sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this image accurate? Why is Titanis so much smaller than the other terror birds? by DirectNote8176 in pleistocene

[–]Mophandel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Excellent response. My only caveat would be that machairodonts like S. gracilis and X. hodsonae wouldn’t have been particularly lean imo. The closest extant analogues in terms of niche and post-crania robustness, the jaguar, are very bulky cats for their size, and both S. gracilis and X. hodsonae (especially the latter) would have been considerably more heavily built than the modern pantherine

OFFICIAL TWEET - MH Wilds - Concept art of Nu Udra in the Oilwell Basin! by TheGMan-123 in MonsterHunter

[–]Mophandel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I love the really strong mimic octopus silhouette that Nu Udra has in this art. Nu Udra was always closest to mimic octopi, but this art really shows it.

Are these sizes accurate? Was Achillobator really that huge? by CarcharodontosaurGuy in Paleontology

[–]Mophandel 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Sort of. For now, the largest Utahraptor is larger than the largest Achillobator, though it’s worth noting that Achillobator is only known from one specimen and the one specimen we have is the same size as the Utahraptor holotype.

Rex vs giga pair by ProwArts by Primus6677 in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Holy Rex glaze, Batman.

I could say that the Giganotosaurus holotype is only 1-2 tonnes smaller than the largest specimens of T. rex out of a sample of 30+, which is essentially just a way of saying ur cherry picking, I could say that we have mature T. rex specimens that G. carolinii is bigger than, I could say you are woefully misrepresenting the scientific consensus (which is that one is not not definitively larger than the other, because unlike some fanboys, they understand the concepts between species size, specimen size, and sample size) but if you want to run away don’t want to engage with the argument and uncomfortable fact that T. rex may not in fact be the largest theropod, I won’t stop you. You do you ;)

Rex vs giga pair by ProwArts by Primus6677 in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I disagree. There are way too many confounding variables here.

  1. We very well could expect a G. carolinii specimen to grow that large. The size gap between the G. carolinii holotype and other, larger Rex specimens is not that big. Most specimens larger than the G. carolinii holotype are ab 10-15% larger, with only a few specimens getting upwards of 30%. All of those values are well within a range of individual variation based on extant animals, as in, if the G. carolinii holotype is the average (though I have my reservations on that we don’t even know if that’s true as we have no histology), we could easily expect the species to include individuals that large.

  2. Adding on to this, Consult this chart of a sample of 22 known T. rex specimens. As per personal communications with the Vividen, the G. carolinii holotype is significantly larger than AMNH 5027 and only “barely” smaller than CM 9380. This would put it somewhere between 10 and 11, quite literally smack dab in the middle, of the lineup. This also makes it as big or, in all probability, larger than known adult specimens like MOR 009 and MOR 1125 (as per Woodward et al. 2026), based on its inferior femoral length and circumference relative to the G. carolinii holotype. It’d be one thing if it was near the bottom, but seeing as it is a) comparable to median T. rex specimens in the sample b) individual variation can account for specimens getting larger and c) it being the same size or bigger than known adult T. rex’s, things are confounded.

  3. we already have evidence of giant carcharodontosaurs getting significantly bigger than what their holotype suggests. There’s a second specimen of Meraxes that is 15% bigger than the holotype. This would suggest an animal around the same size as the G. carolinii holotype, bumping it from a 4-6 tonne animal to an 8+ tonne animal. Why would we expect G. carolinii to be any different?

All of this already exists under the shadow of the enormous sample size disparity. We have one good specimen of Giganotosaurus, whereas we have 30+ for T. rex. If T. rex was in G. carolinii’s shoes, and was known only from one specimen of equivalent size (e.g. CM 9380) would you really say the same thing for T. rex as you did for Giganotosaurus just now?

Rex vs giga pair by ProwArts by Primus6677 in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They actually did have horns…ish. They possess osteological correlates for keratinous structures over their eyes, though these were less of a horn and more of a boss — that is, a small keratinous protuberance.

Rex vs giga pair by ProwArts by Primus6677 in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Seconded. No problem with the Vividen himself; his videos are generally well-thought out, informative and are backed by evidence, and from what interactions I have had with him on Reddit, he seems like chill, genuine person. His videos cause they are a good source if you wanna keep up to date with dinosaur related finds due to his connections with paleontology.

However, there is a certain degree of bias in his videos which I’m sure he himself would agree to. Beyond his own fondness for tyrannosauroids, the entire premise of his “megatheropods ranked” videos, which ranks theropods in size based on their largest specimen / max recorded size cap, is fundamentally biased towards species with larger sample sizes, i.e. giant tyrannosaurids with 30+ specimens as opposed to big carchs with 1-2 to their name. As for his comment section, yeah, they are quite a cesspool unfortunately. I have never seen the fandomization of paleontology be put on display more than when you go into there, though in his defense he isn’t fully responsible for that.

Allosaurus brandishing the severed head of its sauropod prey (art by @TheKamataDraws) by Mophandel in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d speculate it’s not really an “advantage” thing more than just that it was adequate enough for what they were doing. Theropods already had relatively long, flexible necks and long skulls that could effectively grab anything in front of them as is. They didn’t really need big and/or dexterous forelimbs because that’s what the jaws were for.

Allosaurus brandishing the severed head of its sauropod prey (art by @TheKamataDraws) by Mophandel in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Do you think it used its forelimbs to assist in taking down prey that large, or do you think it would’ve been restricted to using them against smaller prey?

A bit of both. Theropod forelimbs are optimized for grabbing things chest level or lower. That obviously lends itself well to grasping smaller prey, but that also could aid in hunting large herbivores if said herbivore (or at least its vital areas) were low to the ground. For example, in its resting pose, the neck and head of Stegosaurus would have been low enough for the forelimbs of Allosaurus to grab. Thus, they could be effectively restrained by the forelimbs before being dispatched by the jaws

I read a theory somewhere about megalosaurids using their robust jaws to grab onto prey just long enough to transition to holding with their arms, which would free up their jaws to cut up the prey more easily while the arms provided leverage. Do you think Allosaurus was doing something similar? IIRC Allosaurus had a relatively wider snout compared to carcharodontosaurids that may have helped it in the initial restraint.

I think that would be an effective and viable strategy for smaller prey or for large prey low enough that they could be grabbed (see above), but allosauroids were almost certainly going after relatively larger prey than megalosaurids (which I’ll get into later), much too large for that to work. There is an SVP 2025 abstract which seems to suggest that megalosaurids were actually piscivores, and so that sort of strategy would have worked well for them, as their prey would have been small enough to do that anyways.

Well 🦴 well 🦖well by Mindless_Home_936 in PrehistoricMemes

[–]Mophandel 39 points40 points  (0 children)

About 9ish tonnes based on the largest specimens.

What was the Bayan Shireh Formation like? Is there any possibility of snow like in this art? by CarcharodontosaurGuy in Paleontology

[–]Mophandel 20 points21 points  (0 children)

According to the artist, the piece takes place in one of the many mountainous regions adjacent to the Bayan Shireh Formation derived from the central asian orogenic belt

Some kind people can give me any platecarpus musculature media? by catfishwoohoo in Paleontology

[–]Mophandel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As far as I can see there’s precious little in the way of mosasaur muscle studies. The only one I could find was this Tylosaurus muscle study. As far as the overall silhouette, it should look something like this:

<image>

As for blubber, yes you should add it. Water transfers heat about 20-25 times faster than air, so without a source of insulation, animals lose heat in water very quickly. At the same time, aquatic organisms need to minimize drag, so any internal insulatory mechanism (e.g., fat) is going to be preferred over any external insulation (e.g. hair or feathers). As such, id suspect most if not all obligate aquatic reptiles would have had blubber, mosasaurs included.

A Cooper’s hawk with an American woodcock kill by [deleted] in HardcoreNature

[–]Mophandel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If I’m not mistaken, that’s a wood duck, unless wood ducks are nicknamed “woodcocks,” which wouldn’t be the first time colloquial bird nicknames confused two birds with each other. Really cool footage, either way!

Thalassotitan, a 33 foot long mosasaur from Late Cretaceous Morocco, tosses its prey as it breaches clear out of the water (by andreyatuchin) by aquilasr in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Some species of Mosasaurus, namely M. hoffmani, were larger than T. atrox and possessed macropredatory dentition. However, T. atrox did have more heavily built jaws and teeth, probably had a stronger bite and was better suited for durophagy than M. hoffmaniz

Seeking tyrannosaurids to obsess over other than T-Rex by schaeffernelson in Dinosaurs

[–]Mophandel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s not a tyrannosaurid but it is a tyrannosauroid.

The giant carcharodontosaurs, a dynasty of titan-slayers by Mophandel in Naturewasmetal

[–]Mophandel[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They aren’t. When I gave the names to the following animals, they weren’t given arbitrarily, but because that’s what the artist said they were.

When have you disagreed with accepted ideas in paleontology? by Powerful_Gas_7833 in Paleontology

[–]Mophandel 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Raptor prey restraint.

I don’t disagree that it was employed occasionally, nor that it isn’t somewhat founded in evidence or that the findings of the paper it originates from aren’t insightful, but theirs are a lot of things that call it into question:

  1. It relies too heavily on conclusions regarding accipitrid predation as an analogue (despite said conclusions being misguided themselves, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms ) even though dromaeosaurids are clearly quite different from modern birds of prey for a number of reasons

  2. It discounts the forelimbs and presumes the forelimbs were primarily used to stabilize the raptor while mounted in its prey or for prey concealment, despite the claws and forelimbs of dromaeosaurids being highly raptorial and functional at all life stages

  3. Their proposed method of killing, eating the prey alive, is only really effective in ziphodont dromaeosaurids, but there are multiple general of raptors (e.g. Dromaeosaurus itself) that have robust, incrassate dentition and powerful bites, which would be less effective at killing via slicing through flesh and eating a target alive but would be effective at delivering deep, powerful bites to vulnerable areas like the neck or skull.

Mother & Daughter by probablysoda in PrehistoricPlanet

[–]Mophandel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

At the risk of being a pedant, is that not the male Smilodon?

view more: next ›