HOME | DD
AlternatePrehistory β Pliosaurus size chart for wikipedia (updated)
by-nc
#pliosaurus #pliosaurusfunkei
Published: 2018-01-05 13:15:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 6817; Favourites: 122; Downloads: 19
Redirect to original
Description
For the Pliosaurus wiki page!Feat. a new Pliosaurus model rather than my old terrible one.
This is creative commons, so use it as much as you like.
Related content
Comments: 57
Pretty good and i wonder if thoseΒ Pliosaurus'sΒ head areΒ too long?
π: 0 β©: 1
Pliosaurus head: body ratio varies between species. This is as they should be.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
I have a chart with them included, but not yet posted.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Alright, so the claims that P. funkei was 13 meters long are false, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes. That was an estimate obtained from Kronosaurus, which has very different proportions to Pliosaurus funkei
π: 0 β©: 1
This is pretty good, although the tails should be slightly longer.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
Do tell,why would it have a longer proportional tail than is reconstructed here.
π: 0 β©: 2
What is your take on the largest, most powerful pliosaur taxa ?
I think Kronosaurus and or Sachicasaurus.
I think Sachicasaurus has the second most impressive preserved macroraptorial skull after the Miocene killer sperm whale Livyatan.
π: 0 β©: 1
Going by size it seems Pliosaurus itself along With Sachicasaurus and Kronosaurus seem to be the largest taxa and "most powerful" ,with Kronosaurus being the largest of three and Sachicasaurus second in size.However due to Pliosaur research being in it's infant stages we won't know for sure due to lack of data being available right now.
π: 0 β©: 0
Due to incomplete skeletons, it is possible the tail was longer, and comparing it to modern day similar animals, it probably was longer.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Why the hell would you compare it to modern day animals for tail proportionsΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
Doesn't everyone do that?
π: 0 β©: 1
How does that make it a valid argument.
π: 0 β©: 1
Excuse me, but are you mocking me?Β
I already explained why it would make a valid argument in my second post.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
No i'm totally not mocking youΒ
Sarcasm aside,using the rule of thumb on Plesiosaur(including Plesiosauroid and Pliosauroid) caudal regions being 70-80% the length of the torso you've already get a fairly shorter caudal region then most would reconstruct.Then applying the ridiculously short tail implied by the caudal vertabrae in Pliosaurus and you get what AlternatePrehistory has or near it.
Your "argument" doesn't seem like anything i've had the misfortune of reading prior to this.I am dumbfounded as to how you could think modern animals could ever be a valid argument for making the tail of Pliosaurus longer. Not only do we reconstruct tail lengths on close relatives,in this case we have complete skeletons of Rhomaleosaurus to base tail length on so your point about "incomplete skeletons" only works on if you try to reconstruct Pliosaurids without using basal Pliosaurids or Rhomaleosaurids. As to your modern examples;the only things that could ever be comparable are Cetaceans,Fish,and Chelonioids.
Fish and Cetaceans use their caudal flukes as a propulsion method while Plesiosaurs as a whole use their flippers as a propulsion method and use either a fatty tail or a fluke as turning devices.While turtles use flippers as a propulsion method it's pretty fucking clear they have a very different anatomy and swimming style as they still have to lay eggs,don't have any flukes as opposed to Plesiosaur groups mostly having one,etc.Not only were none of these usable to compare to Pliosaurus or any Plesiosaur really,you never restore something like the caudal's regions proportional size based on animals that happen to also live an aquatic life in the modern age. The second argument you seem to use is one i've seen used so much and i'm sick of it;trying to fall on the excuse of "We don't have evidence against it so that's a reason why it must be true."
While I do think the tails could certainly be lengthened some(They could very well stay way that short too and he'd still be correct.) I think your arguments were to be quite frank lacking in understanding of basic biology.
π: 0 β©: 1
When we don't have the complete fossil of an animal, say a prehistoric cat, we often compare them to modern animals to get a better sense of what they look like. Similarly, we can apply Pliosaurus to modern animals similar to it. In addition, the short tail simply looks unnatural. No modern aquatic has such a short tail, so we can conclude the Pliosaurus did not have either. Furthermore, such a short tail would be detrimental as a good, long streamlined tail would allow for easy maneuverability, allowing it to easily catch fish. For the incomplete fossils part, I do think we can find more Pliosaurus fossils that can possibly give us more information about the skeletals.Β
And for the comparable animals, I was comparing them to whales/dolphins, which look very similar to them. Yes, they are mammals, but physically speaking, they are very similar to a Pliosaur so it's good enough. And I do see your point about the flukes, but how do we know for sure what the Pliosaurs did with their flippers if we can't directly observe them? Therefore, the best thing to do is to compare them to modern animals. And I don't get what's wrong with my second argument. If you can't disprove it, it's most likely true. For all we know, Russell's teapot can exist. Yes, the chances are slim, but are you saying there is a 0% chance? This is what's wrong with paleontology these days, way too many atheists or agnostics or theistic evolutionists not accepting other beliefs. As a YEC, you wouldn't believe how many times I've been harassed over paleontology issues.Β
And see, in the end, you do agree with me to some degree, so I'm still correct. My arguments were lacking because there is a lack of evidence to start with, and I see that others are jumping to conclusions. Also, mind you, I took a class in Biology before school I know basic biology, like mitosis and all that.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
Yes. Because we have many living plesiosaur relatives today. In fact, technically turtles are Plesiosaurs closest living relatives, which have incredibly short tails. Should we just use those?Β
And we have many complete Pliosaurids for vertebral counts (Peleoneustes) with which we can use to determine the size of the caudal region of Pliosaurus. (In this case, I used the vertebral measurements of Pliosaurus "brachyspondylus" for the caudal region, which gave me the results I did.
Also, Pliosaurus funkei does not preserve caudals, so perhaps the tail was slightly larger than in this. But I used the trend of other Pliosaurus specimens to obtain the short tail length.Β
Ok, let's cover some points:
"And for the comparable animals, I was comparing them to whales/dolphins" That was probably your worst mistake. Pliosaurs do not propel themselves with their tails, so thinking that Pliosaurus would have an incredibly long whale like tail is absurd. In History, people have reconstructed Pliosaurus material with whales (the cumnor mandible) and obtained proportions that match no other complete Pliosaurus mandibles we now of today.
"If you can't disprove it, it's most likely true." I think welsh unicorns are hiding at the bottom of the Mariana trench in a secret UFO. Can you disprove it? NO! Therefore it must be true... right?
"This is what's wrong with paleontology these days, way too many atheists or agnostics or theistic evolutionists not accepting other beliefs." No, your argument is lacking. I'd like you to come up with some real evidence rather than "Compare to outlandish modern animal with completely different phylogenetic placement".
"And see, in the end, you do agree with me to some degree, so I'm still correct." I don't. So, does that mean you're not correct now?
"My arguments were lacking because there is a lack of evidence to start with" Read the papers mah boi. It's all out there... ((Knutsen 2012), (PΓ‘ramo et al 2016), (Ketchum 2010),Β (Tarlo 1959),Β (Benson 2013) etc. etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Also, Pliosaurus funkei does not preserve caudals, so perhaps the tail was slightly larger than in this."
Soooo... you just agreed with me. So you're just playing Devil's Advocate here.
"Pliosaurs do not propel themselves with their tails, so thinking that Pliosaurus would have an incredibly long whale like tail is absurd."
You would know, of course. I'm sure you were alive when Pliosaurus roamed the waters.
"I think welsh unicorns are hiding at the bottom of the Mariana trench in a secret UFO. Can you disprove it? NO! Therefore it must be true... right?"
No. I said MOSTLY true.
"I don't. So, does that mean you're not correct now?"
You literally just agreed with me.
"Read the papers mah boi. It's all out there..."
Are any of them YEC?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Obviously you didn't bother to read the rest of the line "But I used the trend of other Pliosaurus specimens to obtain the short tail length."
"You would know, of course. I'm sure you were alive when Pliosaurus roamed the waters." I do know. Because Peleoneustes and MANY other relatives have short tails. Where you alive to see that they had whale like tails?
"No. I said MOSTLY true." So Most of what I said in that sentence was true then.Β
"You literally just agreed with me." No I didn't
"Are any of them YEC? " Ooooooooh.... That explains a lot. Ok
Well, I do know you're a troll account so I'm going to end this here. See you on the other side boi.
π: 0 β©: 0
A prehistoric Felid or Feliform doesn't have a completely different way of locomotion compared to modern felids.You've completely glossed over me explaining how different the modern aquatic animals are and how you CANT use them to reconstruct the tail to be longer.Trying to use the point of no modern aquatic animal has such a short tail is invalid not only because no aquatic animal today has a cervical vertabrae count similar to Plesiosauroids but also because using your "modern examples" Turtles have even shorter tails proportionally and they are the most comparable to Plesiosaurs as well as being the most related.
I don't get how you could ever think Cetaceans areΒ similar to Pliosaurids enough to reconstruct the caudal region on them but I'll repeat as to why they are so different since you seem to have never read what I said in the first place.
-Cetaceans have a completely different swimming style,hence the proportionally longer tail
-Cetaceans dont have flippers nearly comparable in size or in specialization for propulsion
-The Pelvic and Pectoral girdles are immensely different.
-Cetaceans have completely different cranial anatomy
As for what they did with flippers if you honestly think they used their tails for propulsion then I don't wish to try saving the hopeless.
I like how you trying turning this into a religion debate it's pretty funny
I agreed that the tail could be longer but only slightly not to the extent of a Cetacean and in the end you don't win,you never gave a convincing argument to begin with and haven't proven to me you can attempt to understand the phylogenetic relationships evolution employs.
π: 0 β©: 1
1) But turtles have huge flippers compared to the rest of their body that propels them forward. Have you seen aΒ turtle swim? Pliosaurs don't have that luxury.
2) -Again, Pliosaurs may also have a long tail, we really don't know
-They're close enough, stop cherrypicking.
-Cranial anatomy... so what? We're talking about tails here.
"I agreed that the tail could be longer"
You literally just agreed with me. Why are you even doing this?
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay
It's gotten to the point I refuse to believe you legitimately are stupid and illogical enough to believe the arguments you're spouting out.Thus onwards I am forced to just assume you're a troll due to these poorly written and extremely ridiculous things you try to pass up as "evidence".
Good day.
π: 0 β©: 1
Let's agree to disagree okay? I've met all sorts of people throughout my life, and just because they have different ideas doesn't mean they're wrong.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
But you've not got any fucking evidence, or an understanding of how evolution and cladistics work apparently... These two (and specifically Shao I can assure you) have spent HOURS on hours reading the papers and meticulously reconstructing. If anyone who is not a proffessional would know, these are two of those people. Shut upΒ Β
π: 0 β©: 0
No. In fact, right back at you.
YOU shut up. You've literally contributed nothing to this conversation, and then you suddenly butt in.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
This is hilarious.
π: 0 β©: 0
No. This is using the vertebral count of Peleoneustes and other Pliosaurids, which gives Pliosaurus a short tail.
π: 0 β©: 0
Accept gigantic creatures
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes this is just to show how stupid downsizing is
π: 0 β©: 0
*They told me I could be anything I wanted...so I decided to be a dragonfly*
π: 0 β©: 1
Fun fact: Pliosaurs could fly through the air, doing so in the same manner as the ghost ships of pirate tales.
π: 0 β©: 0
it's unquestionable science
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice to see how a pliosaurid took off into the sky in several steps.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
they do have the flippers to fly
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>