|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
 means the user is online now!
sorry, I meant rm0918 (Sorry!)
At 10:20:22 AM on 8/9/2001, Overaptor said:
sure thing, rm109, and I am glad that this argument is brought to rest, phew. I do have other various projects underway, and it may be several days before I get to it. BTW, I need your email, because it doesn't work when I try to send stuff to people from this site.
-David
At 12:44:17 AM on 8/9/2001, Jurassic theory said:
When They Discover A dinosaur with Howard Stern's nose. Please Let us know.
At 10:12:46 PM on 8/8/2001, rm0918 said:
When you do your rendering, let us know. I'd love to see it.
At 9:00:22 PM on 8/8/2001, Overaptor said:
My own conception (as I may begin one soon), would most likely be what you said, with the nostril as far foward as it is, but not so low to the mouth, or as low as it is, but with a little bit of a difference. I might not make it appear as though the dinosaur looks like a 'pigosaurus' as you said, but a whole new conception of the rex, along the lines of this new theory. Now that I know your full opinion, I have a better idea of what you think, therefore, it is easier to agree with you.
-David
At 6:28:38 PM on 8/8/2001, rm0918 said:
I have little need to boost my opinion as I have not given it as yet. I have merely defended the particulars of the study.
But since you asked, My opinion is that the new nose or a variation thereof makes the most since. I came to my opinion in the course of compiling my previous arguments as my initail impression was YUCK! As the creature with the most highly developed sense of smell known (as evidenced by its huge olfactory lobe), any and all enhancements to its sense of smell would be logical and that includes a forward placement of the nostrils
with as much sensory area as possible. The size and shape of that area is open to conjecture and artistic interpretation. From the good doctors comments a placement anywhere to the front is probable. Be it as the artist shows it or higher (but not further back) on the snout.
A placement with forward facing nostrils even with snout would also be possible aka pigasaurus rex. Now that would be ugly and I would want some kind of substantiation before I'd try to push that opinion (which is based on my own speculation). But as the science now stands (and this could change), the backward placement in no longer tenable. Any forward placement is possible with some being more probable than others. Any near future reconstruction of T-rex should be based on this research and a study of the muscle scars, blood vessel marks and nerve channels will produce some lively new artistic interpretations. Then we can discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of each artistic rendering. But the forward placement of the nostrils in scientific illustrations would appear to be here to stay.
At 5:09:58 PM on 8/8/2001, Overaptor said:
No, that is not my primary concern, however the artist's conception does not seem correct in my eyes - it may be the fact that the nostril is farther ahead on the new illustration, than the fossil, or it may be that the nostril appears backwards. Now, tell me what you think, and see if you can refrain from bashing someones own opinions to give yours a little boost.
At 3:57:01 PM on 8/8/2001, rm0918 said:
Try again. Comparing a far shot of a Bald Eagle with a closeup of another raptor is a bit disingenuous wouldn't you say. If you'll bother to find a closeup of a Bald Eagle head and a skull shot, you'll see an indentation in the eagle beak caused by the nasal cavity. If you look at a closeup of an eagle head you'll see the nostril snuggled up in that beak indentation.
Now since you obviously don't beleive that the good paleontologist actually checked out the birds, reptiles and mammals that he said he did or you beleive he skewed the results that he said he found; and your knowing what LOOKS right is the basis for scientific study, lets start again a little more simply.
Look at that big hole on T-rex's snout; it is his nose. A nose is used to breathe air into the lungs and to smell the air. If the nostril is at the front of that big ole hole, then that space can be filled with all kind of nasal goodies that can moisten and warm the air. It can be packed with all manner of smell cells to help the animal. But we know because it don't look right, it can't be so. So now we'll go on to what must be. With the nostril at the back of the hole we have all that empty space in front of it. What will we say would look right and hence will be right. Hmm, lets fill it with two large pouches to store acorns for the winter. No, that doesn't look right. Lets put balloon sacks in there, so when T-rex exhales they expand like a frog's throat and make neato sounds. No, that doesn't look right either. I have it, it was pierced through and the rex put a hadrosaur long bone (metal studs not being available) through it for special social gatherings. Yeah, now that looks right!
Now once again you are allowed your opinion and you are allowed to say 'I like the old rex better', but you started your posts calling the man who ACTUALLY studied the issue (the only one who has incidently) a 'moron' and a 'cook' (I assume you mean kook); and calling his ideas 'stupid' and 'ridiculous'. And that was wrong. Your ideas are opinions not science.
As the author of the study, Dr. Witmer said "as a scientist the appearance of dinosaurs is not my primary concern". Apparently that is your only concern.
At 10:48:05 AM on 8/8/2001, Overaptor said:
As shown in the picture of this eagle skull, after it is compared to the picture of the live eagle, you can see that the nostril is place as far back as the opening on the beak goes. If you take a look at the skull, you can see the end of the beak which is a small bump. When you look at the other image, you may notice, that the end of the nasal cavity and the placement of the nostril are the same.
<p>
<html>
<head>
<body>
<img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/eagle.jpg"/>
</p>
</head>
</body>
</html>
At 11:03:35 PM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
You should have picked a monitor. The bearded dragon you show has its nostril in the middle of the snout as far forward in its nasal opening as it will go and not up on the skull ridge like the traditional T-rex. Few birds have nostrils in the tip of the beak but almost all have nostrils as far forward in the nasal opening as possible.
Two birds are known for their sense of smell, the turkey vulture and the kiwi. The turkey vulture has a reduced beak allowing its nostrils to be placed as far forward as possible. The kiwi suprise, suprise has its nostrils on the tip of its beak. Gila monsters, geckos and iguanas have their nostrils toward the end of the snout in the front of the nasal opening. Look at the placement of the nostrils in your velociraptor picture: out on the tip of the snout. Add a fleshy nose and voila he looks like T-rex. Dromeasaurs have smaller nasal openings, so less option for placement.
So once again (and by the way T-rex is not a bird or a lizard just as it is not a mammal, just for consistency's sake) offer evidence why T-rex would not have its nostrils at the front of its nasal cavity like most other birds, reptiles and mammals. What advantage does a dinosaur gain by the backward position? Also you need to explain the muscle attachment scars on the skull, if not for the rendered fleshy part(and we can quibble about its size) what are the scars from ? If you want to try more lizard photos, have a skull rendition ready also, so that a comparison can be made between the nostril placement and nasal cavity, just like the T-rex illustration.
At 10:19:40 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Here is the correct image:
<p>
<html>
<head>
<body>
<img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/dinotheory2.jpg" width="436" height="526"/></p></head></body></html>
At 10:16:26 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Oops, the lizard caption is supposed to say "Not where new nose is placed"
At 10:15:32 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Okay, I see, a visual learner. Okay, here are some images to support what I am trying to say. Hopefully it will sink in this time.
<p>
<html>
<head>
<body>
<img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/dinotheory.jpg" width="436" height="526"/></p></head></body></html>
At 9:24:36 PM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
What ? Once more, the study showed most BIRDS and RETILES have the nostrils in the front of the nasal opening.
Your harping on mammals is a canard. Again I ask for evidence to support your point of view. Bird and reptile morphology support the new T-rex nose.
At 9:07:11 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Yes, with MAMMALS not REPTILES or BIRDS. THINK. Who are relatives of dinosaurs - humans? cats? dogs? no, birds and reptiles. Reptiles and birds almost always have their nostrils positioned the way the traditional nose on dinosaurs is. Unless dinosaurs were mammals, or giant cats or dogs, then I guess your right, but we are not talking about mammals.
At 6:20:47 PM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
Once again you say that the traditional dino nose makes more sense without any backup.
Why does it make more sense ? Your previous examples (blood up the nose and lack of smell)have been put to rest. If you state that you prefer the look of the traditional nose, that is a valid point but not evidence.
The position of the nostril was never studied before, it was just placed there because it looked right. Again, the study shows that the nostril is almost always at the front of the nasal cavity whether it be in birds, reptiles or mammals. I never said dinosaurs looked like mammals, I compared function. The T-rex had the largest olfactory lobe of any animal known and any increase in the efficiency of the sense of smell (like having the nostril at the front of the skull) is what truly makes sense. Incidently there is minor evidence (generally disputed by paleontologists) that T-rex may have had some sort of external ear. Now you can change your image of T-rex again.
At 5:50:25 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
No shit, but you don't see them all the way at the bottom as shown in the conception. I know that crocodiles have nostrils their. What, you think I meant the top of their head like sauropods? What I meant, was that the traditional dino nose makes more sence, and the new conception is a wild, wild theory, and I belive it is quite ridiculous. And what makes you think dinosaurs look like mammals? They have a great resemblance to birds, but they are not mammals.
At 5:09:26 PM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
The human example was so you would have a ready reference. The cat reference was in regard to blood up the nose (along with monitor lizards and vultures).
Dinosaurs were not mammals, which hampered our reconstuctions for decades because we did base them on lizards and crocodiles, but now we know that their appearance was more similiar to mammals and birds. Lizards have their nostrils at the front their nasal openings at the front of their skulls. Crocodilians have their nostrils 'AT THE FRONT' of their nasal openings on the top of their skulls. The study mostly checked birds and reptiles and it showed that birds, reptiles and mammals all have nostrils in the front of the nasal openings in the vast majority of their members.
At 4:46:57 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
but what you were refering to were mammals, what do cats and humans have anything to do with dinosaurs?
At 4:40:05 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Yes, but you can not always refer to todays animals for every little detail on dinosaurs, I mean, look at the shape of their heads. They are quite different from animals of today, except for lizards and crocodiles, both of which have nostrils atop their snouts. These animals also have slight overbites as most of the dinosaurs did, which makes the resemblance even closer.
At 4:23:42 PM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
Again, canines, cats, monitor lizards and vultures all feed whithin a carcass. The blood up the nose argument is specious. As for the lack of smell argument, we are only talking about 6 inches or so difference. But with the nostrils at the front of the skull, the nostrils are down by the ground when the head is bent down and they are at the highest point possible with the snout up in the air. Just like a dog, nostrils at the front of the skull make it easier to pick up smells from the ground or from the air not harder. Also, fill the inside of the new fleshy part with sensory cells and the sense of smell is even more enhanced.
At 4:12:28 PM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
Yes, please take a look at the skull. The nasal opening extends from just above the mouth to the top of the snout. Any nostril placement within that cavity fits the skull. Data from extant animals shows that the placement is almost always as far forward in the opening as possible. So the new snout fits the available data best. If you want further confirmation, check youself out. Your nasal cavity extends about an inch; from the bottom of your eyes to 3/4 of an inch above your mouth. Your nostrils are as far forward (or downward in a human's flat face)as they can go. Your nostrils are not up by your eyes and the nostrils are extended outward by the fleshy appendage you call your nose.
At 3:57:20 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Study the skull, then study the pictures. The skull indicates that the nostrils would be atop the snout as shown in the picture of the first t-rex example. Also, like other people have said, the nose would become full of blood, flesh, etc. while the animal fed, and lastly, the animal would have a harder time picking up a scent in the air with it's nostrils so low.
At 3:47:20 PM on 8/7/2001, Ian said:
Oviraptor, i have no problem you callign it ridiculous, as long as you got some backing up data? What have you got to support what you say?
At 2:32:31 PM on 8/7/2001, Overaptor said:
Take a look at the skull, the traditional nose compares to it more than the new one. I don't know where this person's idea came from, but I think it is ridiculous.
At 2:17:00 PM on 8/7/2001, Ian said:
Talk about shoving yer nose up in animals and getting it clogged, i read about alot of folks saying this around here and other places, but im beining to wonder if those folks have been kept up in their offices and houses or looking at bones to much :). Ever heard of a dog :) or a human, you should see my stick my face in a deer carcas yum, but specialy dogs, you see them shvoign their faces up in there, as well as alot of other animals.
BTW if somthing looks cool and another looks gay, it doesnt mean the cool is right, maybe it looks better and youll wanna draw them liek that, but thats not accurate, heck if yer just drawing to look cool alot times, i doubt i even needa talk to you about accuracy. Bah, wanna see cool? My pet _Betta_ is cool, he rules...
At 1:33:59 PM on 8/7/2001, danoodleman said:
Please stop calling it gay, it's science. Would you like them to not release new science information/theory because it doesn't appeal to your taste?
At 11:44:51 AM on 8/7/2001, Krabby Jo said:
Truce.
At 8:35:15 AM on 8/7/2001, rm0918 said:
The study compared dino nares with those of modern animals, mostly reptiles and birds. It showed in most but not all cases the external openings was as far forward in the nasal cavity as possible. The fleshy parts are inferred from muscle scars on the bone surface. How large those fleshy parts were is open to conjecture. As to the repositioning not making sense in a carnivore, take a look around. A canine, monitor lizard, or vulture all stick their noses inside a carcass with no detrimental effects. As to the size of T-rex's eyes, it is one of the things we know fairly well. A bone pinches the eye socket in T-rex and gives us a definitive idea of its eye size and it was relatively small in comparision to its five foot skull. As to the nostrils being in brachiosaur nasal opennings, that is the point. A brachiosaur's nasal opening stretches from before the eyes to beyond the peek of the skull. Where in this opening do you put the external nostril? Traditionally we have placed them on the top, but now we'll put them in the front edge in front of the eye, possibly extended by a fleshy appendage on the top of the snout. Now imagine if the fleshy part was mobile like a mini trunk, you would have one goofy looking sauropod.
At 4:59:47 AM on 8/7/2001, Utahraptor said:
The new nostrils look so wrong, and too small. Plus the eye looks too small too. I don't buy thelakc of snout between the nostrils and mouth. Now, for Sauropods sure. But regular dino like T-rex, no. Maybe Raptors.
At 4:43:36 AM on 8/7/2001, Liverastic said:
This repositioning of the nostrils does not make sense on a carnivore. Those nostrils would fill up with blood and flesh everytime it shoves its face into a carcass. Even if there was tissue to open and close the nostrils, blood would proceed to drip into the nose itself. This would not be too healthy and would have a profound negative inpact on the animal's sense of smell. I could see this happening on hadrosaurs and sauropods however.
At 1:01:38 AM on 8/7/2001, JPJairus said:
What's in a name? A rose, that called by any other name would smell as sweet.
<BR>What's in a nose... Ewwwww!
At 12:32:23 AM on 8/7/2001, dinosniper said:
That's a really stupid theory...brachiosaurs' nostrils are where the nostril holes were in the skull. It's the same way with every other animal living on this planet. We'll never know for sure whether this guy is right or wrong, but it's safe to assume he's wrong.
At 11:56:12 PM on 8/6/2001, Drakkenfyre said:
I heard this guy who is proclaiming this new theory on Art Bell last night,
-Drakk )))
At 10:38:02 PM on 8/6/2001, Jurassiclaw said:
<img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/dinonoses.jpg" width="420" height="150" border="4"/>
damn
At 10:02:04 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
Okay, okay. I thought u hated the old one, too at first. Truce?
At 9:56:07 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
The TYPO explains how I made the mistake of thinking you thought the old one was gay! I agree with you! GEEZ LOUISE!
Chill!
At 9:53:11 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
oops, wrong link.
<html><head><body>img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/dinonoses.jpg" width="420" height="150" border="4"/></a></head></body></html>
At 9:49:09 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
explains what? THE NEW NOSE STYLE IS GAY!!!!!!!!!! THIS ONE:
<p>
<html><head><body><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/home/DavesFanSubmissions/index.html"><img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/dinonoses.jpg" width="330" height="265" border="4"/></a></p></head></body></html>
At 9:28:10 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
That explains it.
At 9:26:55 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
Sorry, that was a typo, I meant the new one, which you can see in my other messages as well near the bottom
At 9:25:07 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
You said, "the high one" The high one is the old one. Unless today's opposite day...
At 9:23:54 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
That's what I said, haven't you paid attention to what i said? THE NEW ONE MAKES IT LOOK GAY! I HATE IT! IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY SOME STUPID COOK! THE TRADITIONAL NOSE IS THE BEST! I HAVE AALWAYS BEEN A FAN OF THE TRADITIONAL NOSE!!!!!
At 9:22:01 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
The "new, fashionable nose" looks kind of weird. And let me assure that the old one does not look gay.
I guess I'm just used to it.
At 9:19:24 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
that's not a good thing
At 9:19:05 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
which one, the high or the low? the high makes him look like a big gay friendly dino.
At 9:14:25 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
On second thought, I like the nose on the sauropods only- the T-rex looks ridiculous.
At 9:12:35 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
Oh, nevermind mind, it's another link to the same story. He must've found out himself.
*sniff*
I'm NOT wanted...
Ah well. I tried.
BTW, I always thought the old nose looked dopey...
At 9:11:03 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
No, that's not true, I HATE THAT NEWS! THOSE NEW NOSTRILS MAKE THE DINOS LOOK STUPID!
At 9:09:22 PM on 8/6/2001, Krabby Jo said:
Woohoo! The story I posted got on the news page! I'm wanted!!! PEOPLE LIKE ME!!!
At 9:02:43 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
Oh wait never mind... NOOOOOOO!!!!! They have to have them where they traditionally were to begin with! That looks so ugly and stupid! LOOK AT TODAYS LIZARDS AND ANIMALS MORONS!!!!!! THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE THAT! THAT'S STUPID! WHOVER CAME UP WITH THIS THEORY, IT ISN'T FUNNY!!!!!
At 8:57:38 PM on 8/6/2001, Overaptor said:
What does that mean, that they have nostrils under their chin? Or does it mean the sauropods have them not on the top of their heads, but on the end of their snout?
-David
<p>
<html><head><body><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/home/DavesFanSubmissions/index.html"><img src="http://www.dansjp3page.com/hosting/David_Nadeau/RapoLogo.jpg" width="420" height="150" border="4"/></p></a></head></body></html>
At 8:25:08 PM on 8/6/2001, Mighty T-rex said:
Um, dinosaurs haven't been believed to have nostrils on the top of the head, other than Brachiosaurs.
At 8:21:10 PM on 8/6/2001, JPSecurity said:
Interesting, so they look completely different?
At 7:16:44 PM on 8/6/2001, Dino Digger said:
first!
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment
|
|
Add DJP3P to your newsreader!
|
