[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Ultraraptor



Craig Ferguson wrote:

> I have recieved a lot of responses to my announcements, all of which
>gently broke it to me that my opinions were in the minority.

That is certainly nit the problem. After all, Bakker is quite a minority,
too (I'm just refering to his way of... seeing dinosaurs). The problem is
that you (obviously) don't know much about what you are speaking of. It is
nice to have a theory, but it is not a discovery; and theories are ideas. I
know that much in paleontology is ideas, and hypotheses. However, there is a
justification behind any claim, by any good scientist. And please, do not
tell T. rex is a "raptor" because it is powerful and fierce: barracudas are
fierce predators, and whales are very powerful. Maybe they are primitive
members of the T. rex-raptors group, and that they existed at this time, but
we don't know about it! Do you see what I mean?

> Some have pointed out that Ultrasaurus and T-Rex lived in different
>time periods. But how are we to know that Ultrasaurus didn't live with
>T-Rex?

Exactly the same way as we think there were no men, and that there are no
more Triceratops out there.
1) We don't find them, and we don't find anything similar.
2)Dinosaur species (for you are refering to a single species) or even genera
don't last for such a long time (90 million years).
3)Ultrasaurus is not a valid name. Jim Jensen used it for one of his "two"
giant sauropods, but it is preoccupied (already used) for another kind of
(poorly known) sauropod (big peaceful long-necked dino). So it was renamed
with an incredible originality: Ultrasauros. But it turned out (by Curtice I
think) that the type material (the bones on which the name was based)
belonged to Jensen's other giant, Supersaurus. The rest of the material
(only a scapula?) is brachiosaurid, and possibly belongs to a large
Brachiosaurus altithorax.

>Maybe we haven't found the Ultrasaurus bones because T-Rex
>crunched and ate all of the bones.

Please, tell me that you were joking! T. rex (and it is NOT T-Rex!!!!!!!)
had much to do in a day (breathing, not being ate by another T. rex,
hunting, eating, ...), so it was much too busy to spend all its time eating
giant sauropod bones to prevent paleontologists from finding them. A more
serious argument: all tyrannosaurid bite marks were found on hadrosaurs and
ceratopian (horned critters); but you will probably say that we may always
find some on butterflies.

>We know T-Rex ate bone because of
>the fossil dropping from Sascatchewan that I read about in my research.

Yes, T. rex seems to have been able to crunch bone. However, this is not a
proof that its diet was composed ONLY of giant sauropod bone (which would be
quite necessary to make all the bones of whole species disappear).

> Everyone has asked why I think T-Rex is a Raptor. It is very simple.

Yes, even more simple than you think. They're raptors only because you want
them so. And with the kind of argument you use, you can make sense of
ANYTHING.

>Raptors were feroicious killers, everyone agrees about that. Why?
>Because the DNA of the Raptors had a gene that caused them to be
>killing machines.

How do you know? Did you find it? How do you know they were killing machines
(the only killing machines I know are bombs and other guns)? The only thing
we KNOW here is that they were little meat-eaters with large claws. And no,
Jurassic Park is NOT a dino encyclopedia where there would be everything
clear and right!

> T-Rex was huge and powerful, and had huge, sharp
>teeth.

NO. The teeth are certainly huged, but not sharp. They were quite blunt, and
were made for crushing/piercing, not slicing/cutting (oh, I know it is badly
said).

>T-Rex tooth marks have been found on other dinosaurs, so we know
>it was a predator.
>It too had the "killer gene".

Really. You probably saw it in its large and lovely eyes. I think you should
stop saying things that have absolutely no meaning. There are no living
"killing machines" (because animals live, and they're not machines), and
your "killer gene" only says an animal to hunt instead of eating the next
tree.

>It was passed on to it
>from it's Raptor ancestors. Has anyone read Raptor Red?  Its by Bob T.
>Bakker, probably the greatest paleontologist ever. Utahrapor, a very
>big Raptor, behaved so much like a T-Rex.

Raptor read is a fiction. Do you know what fiction means? If so, understand
you're making a little more nonsense. If not, search about it. WE DO NOT
KNOW HOW DINOSAURS BEHAVED. But we can always make theories, of course...

>Utahraptor is a good
>intermediate between Velociraptor and T-Rex, it has a middle size, and
>claws midway between the two.

No. The claws are proportionnally much larger on Utahraptor than on
Velociraptor, or I am seriously mistaken about dromaeosaur ("raptor")
anatomy.

> Since I think T-Rex is a Raptor, it MUST have a new name. "Tyrant
>lizard" is not a good description of T-Rex, "Ultraraptor" would better
>describe it's evolution and lifestyle.

And since you (may) know understand your mistakes, change your name. You
don't change a name because it fits badly.

> Obviously, there is some difference in opinion concerning the T-Rex
>and Raptor connection. Someone said some people named "Tom Holtz",
>"Kevin Padian", and "John Hutchinson" wrote something similar to my
>theory.

No they didn't. They only placed tyrannosaurids as quite close relatives of
dromaeosaurs and birds. But they never said anything about eating bones,
killing genes and any other idea you may have. (am I right about it, Tom?).

> And as Bob T. Bakker has shown, the old way of classifying
>dinosaurs is Wrong!!! Raptors weren't known when T-Rex was named, so it
>makes sense we should change it's name now that we have Raptors.
>
>Craig Ferguson
>Dino Paleontologist

Really? Learn a bit before calling yourself "paleontologist".

>and author of soon to be published book "Raptors
>Revealed"
>

Sorry if I was too rough, but you should really learn more before you say
anything. If you want a good discussion of dino classification, try to find
Paul Sereno's paper about it (someone just mentioned it in the list). For a
more general background about dinos, see The Complete Dinosaur, edited
Brett-Surman & Farlow, Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs by Currie & Padian.

>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

Best regards.
e-mail: forelf@internet19.fr