View previous topic | View next topic

Giant Creatures; huge prehistoric beasts.

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Sheriff Fatman
470546.  Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:38 pm Reply with quote

Gigantopithecus Blacki



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

Thought to live between 300,000 and 1 million years ago in South East Asia, Gigantopithecus Blacki was a 10 foot high, 1,200 lb gorilla. That made it 2 to 3 times heavier than modern mountain gorillas and nearly 5 times heavier than orangutan.

 
Sadurian Mike
470564.  Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:07 pm Reply with quote

reddygirl wrote:
An interesting fact about the Moa is that they seem to have had significantly larger females than males, according to Wiki, "150% taller and 280% heavier than males". Until 2003, they were even classified as entirely different species.

I thought that was just the Manchester ones, it seems to be a trend to have heavier females up here.

 
bobwilson
470828.  Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:30 pm Reply with quote

Now now Mike - don't get bitchy

 
Arcane
473279.  Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:59 am Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:

All the trilobites were beamed on to a Klingon space ship.

Oh, my mistake, that was the tribbles.

The closest living relatives to trilobites are thought to be the horseshoe crabs.

http://www.geocities.com/mrbbug1/site29/webtv.netmrbbug2doc2.html


Errrrrr.... perhaps not.

From the Australian Museum Online site (Paleontology)

"Cousins of horseshoe crabs?
That trilobites are arthropods is beyond doubt, but the exact position of Trilobita in the evolutionary tree of the arthropods is more controversial. Early workers took the geological antiquity of trilobites as evidence that they were the most primitive kind of arthropod, and may have included the ancestors of crustaceans and chelicerates.

A single pair of antennae is likely a primitive feature for all arthropods, and the similarity of leg structure along the trilobite body (e.g., without the specialised leg-derived mouthparts of crustaceans or insects) can also be interpreted as primitive. Most recent workers consider that, among living arthropods, the closest relatives of trilobites are the chelicerates. The similarity of these groups may not be obvious when we make comparison with the land-dwelling spiders, mites, or scorpions, but becomes more apparent when we examine the most primitive living chelicerates, the horseshoe crabs.

Trilobites, horseshoe crabs and sea scorpions have similar spine rows along the inner margin of their legs. The lamellae on the outer leg branch of trilobites are similar (and thought to have the same evolutionary origin) as the filaments of the book gills of horseshoe crabs and book lungs of arachnids.

The eyes of trilobites penetrate the dorsal surface of the head shield as in horseshoe crabs. Nonetheless, trilobites are not the direct ancestors of horseshoe crabs or other chelicerates. All trilobites share certain unique features (like the calcite mineralogy of the exoskselton and calcified eye) to indicate that they are a separate branch of Arthropoda"

http://www.austmus.gov.au/palaeontology/research/trilobites02.htm

and from Wiki:

"The horseshoe crab or Atlantic horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) is a marine chelicerate arthropod. Despite its name, it is more closely related to spiders, ticks, and scorpions than to crabs."

 
Celebaelin
473281.  Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:26 am Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
No, I mean, isn't there a rule that if creatures can interbreed they are from the same... it was on the one with dogs, I think. Sorry, I can't work out how to search for it.

If the offspring are fertile the parents are the same species. Donkeys and horses, whose offspring are infertile are members of the same family, the Equidae.

 
Celebaelin
473282.  Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:39 am Reply with quote

Sheriff Fatman wrote:
Gigantopithecus Blacki

It's a shame 'cos I'd love to believe in these massive apes but since the only evidence we have is teeth and a small number of mandibles there doesn't really seem to be enough evidence to predict a 10 foot tall, 1200lb creature. They were for instance vegetarian living primarily on bamboo it seems and that in itself might lead to an over-sized set of teeth and a heavily developed jaw simply to withstand the rigours of all that chewing. To show the creature as being huge beyond the size of other apes and having those knuckle-dragging arms doesn't really have any basis in fact.

 
eggshaped
481274.  Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:54 am Reply with quote

So, how come there are giant versions of virtually every animal in the fossil record, but not giant humans?

 
Celebaelin
481286.  Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:04 am Reply with quote

We are the giant humans, we're just getting bigger it seems. Although there are some human remains about which imply tall tribes in South America iirc they don't seem to have persisted however and were laid out relatively recent remains rather than fossils afaik.

 
Southpaw
481353.  Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:01 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
So, how come there are giant versions of virtually every animal in the fossil record, but not giant humans?


What do you mean, no giant humans? Not only did they exist, but they co-existed with dinosaurs. See here.

WARNING: May cause you to laugh until you rupture something.

 
Sheriff Fatman
481704.  Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:42 pm Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
They were for instance vegetarian living primarily on bamboo it seems and that in itself might lead to an over-sized set of teeth and a heavily developed jaw simply to withstand the rigours of all that chewing.


But then mountain gorillas are vegetarians too, so the size could be estimated from the relationship between a mountain gorlla's teeth and mandibles and the teeth and mandibles of this gorilla. In much the same way the size of Megalodon has been extrapolated from teeth and a few vertable centr and comparing them to other large sharks..

However I seriously doubt having a few teeth and a couple of mandibles will give them enough evidence to say that the animal was primaraly living off of bamboo.

 
Sadurian Mike
540014.  Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:34 pm Reply with quote

Megalania

A giant monitor lizard living in Australia during the Pleistocene until relatively recently (about 40 000 years ago) and recent enough to have encountered Australia's first humans.

Complete fossils have not been found and so much of the information on Megalania comes from extrapolation, but estimates of its size make it up to 7 metres long. Most thinking is that it was an active ambush hunter and opportunist scavenger in the same way as modern komodo dragons. There is, however, some debate as to whether or not Megalania was the principal predator of Pleistocene Australia, but little disagreement that it was an apex predator.

Almost inevitably, there have been rumours of living Megalania surviving in the depths of the Australian outback, and even further afield. Apart from the lack of reliable sighting or evidence, it is perhaps worth noting that all modern reports of this giant lizard have been made since the discovery and publicity of Megalania in 1859.



BBC site (quite brief)
Wikipedia
Crytozoology.com
Australian National Parks and Wildlife

 
Arcane
545103.  Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:38 am Reply with quote

We grow 'em big here in Australia.

 
Hydra-Lernae
629510.  Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:56 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Would the oldest type of bird and the most recent dinosaur with flight, be very different?


A bird doesn't have to be able to fly to classify as a bird, taxonomically. And birds didn't evolve from flying dinosaurs, which were set apart from the "usual" dinosaurs anyway, but from the bipedal, bird-hipped dinos like the T-Rex or the infamous raptors. Those are supposed to have developed feathers. As my biology teacher used to say:
"Birds don't have feathers so they can fly, they can fly because they have feathers."
The pterosaurs (flying dinosaurs) could fly because they had evolved rather large hands covered with skin, much like today's bats. The wings of birds are constructed entirely different.

 
Davini994
629552.  Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:56 pm Reply with quote

Hydra-Lernae wrote:
The pterosaurs (flying dinosaurs) could fly because they had evolved rather large hands covered with skin, much like today's bats. The wings of birds are constructed entirely different.

djgordy posted on this a couple of days ago. They aren't dinosaurs!

Wiki wrote:
Pterosaurs are sometimes referred to in the popular media as dinosaurs, but this is incorrect. The term "dinosaur" is properly restricted to a certain group of terrestrial reptiles with a unique upright stance (superorder Dinosauria), and therefore excludes the pterosaurs, as well as the various groups of extinct aquatic reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaurs

 
VidovicS
874478.  Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:48 am Reply with quote

Quote:
The pterosaurs (flying dinosaurs) could fly because they had evolved rather large hands covered with skin, much like today's bats. The wings of birds are constructed entirely different.

I felt a little sick when I read this amaizing display of ignorance! Did Hydra-Lernae look at a 19th Century drawing of a pterosaur once and think they know everything there is to know now!

 

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group