So, I was going to do a whole planned thing about Spinosaurus, but then I had to do school and I forgot about it... Then I thought about this idea which some may not agree with, but I still think it's an interesting and semi-plausible idea. Again, don't take my word for it, this is just an idea.
Archosaur Ectothermy
So, we all assume that dinosaurs were not ectothermic, which I agree with. After all archosaurs are ancestrally endothermic. Maybe some species were mesothermic, but I like to think they may have been fully endothermic, but probably not to the point that mammals or modern birds are. However, despite being ancestrally endothermic, not all archosaurs are such. Modern crocodilians are secondarily ectothermic, as well as proterosuchids (yes, not strictly archosaurs but they still have a place in this equation), and phytosaurs (also not archosaurs, but still...). This comes from a paper published this year about archosaur endothermy.
So, why would an animal evolve ectothermy if it was endothermic to begin with? You might think endothermy brings advantages, and it does; for instance, you don't have to bask in the sun to warm up, that's a huge advantage. However, there are a number of disadvantages; being endothermic, you burn more calories just maintaining your body temperature, and thus you need to eat a lot more food each day, and spend more time eating and hunting. This 2016 study I mentioned above gave reasons why such changes would've been made: environmental pressures. If you are ectothermic, you spend less calories trying to maintain your body temperature, thus you can go weeks or even months without food. This is especially advantageous if you are an aquatic predator in seasonally dry areas; you can just literally sit and wait for prey to come back without starving.
Ectothermic Dinosaurs?
Was Spinosaurus just basking all the time? Well, either way it was resting most of its life anyways. Picture by Robin Liesens
A friend of mine mentioned that apparently the known subadult remains of Spinosaurus are even older than the oldest adult Tyrannosaurus, Sue (who is 29 years old). However, I found zero references to anything about this in the literature, so that might not be worthy of anything. Still, the 2014 Nizar Ibrahim and Paul Sereno paper described the subadult Spinosaurus remains as belonging to an individual 15-19 years of age, and about 56-60% fully grown. Adult Tyrannosaurus slowed their growth at about 18 years of age, same age they reach osteological maturity. So, maybe Spinosaurus did grow like Tyrannosaurus, but let's just say it didn't (this is where you should like, stop reading if you want factual information).
Another thing to note, spinosaurus in general are found in seasonally arid areas; Santana Formation of Brazil was mostly arid and experienced droughts (Irritator); the Kem Kem Formation of Morocco experienced severe droughts as well (Spinosaurus); and so did the Wessex Formation of England (Baryonyx). Being ectothermic would be very helpful in those environments, especially during dry seasons, when their usual food, fish, would've been in short supply.
So, because other archosaurs evolved ectothermy, the possible slower growth rate in Spinosaurus, and the fact that spinosaurs lived in seasonally arid areas, does this mean spinosaurs were ectothermic? I would say it is certainly a possibility, but not conclusively proven yet. There are some problems, like that baryonychine hanging out in the Eumeralla Formation of Australia, which was in the Antarctic Circle at the time. Maybe it was more endothermic than other spinosaurs? I don't know.
I think this is something to be further explored in paleoart circles and in television depictions of these animals. That, and their webbed feet. I would like to see that. If true, this also goes to show just how crocodile like these animals were. Practically freaking giant, bipedal crocodiles.
Hey guys, you remember all that hubbub with Spinosaurus a few years back? Well, time to teach the controversy! Erm... Or not. Anyways, Spinosaurus has always fascinated me, even before the new findings were published in 2014. The fact that there were possibly semiaquatic dinosaurs is amazing! But how should we depict it? Like the four legged superaquatic form that Ibrahim and colleagues propose? Or some other way? Note: I am no expert. If I get something wrong, let me know. Also, I know I have not used my own artwork yet, but don't worry. I will very soon. It's just been difficult to find something for me to draw...
What Ibrahim and Colleagues Proposed
The bones that Ibrahim et al. studied came from a fossil dealer, and so the exact location of the fossils are unknown. This can be a bit of a problem, because if the bones didn't come from the same location, then you can be dealing with a chimaera. Anyways, the bones seemed to have come from a subadult Spinosaurus, including some spines, toe bones, claws, hips, and tail. These seemed to show that it had proportionally a very small hip, as well as very small feet for it's size. Ibrahim et al. therefore proposed that it couldn't support it's whole weight on just two legs, and must've walked on its knuckles as well (I'll get to that in a moment). They also show that the toe claws were flat and dull, unlike other theropods. This is indicative of possible webbing between the toes, like a duck. They also seemed to show that the sail had a sort of dip in the middle, not continuing to the tail, and that the sail was tightly packed in skin. An interesting finding was that the bones lacked medullary bone, and were very dense, unlike other theropods. Together with the webbed feet, small legs, and freshwater deposits they were found in, Ibrahim et al. came to the conclusion that Spinosaurus was semiaquatic, more comfortable in the water than on land, having to walk on it's four limbs to do the latter.
The Response
Obviously, this paper got many responses and criticism. Many people pointed out that the bones came from a fossil dealer, and their location of origin is unknown, and that it seemed to have drastically shortened the leg size as problems. Jaime Headden (come back!) also had a problem with the sail, saying that there is evidence that it extended onto the tail. Others even said that the supposed Spinosaurus tail is actually from an ornithischian. Headden also pointed out that it would be nearly impossible for Spinosaurus to knuckle walk, let alone walk on four limbs.
The authors did publish a response about the size of the hind limbs. It seems that they measured it differently than they way they are usually measured, and so this caused some confusion. Tiny legged Spinosaurus for the win! As for the dense bones, I think that is something you really can't argue. Dense bones, PLUS the isotopic studies on Spinosaurus teeth, seems to firmly argue that Spinosaurus was more aquatic than previously believed. And then there was that paper published last year that indicated that Sigilmassasaurus is indeed it's own genus, and so casted even further doubt that the remains actually belonged to Spinosaurus.
What Do I Think?
Given the placement of the nostrils, the dense bones, the foot claws and toes, the small size of the legs, and the isotopic ratios, I think that Spinosaurus probably was as aquatic as Ibrahim et al suggests. Do I think it was quadrupedal? I don't think so. There are other ways for it to still support it's weight on two legs. Andrea Cau suggested that it had neck muscles pulling it's head back, forcing it to stand up. I personally believe that either some areas of the body were less dense to balance it out, or that it had a particularly long, or heavy, tail. I think it walked like a pangolin or a penguin when on land. It should be noted that theropod legs tend to get smaller as they reach adulthood, and unless Spinosaurus didn't do this, the adults may have had slightly smaller legs. I know some people probably think it couldn't walk and belly crawled. I think it could belly crawl, but it could also definitely walk on it's hindlimbs. I also agree that the spines were tightly packed in skin and not used to warm the animal up, but instead for display. I find it very hard to believe that the tall spines could support a hump like structure, and it seems a bit much. You can store fat in many other areas, such as the torso or tail. I also have doubts about the sail shape. Paul Sereno (one of the authors in the Ibrahim et al. paper) suggested that sail shape may have varied between individuals. I find that to be a cool idea. I have looked at the spines, and some of do extend onto the tail. I think I'll go with the idea that the sail shape may have varied between individuals, and that maybe it changes as it grows. So in short, while I think Ibrahim et al. made a lot of headway and gave loads of new and compelling ideas about Spinosaurus, they do not have the whole picture. Obviously, we will need to wait and see what else North Africa churns out in the coming years, and hopefully we'll get a more detailed look at this incredible animal.
Next up, more Spinosaurus! This is gonna be the first part in a series of posts about spinosaurs. And the next installment features babies...
Okay, a little warning, lots of insulting coming... Anyways, in case people don't know, 50 people were killed at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, by a muslim extremist... AND PEOPLE SAY THAT ISLAM DOESN'T TEACH VIOLENCE!!!!! THE GUY JUST KILLED 50 GAY PEOPLE IN A CLUB!!!! Well, if you think that killing gay people is bad, just wait until you hear what a land shark with a beard, Pastor Steve Anderson, said. "The good news is that at least 50 of these pedophiles are not going to be harming children anymore. The bad news is that a lot of the homos in the bar are still alive, so they’re going to continue to molest children and recruit people into their filthy homosexual lifestyle.” FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU!!!!! At least he said that he didn't approve of the shooters actions, but only because "These people all should have been killed anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in, they should’ve been executed by a righteous government."
You say Christianity is a religion of peace?! YOU'RE CONDEMNING PEOPLE USING HATRED YOU FUCKING BABOON!!! YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN EXIST!!!! WE ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!!! THE DEFINITION OF BEING GAY IS BEING ATTRACTED TO THE SAME SEX!!!! PEDOPHILES ARE DIFFERENT!!!! CAN YOU JUST VIEW US AS ACTUAL PEOPLE, AND NOT TRY AND PLEASE YOUR FUCKING HOMOPHOBIC RACIST GOD!?!!?? If a god is telling you that killing gay people is okay, there is something wrong with that god! Killing people is not okay!!! I don't care what you believe, KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS MURDER!!!!! So go die in a fucking hole you sadistic asshole! Fucking stop talking and go duct tape your mouth shut!
Yes, I might be inciting violence by telling him to go die, but please, no one actually go to prison for killing him. He just needs to stop blabbering his stupid pitbull of a mouth! Sorry if this offends anyone, but the take home of this short post, is to STOP BEING HOMOPHOBIC!!!!!!
Most of what the public knows about dinosaurs is their portrayal in media; documentaries, film, news items, ect. We see them all over the place, and they are so engrained in our culture. Walking with Dinosaurs is, and always will be my most treasured depiction of dinosaurs. Even though it is going on to be 17 years old (holy shit, it's as old as me!) and is highly inaccurate, it made history; portraying these animals as if we were back in time with them. Subsequently, many other documentaries have been produced, but none have got the feel that Walking with Dinosaurs had for me. It was my introduction to the world of paleontology. However, there are things that it and many other media depictions of dinosaurs did, that aren't fitting with what we know. Okay, I'm going to go on a small series of diatribes now, pointing out the flaws in each thingy portrayed.
So What if it's Not Scientifically Accurate, Why Do You Care?
Emily's fucking beautiful Velociraptor's can beat your scaly assed shit face fucking Craptor any day.
This is the response I get all the time. People have to remember that the general public isn't really that good at critically analyzing things they see in media. They just assume that it's real, or don't care. This is especially bad when there are documentaries that claim to be on the cutting edge of science, but are about as far away as can be. First off, people do need to be more critical of what they see everyday, but unfortunately we can't do a damned thing about it. Second off, too many people think that Jurassic World "raptors" are accurate, that T. rex can't see you if you're standing still, or that Spinosaurus was the most baddest assed killer that ever killed (that last one makes me cringe to now end). Also, when you're showing something inaccurately, it reinforces older ideas. Dinosaurs have been portrayed the same for almost ever. Not yet have I seen a non-shrink wrapped correctly feathered paravian on television or in a movie. Very few people know about the amazing research that has been going on. And yes, our fluffy, clawed wings, toothed Velociraptor's are better than your hidiotic Komodoraptor monsters. Say birds aren't scary, go pet a cassowary or an ostrich, and come back to me when you have you're guts laying out on the ground in front of you... (Note; this is not meant to be a formal post. This is where I express my thoughts and feelings, and my emotions)
Look, a T.rex! RAAAWR!!!
This is probably what pisses me off the most about these documentaries... Their portrayal of dinosaur behaviour. You see dinosaurs making constant noises, for no fucking reason other than to make noise! Go out and watch a pride of lions or crocodiles hunting prey, and see how much noise they make... That's right, none! Animals make sounds for a reason; to communicate things to each other! To display their moods, alert others of threats, attract others, ect. So please, don't show a fucking T.rex hiding in the bushes, growling, then rushing out and roaring at the top of it's lungs! No predator does that! Except maybe for drunk redneck deer hunters. Okay, so stop it! No more plez!
There is another element to this; what sounds they make. You always hear large theropods roaring like bears, ceratopsians roaring like elephants, and ornithodesmids growling like jaguars (no joke, I've heard that before). When you are making a documentary, you don't just slap some sounds together and then put them in, you do research. What are the closest relatives of dinosaurs? Well, I suggest you start out with birds, since they are dinosaurs (yes, Feddouchia, they are), and then look at crocodilians since they are related to them. Birds make a huge range of sounds. Yes, many of them are far smaller than the average small non-avian dinosaur, but then look at the larger birds; cassowary's and emus grunt and click, while ostriches make these really cool low pitched honks. Also, many birds and crocodilians make these sounds without opening their mouths. No open mouth roaring anymore! Now, while many people think crocodilians don't communicate that often, you'll be wrong. Females will make noises to signal when they are laying eggs, and baby crocodilians communicate with their parents with the most adorable cute noises I have ever heard in my entire life! Seriously, it's fucking adorable! So cute! Would hear again!
Anyways, adults also make very impressive, and scary noises. In territorial disputes, crocodilians will sometimes make very loud low-pitched bellows, so loud in fact, they will vibrate the surface of the water and sometimes even the ground. Imagine you are in the Cretaceous, and you come across a Tyrannosaurus pair in a territorial dispute. You would likely not see them fight to the death; you would hear a noise like that, only five times louder. Some of these sounds can even mess with your heart rhythm... That's scary shit! Also, another noise crocodiles make as a threat is hissing. This is very scary too. Here's a quick video of Saurian's Tyrannosaurus making sounds, and tell me this isn't scary as all shit:
Fucking nailed it! That is what I want to hear a large theropod doing! Also keep in mind, animals don't always communicate with sound. Many use body language to communicate their moods. For instance, when the sunbittern is threatened, it expands it's wings out to make itself look larger than it actually is. Owls also do this.
Here that beak clapping? I would run like hell from that exact owl! They have sharp claws, they can do shit! Also, there is a possibility that diplodocid sauropods could use their whip like tails to make incredibly loud sonic booms, loud enough to kill a human and severely damage the hearing of any nearby theropod. So, that's a lot of food for thought if you want to portray the behaviour of extinct dinosaurs.
Oh, and I can't forget about the pterosaurs! You always hear pterosaurs making bird like sounds, which again, annoys me to no end! Just because it looks like a bird, doesn't mean it made the same sounds!!!! Again, look at crocodilians for what you want your pterosaurs to sound like... Imagine a squad of azhdarchids hunting baby dinosaurs and growling and hissing when angry.... So fucking scary!!!!
They are Learning!
Hunting is a major component of a predator's life, and commonly depicted in Mesozoic themed documentaries. I think the portrayal of solitary hunting dinosaurs is okay for the most part. However, before I go on to the main point, I must talk about something that I've recently been nagged by; the size of the prey the predators are hunting. You commonly see like giant theropods going after giant prey, like thyreophorans and sauropods, or large ornithopods. You also see things like Velociraptor going after Protoceratops, which is heavier and larger than it. People have to keep in mind, predators usually go for things much smaller than themselves. Why exert all your energy into going after a large prey item when you can eat lots of small animals with minimal effort. We do have evidence for instance that Tyrannosaurus did go after large prey on occasion such as Triceratops or Anatosaurus. However, looking at modern predators, they likely mostly fed on smaller prey, because it is easier to do so. So, if you're going to show dinosaurs hunting, don't have all of them going after large prey, try smaller ones.
Now, the main point in this part of the post is about pack hunting behaviour in theropods. We commonly see things like ornithodesmids hunting in wolf like packs, taking on large ornithopods (poor Tenontosaurus, doing nothing but being killed by things it can easily kill), and sometimes packs of tyrannosaurs going after hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. While there is evidence that pack hunting behaviour was prevalent in some tyrannosaur and ornithodesmid species, the way they are shown in documentaries is not at all what it should be. Wolves are not the best analogues for pack behaviour in dinosaurs; instead, turn your attention to birds and crocodilians, always the best references for dinosaur behaviour. Harris hawks, and several other modern raptors do occasionally hunt in groups, and crocodilians will sometimes attack shoals of fish together. However, the way they do so is not so much like wolves. While some crocodiles will hunt somewhat cooperatively (Cuban crocs are a great example) most crocs and birds more or less mob, than coordinate attacks. In addition, they mostly aren't family groups with multiple generations like wolves, they are mostly monogamous mating pairs or a bunch of loose individuals that happen to be there.
Many modern archosaurs are gregarious to some degree, but not in the way mammals are; they tend to be pretty loose in their structure and have no clearly defined "leader". So, next time you are showing a group of ornithodesmids hunting, keep in mind, they don't do this on a regular basis, and when they do, it is not very well coordinated. Oh, and another thing, don't show predators constantly on the hunt. That is very annoying. While hunting is an important part of life, predators spend more time resting than feeding.
It Has Feathers, it's Accurate!
This has recently been making the rounds in the paleontography and paleoart community; shrink wrapping. That is the term used to described Greg Paulian dinosaurs. What is shrink wrapping? Well, it is basically drawing the outline of the skeleton, but... Being able to see all the underlining features of the skeleton. In my opinion, this is also very annoying. Animals have tons of fat, other soft tissues, fluff, ect. that changes the shape of the animal. Here's an example:
See the difference? Yeah, the neck looks skinny, but iss not! You can't even make out the arm in the living chicken. While all dinosaurs can be subjected to this, the worst is in paravians. It's good that people are drawing feathered dinosaurs, I mean at least they are trying... But please, don't do this:
That is horrifying to look at. Oh, also, no pronated hands!!!! Theropods cannot rotate their wrists like that! They would break if they did that! It also looks stupid! No pronated wrists!!! Okay, I'm done... Anyways, I see a lot of paleoartists restoring paravians like this:
That's more like. Primaries are in the right place, feathers are in the right place, much more realistic. But there is still a problem with this... It's shrink wrapped! You can clearly see the pubis, and that just looks so wrong! Again, good job trying, but you are not there yet! For the final picture, I am going to show you what a real Deinonychus should look like, courtesy of Emily Willoughby, one of the best ornithodesmid artists out there:
That's it! Nice feathering all around, no shrink wrapping, very much like a bird! This is what I wanna see! Also, another thing to not do; please don't add lizard like scales on the snout, it makes it look alien and not enough like the bird relatives they are.
While paravians get the shorthand of the stick a lot, all dinosaurs have been subjected to the shrink wrapping virus. Many dinosaurs pubic bones are seen in the models made for documentaries. Don't do that... Also, try to make the fenestra almost impossible to spot. It's not tightly wrapped in skin! But don't bulk things up too much. In archosaurs, the lower extremities tend to be very similar to the skeletal outline; don't make human legged tyrannosaurs, make bird legged tyrannosaurs. I could go on an on about this, but this is just the beginning, and I think it's a good start.
Why You Have So Few Bebes?
The final part of this immense post is about dinosaur reproduction. The way we see dinosaurs taking care of their young in documentaries is sometimes based of mammals. Again, you don't want to look first at mammals, looks at archosaurs. What do they do? Well, it should be noted that first off, dinosaurs lay a lot of eggs. A LOOOOT. Birds today usually lay a few eggs, but from what the fossil record shows us, extinct dinosaurs had a different reproductive strategy. They laid up to 20-40 eggs a clutch, and their young are born almost fully developed. This varies obviously, as hadrosaur babies are born altricial, barely able to move, and so need to be well fed by their parents for the next few weeks in order to grow. About the number of eggs, it has been suggested that eggs may have been a huge resource in Mesozoic ecosystems, so that's something to think about showing.
Anyways, how should you show dinosaur parental care? Well, for the most part, they likely looked after their young like crocodilians do; protecting them from predators, but having them find food on their own. That's pretty much all to say about this subject!
It's the End?
So, in the end, you should do a lot of research beforehand. In fact, have your main research guy be someone who is very well versed in animal behaviour and paleontology. Try to portray these animals as what they are: animals, not movie monsters. No roaring, no shrink wrapping, you get the gist... Anyways, until next time!
I am more interested in how dinosaurs lived than how they died, because we have a pretty good idea what caused the extinction. However, how dinosaurs survived after the Chixulub impact is fascinating, because that was what ultimately spelt their doom. The extinction lasted anywhere within 10,000 years. So, what exactly did the dinosaurs (and other Mesozoic animals) have to deal with after the asteroid hit?
The Background
While some people still debate about what caused the extinction (I'm looking at you Bakker), I think it's pretty clear what happened. A gigantic 10 kilometer asteroid struck the Yucatan Peninsula and sent out a massive shockwave, as well as debris, across the land. It should be noted that most of the planet would've been relatively safe at first. For example, the Hell Creek Formation was far enough north to not be affected by the blast front or shockwave. The only places that would've been in major trouble when the asteroid first impacted would've been areas like Mexico, a few southern states, and the northernmost reaches of South America. There is evidence in Mexico and Brazil of giant tsunamis, probably caused by the impact itself.
But then would come the beginning of the end. The debris from the asteroid impact would come raining down over various parts of the planet. This would've caused global wildfires. In fact, some of the soot in the boundary seems to indicate that the entire terrestrial biosphere burned down! So, already, most of the plant life would have been wiped out, and many animals would perish either by the falling debris, or fires. All of the soot, and debris would've formed a massive cloud, covering the planet, and blocking the sun. The impact night would've lasted almost a year, and during that time, plants continue to die, and herbivores begin to die due to a lack of food. It is also thought that a global impact winter would've been the end result, creating a very tough world to live in.
Survival After Impact
Obviously, dinosaurs were still present after the impact. It is pretty unlikely that they all died during the initial effects of the blast. So, how is post impact K-Pg Earth? Well, from all of the fires, there would be lots of carbon dioxide in the environment. In addition, plant life is rare, the entire landscape is destroyed, and temperatures dropped to a level that most dinosaurs have never experienced before. Those living at the poles probably would've handled things a bit better. Also, there is not a lot of clean water left, most of it either gone, or choked with ash and other debris. How does anything survive this?
Herbivores would be impacted the most. The lack of plants would spell doom for them. However, a few of them may have had some adaptations that would prove useful in times like these; for instance we have coprolites from them showing they ate wood. This backfires automatically however, because pretty much the only wood around would've been charred and burnt. I wonder how that would've tasted... Okay, so never mind, that actually doesn't help... Anyways, herbivores can be carnivorous on occasion, so maybe they survived by eating other animals out of utter desperation. Ankylosaurs were recently found to have these long, powerful tongues, which could be perfect for slurping up things like eggs, baby dinosaurs, and maybe even capture ants or termites. However, adaptations like these would not have lasted that long. One way or another, the end result, is death.
Carnivores would also have a tough time. With fewer and fewer herbivores, they would not have a lot of food available. The larger predators, such as Tyrannosaurus, would die first, due to needing more food to survive. Carnivores could also scavenge carcasses, but at their own risk; rotting carcasses can sometimes have deadly bacteria hiding in them. Cannibalism would be the last resort for many species. In addition, due to shrinking resources and the harsh environment, animals in general would've been much more aggressive and confrontational, possibly attacking anything in sight if hungry enough.
Troodon (actually would be Pectinodon) surviving in the post impact world in Dinosaur Revolution
The only animals really to have a chance in the hellhole would be omnivores. However, most of the omnivorous dinosaurs in the Maastrichtian were either predominately herbivorous or carnivorous. Things like troodontids could feed on a variety of food items, including; small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, as well as leaves, fruits, and seeds. Other ways that dinosaurs could survive the post impact world could be burrowing, like small ornithopods, such as Thescelosaurus, are thought to have done.
Now, what about reproduction? Dinosaurs seemed to be k-strategists, that is, laying a crap ton of eggs. Sauropods lay anywhere between 10-40 eggs a clutch. So, that would mean dinosaurs would have a huge advantage in the after impact world, right? Well, it depends. It seems that dinosaurs had parental care similar to crocodilians or ratites; protecting the young from predators, but leaving the young on their own to find their own food. And in a world of limited resources, many young would die... I find it a bit odd that birds, who lay fewer eggs and provide extensive parental care, survived the extinction, whilst their non-avian cousins did not. My guess is that birds were just lucky, although I can see some advantages in their reproductive lifestyle.
Palaeocene Dinosaurs: Yee or Nee?
It is nearly universally accepted that all non-avian dinosaurs were extinct when the Cenozoic began. However, there are a few holdouts who point to fossils, suggesting that dinosaurs lived on into the early days of the Paleocene. One such fossil is that of a hadrosaur femur found in New Mexico, dated to around 64.8-64.5 million years. However, many paleontologists don't accept this, suggesting it was simply reworked into younger deposits. A single bone doesn't necessarily prove anything. If anything, that is evidence of fossils being reworked. You wouldn't expect many bones to be found if it was reworked. If someone finds an articulated specimen of a Tyrannosaurus in Paleocene deposits, tell me please, I would be most intrigued.
However, there is another way to tell people there were Cenozoic dinosaurs; when exactly did the Mesozoic end? When the asteroid hit? After that? I think that when the asteroid hit, the Mesozoic ended, and so when the world was in the midst of the impact winter, the Cenozoic was just beginning. Using that logic, there were Paleocene dinosaurs.
So, for my first post, I am going to talk a bit about one of the most famous dinosaurs out there; Triceratops. Over the hundred or so years it has been around, many interpretations have been made of it's life appearance. However, in the last few years, some incredible fossils have shown that they were far different than what I imagined them to be. Notably, they are like a semi-ankylosaur version of ceratopsians. This post, I am going to examine the armoured sides (er... Body and face) of Triceratops, and what implications this might have in its lifestyle.
Scales, Scales, Scales
Triceratops skin impression.
Not much is known about the outer integument of ceratopsians, with a few fossils of skin impressions from Centrosaurus, and that of a Triceratops specimen, which is the best preserved skin impression we have of these animals. What is apparent is that there are these small, nipple like raised structures. What the purpise is for that is unknown, possibly housing some quill like filaments, although now that theory is not entirely accepted, due to filamentous integument tending to grow on skin, not around it. Another interesting aspect of the skin impression are the large scales. These scales are very large, possibly even a little bit thick. So what we appear to have here is armoured skin. Now you might be asking "gee, I wonder what implications this has", but need worry not, I have a very, very simple and predictable explanation for this.
Puts a New Meaning to Horny Face
This is gonna be very speculative. I have almost zero references, except for what Denver Fowler said on the 24-hour Saurian livestream (plez support it!). The sculptor Jake Baarde was doing a subadult Triceratops, when Denver came into the chat and told Jake to change the face of the Triceratops into a keratin covering... Okay, let me back up. According to Denver, there are grooves indicating the presence of blood vessels along the face, except for the antorbital fenestra, and some parts of the lower jaw. These grooves are seen on the horns as well, on the frill, and even down on the jugals. What does this mean? Well, Denver said that this might indicate that the face was covered in a rough shield, the horn blending into the face. What exactly made up the shield is up for debate. Denver said either cornified skin or keratin, but RJ (the Saurian concept artist) expressed skepticism for keratin.
What Does This Mean?
The implications of armoured skin and an armoured face for Triceratops could mean that it was more protected against predators. I've always thought that due to the the lack of fenestra in the frill, that the frill was more adapted for protecting the neck against the resident predator, Tyrannosaurus. However, I know am thinking that the armoured face had multiple uses. The cornified skin or keratin covered face could prove useful in protecting the animal when locking horns in fights over territory or mates. This could also just in general protect it from predators. The armoured skin would also protect it from predators as well. My guess is that Triceratops evolved such an armoured body to protect it from the bone crushing jaws of Tyrannosaurus. Not that it was entirely affective... Many fossils of Triceratops have bite marks from Tyrannosaurus, both from feeding and live action biting. In the end, Triceratops was the other tank of western North America, though not entirely like Ankylosaurus. I wonder what would've happened if Chixulub didn't happen... Would it have turned into an ankylosaur-ceratopsian hybrid thingy majiger? I don't know... I think I'm about to go off topic, so I'll just end there.
So, remember that blog no one saw called The Pendantic Paleogeek? Well, it's now defunct, but no worries childrenites! I'm back, with a new blog, because I wanted to start in a clean slate. Anyways, time for an introduction (woo! A lot has changed since I last did a blog) My name is Kiera, I'm a non-binary pansexual atheist who loves animals, fantasy, and making terrible, terrible jokes... Expect a lot of that last one especially.
