Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by zegh8578, Jan 23, 2017.
It lives. Figured the game might be of interest to you. Cheers.
I was just checking on their progress, and it is going very slowly - the curse of small dev teams. If they ever complete though, it should be very cool for some realistic sim-gaming.
As much as I've seen people lose their minds and run off with an all-or-nothing attitude concerning these discoveries, this video does a good job summarizing it, and I've got nothing against the points he is making here! One should keep in mind though, he is exclusively examining Tyrannosaurus rex here (based heavily on research pertaining to Daspletosaurus horneri) - which could mean nothing at all for other species, like Daspletosaurus torosus or Tarbosaurus bataar. It would be intuitive to go "wait - Daspletosaurus horneri and Daspletosaurus torosus, that's like - practically the same damn dinosaur, how could one be feathered, and another not???"
First of all - I agree with the video, and I've felt this way for a long time, the largest 10m+ Tyrannosaurines were probably way way less feathered than smaller more ancestral forms. However! Compare for example, the ammount of difference in the fur-coating in lions, leopards and siberian tigers - all of them belonging to *the very same genus* Panthera, all of them contemporary with each others!
Lions are almost naked, with almost absurd concentrations of fur, for reasons that would be very hard for anyone to guess, had we known them only from skeletons. Their very closest relatives have smooth coverings of fur, while their more arctic relatives have fur so thick you can hide your whole hand in it.
Consider also the enormous difference in fur-coating in for example african elepfants (tropical) and woolly mammoths (arctic). Nanuqsaurus, for example, was an arctic Tyrannosaurid, while Yutyrannus lived in temperate climates with cold winters that included snowfall. For Nanuqsaurus we know very little in general, it's known from very scanty, fragmentary remains. Yutyrannus on the other hand, had thick, dense feather-coating akin to the fur on a siberian tiger, thick and insulating - and with some extra thickness around the neck (like an eagle or a lion), and with even the toes covered in feathers in a way that is rare even in todays birds, with exception of arctic ptarmigans.
Any good Youtube channels you can recommend? I'm needing good information on around 5 million years ago. It's hard to pin down what species were alive at what exact time.
Oh, dude, not to be one of those guys, but I have never gotten my science from Youtube... I sincerely do not mean to pass any judgement here - if you can find reliable paleo-channels, then go for it - I just don't know of any.
You're curious of the Pliocene epoch though
and more specifically the earliest of Pliocene - or perhaps the Miocene-Pliocene boundary, in which the very, very latest Miocene should be of interest
Hopefully, these serve as at least a good place to start
I have went over all the articles already. I just need a good visual basis with some maps. Maybe I will find a decent book somewhere.
Idunno what to tell ya, I'm sure there exists comprehensive and specific fauna lists, but you'd kind of have to know which species to look for beforehand - or better yet, you could try to find specific geological formations pertaining to the periods you're looking for.
I'm no pliocene-guy, but if you want exact overviews, it doesn't get much more exact than that; any specific formation will represent an uninterupted physical landscape of the time and place.
Take one of the most famous North American formations, "Hell Creek" (Which is what Saurian is based on)
Hell Creek is precisely 66.8-66 million years old, and so all fossils found within those strata will be of that exact age. The exact age-determination of a geological formation tends to depend on the technology/funding available in the individual countries they belong to. US and most western countries have very accurate analysis of their formations, while say less modern countries will be a lot more approximate - to the point of simply not offering anything of value. Some Chinese formations are VERY extensively studied, and aged down to double-decimals, while others are stuck being determined as "Cretaceous in age" (which is completely useless and highly frustrating)
Now... from there on I'm afraid there are no short cuts. There would likely be dozens of identified formations scattered around the US, with hundreds more scattered around the world. Not trying to deter you - but once you get to dig around a bit, you might find better search parameters, or a more helpful vocabulary to get to what you're looking for, if you know what I mean. Good luck!
This might work for now.
This one is the one I really need.
Hey @zegh8578! Awesome news man!
Scientists successfully recreate Tyrannosaurus Rex embryo from chicken DNA
A CHICKEN-DINOSAUR HYBRID
The living embryo is not a 100% dinosaur, but instead a genetically modified hybrid between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a chicken, explains Helmut Hans Fraser, a molecular biologist at North Carolina State University.
“It is impossible to recreate a fully living dinosaur from these limited samples of DNA, but we have successfully introduced this DNA into living chicken skin cells, so the results of this embryo, if it comes to terms and eventually survives its own birth and does not present any biological defects, will be a total surprise. We have no idea what to expect at all,” explains the assistant research professor of molecular biology sciences. “We have noticed that the embryo grows at abnormal rates for a common chicken embryo. It is presently sixty five times bigger than the size of an average chicken embryo only after three days, but its growth seems exponential, which is clearly fascinating” he admits, visibly enthused by the discovery.
so much ugh... first of all, it's never "Rex", Rex isn't a surname or anything, it's a binominal specific name, and ALWAYS lower case, even after a period, T. rex, Tyrannosaurus rex - NEVER Tyrannosaurus Rex, T. Rex and even less T-Rex. If people write a science-article, thinking "Rex" is a unique thing added to Tyrannosaurus, without understanding it's merely the same as "sapiens" in Homo or "tigris" in Panthera, they have no business writing science articles.
Also, a chicken IS 100% dinosaur, so they can fuck off there too. I'm not being pedantic here, but it goes back to the same thing: If you're gonna report sports news, you can't be all "And this team took that ball, and put the ball in the thing on the other thing, so the thing did a thing, and they got points or something" you have to actually know what the fuck you are reporting.
Finally, no. Chicken is not "a close relative" of Tyrannosaurus. Birds *in general* are closest living relatives, and the CLOSEST would probably be sea-gulls or other ocean-birds, and that only by default, as they would be as closely related to a Tyrannosaur as a blue whale would be to a human.
Tyrannosaur DNA meshed wich chicken = Human DNA meshed with blue whale = success?
Naw, man, this rubbed me the wrong way >:I
Imagine the farms though if they had some Tyrannochicken rex.
^That was a rad purely for correct use of specific name