Show us your Sphenacodontidae collection.

[Bobby Rico]

11 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Oh yeah, definitely. That's why I parenthesized "(in this case WAY more than that)"

Sorry I thought we was talking about Sphenacodontidae . We been a scientific forum I thought a more accurate date was needed. It is good to keep our facts straight.    All the best Bobby 

[Still_human]

2 hours ago, Bone guy said:

That must of hurt! Usually if you see bony mass surrounding a puncture its a sign of healing, which is also a sign the animal survived the attack. I don't see any of that here so that means this injury was likely post-death or the cause of death. Dimetrodons were some amazing creatures!

Yeah, that's some bite right there! I don't know what bone this is, but I would think it would be hard to survive a bite as hard as that in most places. It would have to be one lucky Edaphosaurus to get out of that scuffle alive. I wish I knew what 'Metro species and which tooth so it was possible to figure out a size range. It must have been a really big animal though. To be that wide while so close to the tip, it must have been a sizable tooth. Also, id imagine that since no other teeth marks are present means that there's a significant difference between how far down they reach; bigger the animal, the bigger the size differences. Maybe it was from the giant canine tooth/fang that hangs way down.

 

Youre right about THAT! 'Metros are impressive, amazing, and terrifying beasts! I think it's SO awesome that we're related to them, however distantly, and indirectly! I also really like Gorgonops, but they don't even compare to 'Metros, in my opinion.

[Still_human]

Speaking of teeth, I knew ABOUT these teeth, but I didn't know where they were located in the mouth until now. What an unusual angle. Very deadly, but surprising to me. I guess I assumed they were placed just as mosasaur and snake pterygoid teeth were. There in the same place, but that's so cool that they're more across the jaw, instead of being along them. Pterygoid teeth are such a frightening thing! As if dimetrodon needed to be even more dangerous. I very much doubt there were too many things getting out of the first set. 

[Still_human]

1 hour ago, Bobby Rico said:

Sorry I thought we was talking about Sphenacodontidae . We been a scientific forum I thought a more accurate date was needed. It is good to keep our facts straight.    All the best Bobby 

Dimetrodon actually is from the sphenacodontidae family. you're absolutely right, It was very helpful of you to include the time period, im glad you did. I was basically mentioning everything from 65mya and before, so didn't include the specific date within that range, but you're right, I should have. Thank you for the help with that.

 

[caldigger]

35 minutes ago, Still_human said:

2 hours ago, WhodamanHD said:

 

Looks like that person's got a little extra something something by his thumb.

Thats the implanted alien tracking device.

[Miocene_Mason]

1 minute ago, caldigger said:

Thats the implanted alien tracking device.

And @Still_human

first picture of a hand on the internet, probably bone piece that broke off, or an alien egg sac. 

[Bobby Rico]

5 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Dimetrodon actually is from the sphenacodontidae family. you're absolutely right, It was very helpful of you to include the time period, in glad you did. I was basically mentioning everything FROM 65mya, so didn't include the specific date within that range, but you're right, I should have. Thank you for the help with that.

 

My pleasure I am really enjoying your contribution to my thread. Thank you.

[Still_human]

10 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

My pleasure I am really enjoying your contribution to my thread. Thank you.

Thank you very much, I appreciate knowing my stuff is being appreciated, and that you were nice enough to let me know:) I'll do my best to keep it up

 

i actually have a dimetrodon thread too, about how it seems the only fossils ever for sale now are TEENY tiny teeth and claws. Yours is more active and has more interest, so I like yours better.

[Still_human]

has anyone seen or heard about the new(er) theory, that i hate, that dimetrodon's sail was actually only covered to about 1/2-2/3way up, and wasn't a skin covered sail as we're all familiar with, but was a fat-filled lump like a camel? There's a similar theory that spinosaurus' spine was actually a fat-filled lump too, but that would be for a different thread. 

[Kane]

5 minutes ago, Still_human said:

has anyone seen or heard about the new(er) theory that i hate that dimetrodon's sail was actually only covered to about 1/2-2/3way up, and wasn't a skin covered sail as we're all familiar with, but was a fat-filled lump like a camel? There's a similar theory that spinosaurus' spine was actually a fat-filled lump too, but that would be for a different thread. 

Yes, the "buffalo back" hypothesis:

 

Bailey, J.B. (1997). "Neural spine elongation in dinosaurs: sailbacks or buffalo-backs?". Journal of Paleontology 71 (6): 1124–1146.

 

This was initially proposed by Ernst Stromer in 1915 for Spinosaurus. He called the hump Fettbuckel.

[Still_human]

Wow, I didn't know they were that old! I guess they weren't taken very seriously for a long time, or something? 

[Bobby Rico]

1 hour ago, Kane said:

Yes, the "buffalo back" hypothesis:

 

Bailey, J.B. (1997). "Neural spine elongation in dinosaurs: sailbacks or buffalo-backs?". Journal of Paleontology 71 (6): 1124–1146.

 

This was initially proposed by Ernst Stromer in 1915 for Spinosaurus. He called the hump Fettbuckel.

Why do scientists try and ruin a prefect creature like dimetrodon, have they got nothing better to do then to hypothesise about Quasimodon.

[Still_human]

6 hours ago, Bobby Rico said:

Why do scientists try and ruin a prefect creature like dimetrodon, have they got nothing better to do then to hypothesise Quasimodon.

Hahahahaha quasimodon! Love it! Yeah, I'm with you on that! I really hate most of the new things that they discover about how extinct animals looked. Especially these sail changes, but even more, the whole feather fiasco! I'm so glad they've regressed trex back to featherless again. At least that's what the most recent findings indicate, although just like how people clung and fought for their non-feathered dinos, even despite evidence, now people cling and fight for their feathered versions. I still don't like my raptor dinos being feathered, but there's no denying that. I hate the buffalo backed spines guys, but thankfully, and correct me if I'm wrong anyone, that one is just a "mild" theory that really doesn't hold TOO much weight(Ive still got to go read that stuff Kane cited). It takes away the most unique aspect and makes them clumsy dumpy looking....buffalo backs! I also really don't like the way they've changed my aquatic reptiles with the small fin on their tails. I think it looks terrible! There's no fighting that one though, cause they have mosasaur impressions. Im not sure if they have fin impressions on plesiosaurs and pliosaurs, but they've added the fins to them, too.

 

*to clarify about the trex feather deal, from newer skin impressions on multiple animals from different areas, they now believe they weren't feathered on most of their bodies. They could still possibly have had small amounts of non-downy feathers, like stiffer proto-feathers, in some areas. Also, this is just tyrannosaurus rex, NOT tyrannosaurs in general. 

 

**this is all stuff that I have read, from what I believe to be reliable sources, so I'm fairly certain these at least WERE the case very recently, but in case there have been any more recent changes, or I'm just plain wrong, please correct me.

[Fossildude19]

A lot of what Dinosaurs supposedly looked like is conjecture. Yes they are finding more skin and feather fossils, but many are speculating on what things looked like. 

I would ask  @dinodigger what he thinks of the "Buffalo Back" theories for Dimetrodon.

[Still_human]

5 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

A lot of what Dinosaurs supposedly looked like is conjecture. Yes they are finding more skin and feather fossils, but many are speculating on what things looked like. 

I would ask  @dinodigger what he thinks of the "Buffalo Back" theories for Dimetrodon.

Will do, thanks:) very true, but thankfully there's enough to be sure about quite a bit of it. They even know the color of some, now! So cool! I never in a million years thought we'd know dino COLORS! At least until reverse time travel is invented, that is.

What i wouldn't give to be able to actually see these animals! 

[Troodon]

The Smithsonian blog on Buffalo Back theories which were first directed at dinosaurs. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/was-spinosaurus-a-bison-backed-dinosaur-12849430/

 

@Still_human

[Bobby Rico]

17 minutes ago, Troodon said:

The Smithsonian blog on Buffalo Back theories which were first directed at dinosaurs. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/was-spinosaurus-a-bison-backed-dinosaur-12849430/

 

 

Looks like a crocodile in a funhouse mirror, very freaky .

[Bobby Rico]

Hay Frank @Troodon just for fun and as we are talking about Dimetrodon’s sail. Any chance you could post that fantastic picture of Dimetrodon and the punk. Thank you

[Troodon]

I dont keep those pictures but went through fossil friday and got theses out

[Bobby Rico]

Thank you Frank very much appreciated .   

[Innocentx]

Saw this: 

 

[Still_human]

I like the colors! 

[Still_human]

These are pictures from a video on the popular Tube site that I'm sure You all watch, about dimetrodons, largely about this whole spine issue, from a guy who i think has a lot of cool paleo-profile videos. 

 

Clearly these aren't supposed to be scientifically accurate pictures just artists conceptions he uses a lot in his videos, but the give good impressions of the idea, I think.

 

i would leave the link, but I want to make 100% sure it's allowed for videos, too.

[Still_human]

3 hours ago, Troodon said:

The Smithsonian blog on Buffalo Back theories which were first directed at dinosaurs. 

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/was-spinosaurus-a-bison-backed-dinosaur-12849430/

 

@Still_human

I very much like this article. It doesn't specifically cover the dimetrodon back issue per se, but they do refer to it as if it is definitely sail-backed, actually using it as the reference for being sail-backed, instead of hump-backed. I like that it agrees with me, and even better, that it doesn't just phone it in. It's not someone just trying to push the theory they prefer.

[caldigger]

The obvious huge change to the scientific realm aside, whats this going to do to the toy dinosaur industry?!!!!