Comments (Page 517)

She Dies Defending the Village of Seoul. 

She Dies in the Heat of Battle Dragging a Wounded soldier to Evac. 

I dont think it would need to change. Dinosaur is a symbolic word, but it is after all a word, a word almost everyone knows. It shouldn't change, because it will take a long time to get used to. dinosaur was created in 1842, it has been around for 172 years or so. Its going to be long before people stop saying dinosaur. Plus dinosaur is a cool name. :)

Great! I loved it. Sad that the Allo died though

The Dinosaurs were an offshoot of the theraspids, an ancient group of quadrupedal reptiles. They gained an evolutionary edge by adopting a bipedal stance, towering over their relatives. So, that in itself tells us that they were reptiles at one point in time, even if it was the beginning of their evolution. The Dinosaurs were an exceptionally successful group of reptiles that were indeed so successful, began to break into different groups. Theropods, ornithopods, sauropods, ceratopsians, you name it. They also adopted feather like quills, whether this was for display or temperature regulation isn't 100% certain. The smaller theropods, especially in the Jurassic, began to take certain forms. Archeopteryx is one prime example of this.

So, in short no, the name shouldn't change, As they were "Terrible lizards" for a long while.

dinopetrex

terrible birds.

i wonder how those mapus died.

Well, it is a good question, but it wouldn't make sense to change it my honest opinion.

Also, there some dinosaurs that weren't birds, for example, Spinosauurs, was more closely related to a crocodile.

Carcharodontosaurus is an inference made from a bigger inference that Giganotosaurus hunted Argentinosaurus(not even contemporaries) in packs...but, we have evidence Mapusaurus hunted in packs are ten individuals were found in one place, killed at one time. They range from individuals of about 18 ft in length, to a very massive individual 45 feet in length. Pack behavior in carnivorous dinosaurs was something that was overlooked for decades, and only in the last 20 years or so did that fact begin to change. 

Tyrannosaurus probably hunted in family units, if anything. More individuals participating in a hunt = a better chance for success, so it's plausible. Same goes for Torvo, we just have evidence for the former or latter

You just mashed one of the greatest television series with one of the most popular movie franchises....well done..very well done

dont forget it had powerful arms. btw t.rex and charcardontosaurus possibly hunted in packs , so why wouldnt torvo?

It definetly was in the range of the bigger Carcharodontosaurs.

towards your statement on megalosaur pack hunting, yes and No. we haven't found evidence of megalosaurs pack hunting in general...The more complete ones (Dubreillosaurus and Eustreptospondylus have been found solo, and that's multiple indvidiauls from both species. In all honesty, Torvo didn't need to hunt in packs because it had its size, along with a massive set of jaws.

awesome.. how did the allosaurus die?

I am sure they had a stobg bire in absolute and relative terms. But I takao think they could have hunted in packs. Sice but would be much more effective. And we didn't fine evidence for pack hunting because of there are so few fossils that were found.

Great chapter can't wait for the next one!

Even if they were specialized, that doesn't mean that they only take one species as prey.

Sea eagles are specialized fish eaters, yet they take small mammals and reptiles, as well as other bird species. Granted, fish make up a better part of its diet, but it's certainly not limited to fish.

Same goes for Torvosaurus, but its overall build suggests it was more generalized. 

About the bite force for a moment, Megalosaurs do have a high mechanical advantage over other theropod groups, High mechanical advantage alone doesn't translate to high absolute bite forces, the size of the jaw muscles themselves are important in determining that among other factors, for example, human jaws have higher mechanical advantage than any other living primate, higher too than in robust jawed extinct forms like Paranthropus boisei.

Also, there weren't really Hadrosaurs in the Jurassic, but instead Ornithopods like Iguanodon and Camptosaurus. Torvosaurus probably stuck to these, as well as small stegosaur species and if they roamed in packs( which we have no evidence of) they could very well take down sauropods. Babies are an easy target for lone individuals, no doubt.

I'm not entirely sure Torvosaurus had proportionally long legs;

A guess to how fast it could be would be ~18-20 mph, but that's just my guess and i really don't have any backing for it

Thanks carno :) Never knew allosaurus were that fragile!

Villains are the best! Another reason I like the sharp toothed better is that they are theropods. My favorite animals are always carnivorous.

Allo, same here. I never root for the good guys. Always the villains. I like villains better, they tend to be cooler. 

And yes i see what you're getting at Carno ;)

Again, id say the robustness of an animal correlates to the amount of species of carnivores of similar size, but also again, thats just me.

I got mine from the land before time, for some reason, instead of littlefoot and the gang, I always rooted for the sharptooths. The book I first read was the Magazine, Dinosaurs! We got a whole collection of them at a garage sale. I still read it even though it's outdated. It's awesome.

Nice job as always, looking forward to the next one. 

Here, let me explain that..

Well, in terms of oversize and robusticity, The major theropod groups go like  this:

Allosaurs---->Spinosaurs----> Carcharodontosaurs----> Tyrannosaurs

At parity, A spinosaur would weigh more then an Allosaur

a twenty five foot allosaurus Fragillis for example, would weigh 1.5 tons. Meanwhile, A baryonyx scaled down to twenty five feet would weigh ~1.8-2.25 tons.

See what i'm getting at?

Cool!

Comming close to exinction : D

I went to dinosuar park and loved them ever since 

Awesome chapter, can't wait for the next one

I can't believe there's a dinosaur called "Gorgo"saurus. I love it.

I forgot about Land before time.

That was one of my Other first experiences.

I was a really good kid when I was little.

I'd wake up at Six AM. Go to the VCR. Sometimes I'd put ina  work out video, Sometimes I'd watch the land before time. (We had a weird VCR Collection) And my parents would stroll out of there rooms at 7-ish...

They were always suprised to see me... 

Nice! 

Carno, hit the Allosaurus stuff right on the nose so I'm not gong to bother explaining Allosaurus.

But, as for the Carcharadontosaurids, Giganotosaurus bite hasn't really been tested a scientist did estimate it at 3-4 tons but, it hasn't really been tested. I usually put it at 6800 psi (3.5 tons) as for Carcharadontosaurus. It probably had a bite force slightly less as it seems overal more slnder then Giganotosaurus. 

Alrighty, i'll just reiterate what i've said on other posts seeing how we have an official thread now.

The "Bite being weaker then a lions" was a media invention

In that study (Rayfield 2001) Lions weren't even features as the test subjects in it. The scientific name, Panthera Leo doesn't even get mentioned once.

However, the Tiger is mentioned( Panthera Tigris) and has an astonishingly high bite force of ~910 kg(2,006 lbs/ 1 ton)

Now, let's get real in depth with the skull and jaw mechanics of Allosaurus Fragilis, shall we?

In short order, this theropod didn't have a very high bite force. Why? 

Here we see it in a muscle study with the likes of Tyrannosaurus and Ceratosaurus.

A cursory glance reveals the jaw muscles (C. Mandibularis) are relatively low in comparison with the other theropods. And indeed, where muscle would anchor in the jaw and on the lower jaw is relatively sparce for such a large theropod.

But, did Allosaurus really need a high bite force? Or a hatchet jaw function?

In The muscle powered bite of Allosaurus(2003) The idea of the hatchet jaw was discussed with great fervor, and was ultimately discredited. You can read more when i link the paper in, skip to the section "Further problems withe the hatcheting interpretation" But, a new theory took it's place; Allosaurus would bite into its hapless prey, and shake its head back and forth violently. See, it's teeth are very blade like and are covered with dozens of serrations. When An Allosaurus would shake its head, the teeth would dig deeper into the flesh, causing major damage and perhaps severing arteries. Modern day great white sharks utilize this technique as well. This has been my woring hypothesis for years now, and it's pretty cool to see it in a scientific paper, haha.

To conclude, Allosaurus didn't need a high bite force, or a hatchet jaw, because it would have utilized a killing technique that is arguably just as lethal as the bone crushing dentition of the Tyrannosaurs.

Source: http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/22490/1/102.pdf

Regarding Giganotosaurus, it was established it had a bite force of three or so tons. Carcharodontosaurus, being closely related, would have a bite that would match that or be some what more.

I'd say it's a solid 9/10! you're improving on these, it's always nice to see another writer get better and better!

Thanks Mr. Happy

Nice fight. For some reason, I was rooting for NanoT this time around. Oh well, good job, probably an 8 or 9/10. Saw the reference too. 

Thanks Carno! :) What did you think ?/10

I'm glad i could be such an inspiration to you allo! great job with this, i was rooting for Gorgosaurus :)

I think the spinosaurus was about 50 to 55 feet long and 6-8 tons or more. I think it was a opportunistic predator mostly hunting fish but if anything came close it would not pass up the task. What I don't understand is its robustness, carnosaur said their kinda robust but to me they seem kinda thin for a therapod of their size. JUST my opinion.

For me it was WWD.  I was 4 at the time.

I forget. Some book I got from the school library when I was four.