Zegh's Dinosaur Thread

Short answer: So far, none of them have been able to portray dinosaurs realistically, with several bases to cover; anatomical big strokes, anatomical minor details, realistic behavior - the closest ever is probably Jurassic Park, since it made a decent effort PLUS being modern enough to be based on a lot of good science, science they flung out the window for the sequels.

Either way, anticlimactic it might be to have the claw-teeth-rawr image always prodded at by boring scientists, truth still remains - movie dinosaurs *are* fantasy creatures, much more based on dragons, ogres, vampires, what have you - fantasy monsters, than real animals. Reason for this is that you can't make a cool movie with real animals; show me a SINGLE movie about giraffes breaking out of their enclosures, eating people up.
Lions, tigers, bears tend to show up more in movies, as scary antagonists, and in these cases, at the very least they're often "actor"-animals, trained to perform, and as such - they LOOK real, cus they are, while they still behave completely unrealistically

Like the guy says ^, a real Velociraptor would probably just run away, if you kicked after it, teeth and claws and all, they're just little animals, not prepared for action packed aggression, for no reason.
Tigers attack people, Indian villagers and such, so, sure, a similarily sized dinosaur might also attack someone, so... that'd be a potential realistic franchise: "Dangerous fields!" with poor peasants having to flee, until they are able to aquire firearms, shoot the dinosaurs, and then push them to extinction through hunting and habitat loss.

(Okay, that answer wasn't short at all.)
 
zegh8578 said:
poor peasants
Click to expand...

I took this pic of a Marijuanadon which is on topic and allows you to post :) If you make the last post it is like a period ( not ladies monthly, a full stop ) and you may wish to add to this very worthy topic as it makes refuting overly zealous creationists who insist Dinosaur bones were planted by the divil to mislead the masses ;p
iajungle.png
 
Marijuanadon is a good name. Now to come up with a specific epithet, and we better not mess that one up, or the ICZN will shut it down!

(They are the faceless, the arbiters of animal name grammar.)
 
zegh8578 said:
Marijuanadon is a good name. Now to come up with a specific epithet, and we better not mess that one up, or the ICZN will shut it down!

(They are the faceless, the arbiters of animal name grammar.)
Click to expand...
I looked up ICZN (briefly) so they are now my 2nd most detested acronym after S.A.G.E . (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) UK. Gov .

Would Herbivore stoner be an ok epithet for this reptile ? Or does it have to be in Latin. I am unsure Zegh and have become a bit nervous as I do not wish to 4cup your thread
or be hounded by those weirded out power mad types.
 
william dempsey said:
I looked up ICZN (briefly) so they are now my 2nd most detested acronym after S.A.G.E . (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) UK. Gov .

Would Herbivore stoner be an ok epithet for this reptile ? Or does it have to be in Latin. I am unsure Zegh and have become a bit nervous as I do not wish to 4cup your thread
or be hounded by those weirded out power mad types.
Click to expand...

There's no limitation to language in scientific naming, although latin and greek tend to be favored among westerners, because we are a bit predictable that way. In non-European science, there's a growing tendency to use local languages, a lot of Chinese dinosaurs, for example, end with "-long" (dragon) instead of the traditional greek "-saurus" (lizard), Dilong, Zhenyuanlong, Yulong.
Khaan and Kol are dinosaurs named using Mongol language, and increasingly African discoveries are given African names like the sauropods Kholumolumo and Ledumahadi.

I think bottom line is that it has to make grammatical sense.
 
zegh8578 said:
I think bottom line is that it has to make grammatical sense.
Click to expand...
I can barely write in English and I thought syntax was a levy on prostitutes. Your knowledge is good. The only bit I knew was that saurus= lizard. I know according to Darwin
birds are evolved from dinosaurs kindov.
I had bird books as a kid (not girlie mags) and noticed crows were all corvidae corvus. The most common carrion and hooded are Corvus cor (whatever) so I thought that was clever
as arguably they shout cor cor although some people say it is caw caw .

I don't know mate what would you add to the Marijuanadon to keep those grammar nazis off our backs ?
 
william dempsey said:
I can barely write in English and I thought syntax was a levy on prostitutes. Your knowledge is good. The only bit I knew was that saurus= lizard. I know according to Darwin
birds are evolved from dinosaurs kindov.
I had bird books as a kid (not girlie mags) and noticed crows were all corvidae corvus. The most common carrion and hooded are Corvus cor (whatever) so I thought that was clever
as arguably they shout cor cor although some people say it is caw caw .
Click to expand...

To be specific, Darwin merely figured out about evolutionary specialization, the dino-bird link was elaborated on much later, and ramped up in the 1960s. There was a lot of early fascination with Archaeopteryx, and its undeniable birdlikeness, but it took untill the 60s to realize Archaeopteryx was a Theropod dinosaurs, and not some random missing-link bird-lizard.

To also be specific, birds *are* dinosaurs, in the way that we are mammals. They fall entirely within the grouping of Dinosaur, and that of Theropod - and so they can never stop being such. Taxonomy is awesome!

Corvus corone and Corvus cornix cover European "normal crows", and they do indeed belong to the family Corvidae, which also include magpies.
Quick lesson: Genus and species are put together like that: Homo sapiens, Tyrannosaurus rex, Corvus cornix - typically always in italics, and *always* with the species name in lower case, even when acronymed: H. sapiens, T. rex, C. corone.

Family names are traditionally given the -idae suffix, but as we gradually move away from old Linnean style classification, to a more fluid and chaotic taxonomy, it no longer makes sense to follow these strict categorizations "Class" "Order" "Family" - because the nodes and branches are by now way, way too many, you'll have to talk about "sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub sub family :0", so instead they just name the nodes whatever, and move on, the node be family or tribe or class it no longer matters - it's a node, and it has a name! Makes things easyer (and more chaotic at the same time, I love it!)
 
Last edited:
zegh8578 said:
(and more chaotic at the same time, I love it!)
Click to expand...

Good. That is why I put the pic of the Marijuanadon up so it gave you an opportunity to talk about something you really enjoy. I am a kind commie . Here's a very uninteresting fact. As a kid into Ornithology and egging ( the theft of birds eggs which I stopped doing ) Magpies were far less common where I lived, Jays were seen more. Now magpies have thrived and are everywhere. I once asked a nun our teacher how come dinosaurs lived millions of years ago but some people say the erf and all god's creatures were created only thousands of years ago.

She smiled at first then seemed angry and said to me " That's a complete load of bollocks, where do you think we are young Dempsey, America ! " Then the bitch slapped me adding " God made dinosaurs as a prototype to test the scale of things but because he was a bit tired slept for quite some time... when he woke the little buggers were everywhere "

So that taught me a lesson. I just think the Iguanadon and marijuanadon must be related. maybe 2nd cousins. I know that ICZN changed the Iguanadon's name as I looked at wikipedia .
So I hope you can come up with the epithet for marijuanadon.
 
Dinos are good choice for Primal Zerg design. I am too tired of mish mash of claws and legs.

I wish the actual dinos were the same rapid evolutionary monsters.
 
Crni Vuk said:
s this accurate?
Click to expand...

I see the more serious threads like ' Philosophy ' have died a death. I know you share zegh8758's love of Paleontology .

Cuckoos kill their fellow nestlings. It is known that trendy mothers often eat the placenta less well known are the mothers that then eat the kid. (In a philosophical way I mean )
 
All I can say about that comic is that I have *no* idea whats going on with the fenestrae in their skulls, seems as if the orbital and antorbital have become fused into a huge skull-face cavity :S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top