 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: One of the tiniest non-avian dinosaurs known |
| From: | |
riverrat
|
posted
Fri, Oct 23 2009, 9:57pm
|
|
It could be nothing more than a hatchling of an already known species. Paleontologists are too eager to discover a new species that appears to be the beginning of dinosaur evolution. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: One of the tiniest non-avian dinosaurs known |
| From: | |
cloudyboy87
|
posted
Fri, Oct 23 2009, 11:39pm
|
|
Ya...I think that they may be too eager to classify things..I think that some "species" or "subspecies" may in reality be specimens of already known species or subspecies. But who knows. maybe it'll be announced one day. Oh well. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: One of the tiniest non-avian dinosaurs known |
| From: | |
MJLehde
|
posted
Sat, Oct 24 2009, 8:08am
|
|
I seem to recall that there is still a debate very much like that raging around some undersized T-Rex fossils. Some think it is a new dwarf form of Rex while others think it is simply a T-Rex that died young. Over so many million years deciding by fossile fragmants how old an animal was at the time of it's death and whether that animal was full grown can be tricky. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: One of the tiniest non-avian dinosaurs known |
| From: | |
cloudyboy87
|
posted
Fri, Nov 13 2009, 5:27pm
|
Ya, it kind of hearkens back to something I'm familiar with; trying to pin the age of a box turtle by counting the growth rings on its scutes, or trying to do the same to a rattlesnake by counting its rattles, neither work because of all kinds of variables and the only real way to know somethings exact age is by cataloging it from birth. Besides, many animals don't achieve their full potential because they turn out to be "runts". So whose to say its a dwarf something when everything is identical to "textbook case" fossils except size and maybe a few other things that can be variable within individuals just like in humans or anything else?..
Besides Taxonomy is politics lol |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
