huge enough to soak a bit of damage, but comparatively its strengths lie outside of direct combat, being less well defended and less capable of damage dealing than the species that showed up with the army.

Here is an interesting piece of trivia about the long-necked dinosaurs: unlike what is usually shown in film, their long neck was not for eating off treetops (it wasn't bendy enough for that), but probably to counterbalance their long tail. The tail was probably was their main form of defence: if you get whipped by a tail that large and long, you are likely not getting back up.

More likely, they were not brought along because they were too big for the portal, rather than any lack of martial ability.

Edit:

Not really. Our atmosphere today is radically different from what it was back in the days of the dinosaurs. It had about twice the oxygen it has now, if I recall correctly. That's why everything back then became so ridiculously huge.

Animals (or insects, or plants) of that size are no longer possible today.

[citation needed]. As far as I know, oxygen-rich atmosphere only helps insects grow larger.

Grey Wolf

[Bird]

Not really. Our atmosphere today is radically different from what it was back in the days of the dinosaurs. It had about twice the oxygen it has now, if I recall correctly. That's why everything back then became so ridiculously huge.

Animals (or insects, or plants) of that size are no longer possible today.
Not saying this is wrong, but it assumes a lot. A few issues:

1. As GW points out, there's reason to believe that higher oxygen levels helped insects evolve to considerable size. However, vertebrate pulmonary systems have very different constraints than arthropods do.

2. Oxygen levels varied a LOT over the course of the Mesozoic. Some studies (and I say "some" because this is a point of contention) have found that oxygen levels in the Jurassic were lower than they are now. The Jurassic, of course, had plenty of earth-shaking megafauna.

3. Elephants, subjectively speaking, are big. Also, just because elephants are the largest extant terrestrial animals doesn't mean that they are the largest terrestrial animals possible in our climate. If anyone has an idea on what the hard size cap is given our climate -- well, as GW says, a citation would be helpful.

[jere7my]

If anyone has an idea on what the hard size cap is given our climate -- well, as GW says, a citation would be helpful.

Most scientists agree that the largest possible land animal would be the size of an African elephant with a great white shark strapped to its back, with the shark having two capybaras taped on like earmuffs.

[Cuthalion]

The incorrect head has nothing to do with the name; biological naming conventions don't work like that. The specimen with which the genus "Brontosaurus" was erected just turned out to be the same genus as a specimen that had already been named "Apatosaurus" years earlier.

I always wonder about the incorrect head? Is it incorrect? If I search in Google Images, "apatosaur", I get this. (http://www.buddycom.com/dinos/3d01/apatosaur.jpg)

[Warren Dew]

[citation needed]. As far as I know, oxygen-rich atmosphere only helps insects grow larger.
Here's a citation that says the higher oxygen levels at the end of the cretaceous might have allowed flying dinosaurs to grow larger:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845563/posts

It doesn't address large terrestrial dinosaurs, though.

[David Argall]

Here is an interesting piece of trivia about the long-necked dinosaurs: unlike what is usually shown in film, their long neck was not for eating off treetops (it wasn't bendy enough for that), but probably to counterbalance their long tail. The tail was probably was their main form of defence: if you get whipped by a tail that large and long, you are likely not getting back up.
The defensive weapon theory has its weak points. One is that nearly all observed animals defend themselves by running away rather that using horns or tusks, etc. These are reserved for special cases, and each other rather than any predator. Another is that a swing is only useful at a distance. If the foe gets close, the weapon becomes slow and weak, and a predator is often eager to get in your face. Another is that the tail leaves large vital areas undefended. One could use the neck in some case, but that is putting some of those vital spots within easy predator reach.
An alternate theory is that the tail was a counterbalance. The dinosaur could plant itself in the middle of tasty plants and just chow away. If it does so without a tail, it ultimately falls over. [Try holding a stick at arm's length or pick up something with arms fully extended to see how heavy even a "tiny" head becomes at the end of a long neck.] With a tail pointing away from the head, you have balance, and a much easier time extending that neck to reach that food, without having to move that big heavy body to it.

[Klear]

I always wonder about the incorrect head? Is it incorrect? If I search in Google Images, "apatosaur", I get this. (http://www.buddycom.com/dinos/3d01/apatosaur.jpg)

The first specimen found was almost complete, but the head was missing. They used the head of the closely related Camarasaurus from pictures and reconstructions, but no mistake was ever involved (at least not from the professionals).

At least that's what I remember. I used to know everything about dinosaurs when I was little (shortly before Jurassic Park came out. I got lucky like that).

I believe the real skull has been found since.

[Bird]

Most scientists agree that the largest possible land animal would be the size of an African elephant with a great white shark strapped to its back, with the shark having two capybaras taped on like earmuffs.
THREAD WINNER


Here's a citation that says the higher oxygen levels at the end of the cretaceous might have allowed flying dinosaurs to grow larger:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845563/posts

It doesn't address large terrestrial dinosaurs, though.
Pterasaurs weren't dinosaurs. :smallwink::smalltongue: (To be fair, the article writer seems confused about this.)

And certainly, as you imply, flying creatures have issues that terrestrial animals don't. The largest flying animal ever would have weighed far less than (for instance) an adult horse.

Anyway, a neat article, though lacking in substance. I skimmed it for the key bit: "The discovery of the oxygen enriched atmosphere of the cretaceous period sheds new light on this problem. In such an atmosphere many of the constraints of metabolism are relaxed. The creatures of the cretaceous may have been literally turbo-charged like race cars by the oxygen enriched atmosphere. It becomes plausible that a flying creature that evolved during that period could reach size limits that are impossible in today's anemic atmosphere."

Sure, could be, but it's not much to go on.

[Toy Killer]

I thought the Dinosaur size thing was because of living in a world before the continents broke apart. Kinda like how Pygmy elephants (elephants that were separated on a small island) decreased in size, as resources were too scarce to support their gigantic size.

[Bird]

I thought the Dinosaur size thing was because of living in a world before the continents broke apart. Kinda like how Pygmy elephants (elephants that were separated on a small island) decreased in size, as resources were too scarce to support their gigantic size.
Nah. Island dwarfism is a real phenomenon; being small can indeed be an evolutionary advantage when resources are too scarce to support larger animals. (Interestingly, island gigantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_gigantism) is also possible, when an ecosystem lacks predators and so "prey" species can be big and slow without having to worry about running and hiding.)

But by the end of the Mesozoic there was already plenty of continental breakup (http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&sa=X&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS259&biw=1252&bih=547&tbm=isch&tbnid=05srHB5gsMxXKM:&imgrefurl=http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/geol102/Study/Mesozo1.htm&docid=KvYFOEnlGFV_fM&imgurl=http://www.scotese.com/images/Cretac94.jpg&w=720&h=480&ei=v7kaUuSaNMqLqQGL6IGgAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:9,s:0,i:108&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=183&tbnw=270&start=0&ndsp=11&tx=123&ty=89). And anyway, modern Eurasia is bloody huge. Bears aren't prevented from growing larger because Russia isn't big enough.

That said, levels of vegetation and resources certainly do make a difference when you're talking about what kind of animals an area can support. One of the many problems with Jurassic Park IIRC was that a tiny island like that would have had an awful time supporting all those Brachiasaurs...

[DeadMG]

In all seriousness, if large dinosaurs hadn't been rendered extinct by a worldwide ice age, it would be perfectly reasonable for the larger specimens to still exist today alongside modern birds.

Apart from the whole "humans" thing. I highly doubt that we would tolerate such dangerous predators- not to mention our amazing success at extinguishing large game species for them to feed on. The only other forms of life that have had any serious success resisting humanity or taking advantage of our spread is the very small, parasites and micro-organisms and such.

[Cuthalion]

The first specimen found was almost complete, but the head was missing. They used the head of the closely related Camarasaurus from pictures and reconstructions, but no mistake was ever involved (at least not from the professionals).

At least that's what I remember. I used to know everything about dinosaurs when I was little (shortly before Jurassic Park came out. I got lucky like that).

I believe the real skull has been found since.

Ah, thanks. :smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

Apart from the whole "humans" thing. I highly doubt that we would tolerate such dangerous predators- not to mention our amazing success at extinguishing large game species for them to feed on. The only other forms of life that have had any serious success resisting humanity or taking advantage of our spread is the very small, parasites and micro-organisms and such.

That is an entirely separate problem that has nothing to do with whether or not large dinosaurs and birds could have evolved cotemporaneously.

[Hague]

Do we know how fast the earth was spinning back then? Perhaps a faster speed altered the relative effect of gravity and dinosaurs and other animals had to get smaller to accomodate the greater relative effect of gravity when it slows down?

Dunno really. They say the speed of the earth's rotation is constant but we don't have a long enough frame of reference to say if it's been changed throughout the years.

[Squark]

Apart from the whole "humans" thing. I highly doubt that we would tolerate such dangerous predators- not to mention our amazing success at extinguishing large game species for them to feed on. The only other forms of life that have had any serious success resisting humanity or taking advantage of our spread is the very small, parasites and micro-organisms and such.

Larger species have done well too; The various rat species have spread across the planet with us and resist any attempt at extermination once they take hold (Believe me, they'd love to get rid of the rodents in certain places where they're destroying the ecosystem), and other species have survived by being useful enough that we took them along with us on purpose and take an interest in their survival (Dogs, Cats, and Livestock).


Do we know how fast the earth was spinning back then? Perhaps a faster speed altered the relative effect of gravity and dinosaurs and other animals had to get smaller to accomodate the greater relative effect of gravity when it slows down?

Dunno really. They say the speed of the earth's rotation is constant but we don't have a long enough frame of reference to say if it's been changed throughout the years.
I'm reasonably certain that the centripetal force of the Earth's rotation is negligible compared to it's gravity, at least at a constant rate anyway.

[littlebum2002]

Here is an interesting piece of trivia about the long-necked dinosaurs: unlike what is usually shown in film, their long neck was not for eating off treetops (it wasn't bendy enough for that), but probably to counterbalance their long tail. The tail was probably was their main form of defence: if you get whipped by a tail that large and long, you are likely not getting back up.




It could also (supposedly) crack like a whip and make a sound up to 200 decibels. Hooray science!



Pterasaurs weren't dinosaurs. :smallwink::smalltongue: (To be fair, the article writer seems confused about this.)


LOL, I was watching "Dinosaur Train" with my little daughter yesterday and they mentioned that. I never heard that before and had to Google it to make sure they were right. I like my daughter to watch TV that will teach her something, but I end up learning as well.

[Raphite1]

This thread asking where something is located has somehow turned into one of the great popular science trainwrecks of our time, hahaha.

Man, I know paleontology doesn't get much focus in schools aside from specialized graduate programs, but this is insanity!

[Cuthalion]

It could also (supposedly) crack like a whip and make a sound up to 200 decibels. Hooray science!


LOL, I was watching "Dinosaur Train" with my little daughter yesterday and they mentioned that. I never heard that before and had to Google it to make sure they were right. I like my daughter to watch TV that will teach her something, but I end up learning as well.

I once went to a zoo. They had a special dinosaur exhibit, where it was a maze, and you were supposed to answer questions. Of course, they asked ones where the obvious one is wrong, and it was all rather strange, but one was, "Are pterrosaurs dinosaurs?" So you go, "... No? Oh, they're flying reptiles, of course. :smallconfused:"

[Bird]

This thread asking where something is located has somehow turned into one of the great popular science trainwrecks of our time, hahaha.

Man, I know paleontology doesn't get much focus in schools aside from specialized graduate programs, but this is insanity!
:haley: Punch my ticket for the popular science trainwreck! Woo woo!

[jere7my]

I'm reasonably certain that the centripetal force of the Earth's rotation is negligible compared to it's gravity, at least at a constant rate anyway.

Yep. People are slightly heavier at the poles than at the equator, but not a lot heavier. About a third of a percent heavier due to the lack of centripetal acceleration, and about another third of a percent due to being closer to the center of mass of the earth (which bulges in the middle).

[TheYell]

Where's the apatosaur?

...en Madrìd...

[hamishspence]

The defensive weapon theory has its weak points. One is that nearly all observed animals defend themselves by running away rather that using horns or tusks, etc.

Hippopotamus. Cape buffalo, and so forth kind of counter this. While they can run away, they are also heavily armed enough to handle predators.

Even if weaponry originally evolved for other purposes- it can still be put to use in defence.

Given that predators usually target sick or infant animals- and that sauropods were not good runners- it's quite plausible that they might have, like elephants, defended their young rather than simply abandoning them in the face of predator attack.

[Raphite1]

:haley: Punch my ticket for the popular science trainwreck! Woo woo!

ALLLLLL ABOARD!

Ladies and gentlemen, the next stop on the popular science trainwreck is just ahead! Look to your left and behold! A hulking stegosaurus using its bony plates to fly in pursuit of a naked human!

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17ov8lod0kfvujpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

[RyanKoopa]

Actually the reason that the "flying dinosaurs" (aka pterosaurs) were able to get so large and still fly was due to their unique takeoff style. Bird legs are completely useless in flight, pterosaur legs were just as useful as their wings.

video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALziqtuLxBQ)

Pterosaurs had several other advantages over birds, including ridiculously tiny torsos, an more extensive system of air sacs and wings that could change shape.

[Phase]

This thread asking where something is located has somehow turned into one of the great popular science trainwrecks of our time, hahaha.

I can't look away. I feel like I should get emergency services in on this but that would probably just raise the casualty count.

[F.Harr]

Not saying this is wrong, but it assumes a lot. A few issues:

1. As GW points out, there's reason to believe that higher oxygen levels helped insects evolve to considerable size. However, vertebrate pulmonary systems have very different constraints than arthropods do.

2. Oxygen levels varied a LOT over the course of the Mesozoic. Some studies (and I say "some" because this is a point of contention) have found that oxygen levels in the Jurassic were lower than they are now. The Jurassic, of course, had plenty of earth-shaking megafauna.

3. Elephants, subjectively speaking, are big. Also, just because elephants are the largest extant terrestrial animals doesn't mean that they are the largest terrestrial animals possible in our climate. If anyone has an idea on what the hard size cap is given our climate -- well, as GW says, a citation would be helpful.

Well, if you're not wedded to terrestrial critters, it would be larger than a blue whale.


:haley: Punch my ticket for the popular science trainwreck! Woo woo!

Me TOO!


...en Madrìd...

Oh, that's right. the actor who plays the appatasour is Dave Zabato-Gutierez-Smith. His mom's sick. The story was in "Fictional Actors Weekly" yesterday.

[Lord Torath]

Do we know how fast the earth was spinning back then? Perhaps a faster speed altered the relative effect of gravity and dinosaurs and other animals had to get smaller to accommodate the greater relative effect of gravity when it slows down?

Dunno really. They say the speed of the earth's rotation is constant but we don't have a long enough frame of reference to say if it's been changed throughout the years.The earth was spinning slightly faster millions of years ago. Tidal play with the moon has slowed it down marginally (and put the moon slightly farther away from the earth) over the course of millions of years, but not enough to play any major role in animal size.

Climate has a much larger effect. Smaller creatures have more surface area compared to their body mass than larger creatures, so larger creatures can better contain their heat. This means that (in general) you wind up with smaller creatures nearer the Equator, and larger creatures near the poles.

No, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Yes, elephants don't live near the poles, but they have those huge ears to help them shed excess body heat (Mastadons had ears much smaller that the giant fans African elephants walk around with. Plus, you know, "wool"). Hippos live in rivers, to help them shed that heat.

But elk are larger than mule deer, and moose are larger than elk, and the larger the ruminant, the further from the equator (or the cooler the environment) you can expect to find it (in).

[hamishspence]

Not sure if the same applies to predators- but desert wolves tend to be quite a bit smaller than Arctic wolves at least- and Sun Bears are a lot smaller than polar bears and the various northern subspecies of brown bear.

Siberian tigers are also rather bigger than Sumatran ones.

A case could be made that larger size is a common adaptation to survival in a cold climate.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Not sure if the same applies to predators- but desert wolves tend to be quite a bit smaller than Arctic wolves at least- and Sun Bears are a lot smaller than polar bears and the various northern subspecies of brown bear.

Siberian tigers are also rather bigger than Sumatran ones.

A case could be made that larger size is a common adaptation to survival in a cold climate.

Larger size also allows for more layers of fat, a great insulator. On the other hand, northern latitudes allow for less food for herbivores, so the ones that are found there have a harder time getting the food they need to be that size, so YMMV.

GW