Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Traditional Art / Professional NimaMale/United States Groups :iconprehistory-alive: Prehistory-Alive
Bringing prehistory back to life
Recent Activity
Deviant for 7 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 119 Deviations 6,193 Comments 165,718 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Brachiosaur comparison :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 55 14
Literature
List of Biggest Dinosaurs
The largest dinosaur in terms of mass and volume is probably some sort of titanosaur. As of now.....
Here's how the biggest titanosaurs rank out in first-last place:
1. Tie between Alamosaurus (referred Mexican fibula + Fowler & Sullivan's neck centrum) and Puertasaurus (1 cervical, 1 dorsal, 2 unpublished caudals). Both of these animals were around 120+ ft. long and probably 100 tons.
2. Tie between Argentinosaurus and the "Chubut Monster". Both of these animals were probably pushing 110+ ft. long and 80-90 tons
3. Tie between Ruyangosaurus (cervical rib, anterior and posterior dorsals, additional unpublished dorsals, dorsal rib, upper femur, tibia), Notocolossus (dorsal and caudal vertebrae, foot, and limb elements) and "Argyrosaurus" (referred femur FMNH 13018) - probably between 75-90 tons. Ruyangosaurus may have gotten longer than 100 ft., Notocolossus and "Argyrosaurus" were probably not as long but still huge at 90+ ft.
4. Tie between Dreadnoughtus (majority of skeleton) and Par
:iconPaleo-King:Paleo-King
:iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 27 101
Supersaurus vivianae :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 74 34 So you want to draw Huanghetitanids? :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 62 32
Literature
Our March - 'Die Paleo-Kompanie'
(The new anthem of the Paleo-Nazis - to be sung to the tune of "Die Braune Kompanie" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYYDffIKC3k  any time you get trolled by "awesomebros" or other living Godwin's Law exhibits)
I still am young on years of life,
I still am far from death;
But I have witnessed “awesomebros”
attempt to choke our breath.
And though my luck does raise me up,
I give first thanks to thee:
I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!
I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!
Already some have been ripped off
From our Paleo-Korps
The bells of victory, now clang,
my arm and brush, exhort!
I swear and I renew that Oath
that Paleo-King did sing -
“I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!”
“I pledge to you my loyalty, O Paleo Company!”
So struggle forth like dinosaurs,
til Fraudsters' whining shall end;
Accuracy and copyrights,
with tooth and claw defend!
And Araucarias be strewn
Upon our victory!
Serve you, I shall, in loyalt
:iconPaleo-King:Paleo-King
:iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 11 7
Brachiosaur Death's Head :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 23 14 Giraffatitan brancai UNCENSORED! :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 99 44 Brachiosaurid skull comparison :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 76 14 Titanosaurs and other Somphospondyli :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 43 32 The Drinker :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 58 22 Sonorasaurus thompsoni :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 36 13 Cedarosaurus weiskopfae :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 55 40 British Brachiosaurs :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 119 16 Abydosaurus mcintoshi skeletal :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 96 42 Fusuisaurus zhaoi skeletal :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 54 73 Daanosaurus zhangi skeletal :iconpaleo-king:Paleo-King 57 14

Favourites

Chuanjiesaurus :iconjavifel:javifel 29 1 Giraffatitan :iconsteveoc86:Steveoc86 93 27 Brachs and Guests. :iconfranoys:Franoys 34 42 Young Queen / Chomper Skeletal :iconmrsamosaurus:MrSamosaurus 67 20 Destroyers :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 33 4 Oozing Lava :iconhitokirivader:hitokirivader 681 108 Tarbosaurus skeleton :iconszymoonio:Szymoonio 82 35 Alioramus altai :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 34 12 Angolatitan adamastor :iconjavifel:javifel 13 2 Erketu ellisoni :iconjavifel:javifel 23 11 Abrosaurus especulativo :iconjavifel:javifel 8 2 Diamantinasaurus matildae :iconjavifel:javifel 18 0 Pick and run :iconraph04art:Raph04art 992 46 Gigantomakhia :icongetawaytrike:GetAwayTrike 58 18 Mackillop's Southern Lizard :iconplastospleen:PLASTOSPLEEN 67 11 Sarmientosaurus :iconhyrotrioskjan:Hyrotrioskjan 319 90

Activity


I am working through some revamps to the earlier skeletals I have on here. Obviously Giraffatitan got a HUGE revamp with multi-views. The revised Andesaurus also got redone yet again a while back.

I just redid the Brachiosaurus skeletal too, fixed the skull - again.

Also on the workbench are Argentinosaurus, Paralititan, and of course Futalongkosaurus (actually quite far along on that one). Elaltitan will get its own skeletal, with more accurate proportions, and get bumped off the Argyrosaurus page - eventually.

Now revising old skeletals is all fun and good, but you might wonder, why not get it right the first time? Simple answer: lack of good photos/published diagrams to work from. As more images from better angles become available, we discover errors in old skeletals. With Giraffatitan, I didn't have access to the full Janensch papers for years after I did the first version. With Argentinosaurus and Paralititan, there are still very few good photos available of most of the bones with decent lighting and angles, and the description papers left out a lot of visual data. And of course with Futalognkosaurus there is still no final word on the actual measurements, proportions, or any literature on the two juvenile specimens and other referred material such as an allegedly complete tail for the holotype and an egg which may also be from Futalognkosaurus - there are only a couple informal photos and scant textual mention of these remains. Sadly, many titanosaur species are better viewed from amateur tourist photos on Pinterest or Instagram, than from anything published by actual scientists in the literature. Very few of them are visual thinkers, and fewer still bother to take photos of the stuff they work on (despite having smartphones and facebook). In this regard, the SV-POW guys seem to be the rare exception to the visual apathy of much of the field.

The reason so much stuff needs revision is that we can't be everywhere at once, and the people who are in the museums, rarely take or publish any good multi-view images of the fossils. You work with what you have (often times little more than amateur snapshots from bad angles), and when the guesswork to fill the gaps turns out to be wrong, you revise it. Or, you can just stick to doing skeletals of super-boring species that have been done to death with hundreds of hi-fi photos or diagrams from nose to tail, like Kaatedocus and Diplodocus. :XD: Anything that's actually interesting and not just another vanilla Diplodocus, Apatosaurus or Camarasaurus cousin, seems to always be horribly photographed, horribly mismeasured, or horribly restored (with plaster or otherwise), and stays that way for years or decades. Aside from things which are apparently still undergoing research, such as the French Monster and the Chubut Monster, earlier crucial finds are either locked behind paywalls, ignored/abandoned by science, or both.

* Argentinosaurus
- no multiview photos of the femurs, fibula, or hip material.
* "Antarctosaurus" giganteus - no multiview pics of anything in any paper.
* Paralititan
- no published photos of anything, and no casts of it besides the humerus. Did I mention the description was literally just one page long?!
* Futalognkosaurus
- 3 papers and still not a single consistent set of measurements or evaluation of referred specimens - and a terrible mishmash mount at the Royal Ontario Museum with Rapetosaurus head, Big Bend 'Alamosaurus' neck and scaled-up North Horn Alamosaurus caudals - contains almost NOTHING from Futa itself except a cast of the hips, despite consulting them on it they did not follow my advice.
* Dreadnoughtus - actually a decent paper, but very few published photos in multiview, and they are much lower resolution than the informal and press photos you can find on the internet (all from horrible angles) -at least they included a very nice 3d model though, which nobody else ever did with a titanosaur.
* Notocolossus - for once some good hi-fi photos, just scarce material.
* Puertasaurus
- decent drawings of the dorsal and photos of the cervical - but no images at all on the two caudals mentioned in the description - that's fully 50% of the holotype that may as well not exist!
* The Monster of Museo de La Plata - back in 1988 Greg Paul mentioned a huge though incomplete femur at the MLP which seemingly outclassed any dinosaur femur known at the time (this was before Argentinosaurus, but apparently bigger than "Antarctosaurus" giganteus). No catalog number was mentioned, and no photos or description were ever published.
* Fusuisaurus - basically you can count all the photos of the type specimen on your fingers. I know there isn't a lot of material, but there's literally only one or two grainy black-and-white pics per bone, and several of the bones mentioned in the paper have no photos at all. And before seeing any of it you have to pay $38 to multinational publishing cartel Wiley. For 4 pages and 7 awful photos.
* "Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum - first, there are photos of a full skeleton mount in a museum in Tokyo. Then Greg Paul does a full skeletal and a mass estimate in total confidence and boldly claims this is the biggest dinosaur ever. And then... he claims the specimen only consists of a couple of neck bones, and only puts a silhouette in his 2nd edition of the Princeton Field Guide. Presto! The giant dinosaur has disappeared from scientific reality faster than a rabbit in a top hat. I don't doubt that it's real (the Tokyo mount honestly looks to be casted form something that's undergone a bit of crushing and erosion) but it's little more than a hugely hyped replica with no percentages for the actual fossil's completeness, and no museum catalog number. There is still NO scientific paper on this animal, even now.
* "Xinghesaurus" - same story as above, only this one is smaller, likely a titanosaur, and didn't even get a blindly done Greg Paul skeletal.
* "Liaoningtitan" - apparently a very large euhelopodid, restored and mounted in Liaoning Museum but never described or published. Still known from only a couple of grainy photos.
* "Huanghetitan" ruyangensis - there is apparently a lot of neck material from additional specimens but aside from a single vertebra, none of it has even been published or formally referred. The huge femur also has never been published. Good luck figuring out if there's any truth to the horribly short neck included in the museum mounts. It looks to be cast from something, we just don't know what, and it's almost certainly from an animal much smaller than the holotype. Oh well... at least Chinese paleontologists actually designate holotypes (despite omitting to mention a ton of material from ostensibly the same individuals in the description paper), which is more than I can say for many western scientists in the recent past (heck even Lusotitan is nothing but a pile of lectotypes, none of which takes precedence over the others).
* Ruyangosaurus - a few pics of the initial 6 bones described, but nothing other than crappy internet snapshots of all the other vertebrae, ribs, and possible sacral material that was never mentioned in the paper! Oh wait, there is a display of the dorsals in some sharper online photos (amateur tourist pics of course) - with horrible plaster work, incorrect ordering of the bones, and possibly extra bones from a separate individual thrown in just for the heck of it. When 90% of what's been seen of this animal is only known from tourist pics or grainy press photos of the digsite, and totally IGNORED in the actual published literature, you have a problem.
* Alamosaurus - aside from the Big Bend specimen, which may not be Alamosaurus after all, there are very few photos of any neck or dorsal material, including the remains that Lehman and Coulson's skeletals were based on. Only a handful of the juvenile vertebrae were illustrated in their paper 2001, which included no photos at all. There is a lot of material lying in museums that is usually assumed to be Alamosaurus, most of which has never been photographed. The gigantic remains referred by Fowler and Sullivan only have a few photos from a couple angles, and the biggest specimen, the fibula from Mexico, is basically only known from a measurement. That's it.
* "Brachiosaurus" nougaredi - two super-grainy and distorted photos of the giant sacrum "ZR.2" still in the ground back in the 1950s, then it's never seen or heard about again. It was only included in a large survey of Algerian fossils by Albert-Felix de Lapparent, who mentioned in passing: "in spite of its size and fragility we were able to recover this element and transport it back to Paris" - but he never mentioned just where in Paris. There was no subsequent research done on this enigmatic sacrum, and there isn't even a record of which museum it's in, or if it still exists at all.
* And of course Bruhathkayosaurus - where do we even begin with this thing. Two overhyped, under-productive government paleontologists in India dig up what they claim to be the biggest dinosaur ever known, and for 30 years they leave it in the ground, only take three extremely blurry black-and-white photos of the "bones", draw a baby-skill sketch of them that makes no anatomical sense, alternately claim it's a Godzilla-sized theropod, pachycephalosaur, and finally sauropod, and then a few years ago the thing just happens to conveniently "wash away in a monsoon flood" and nobody ever took a decent color photo of any of it. In over 30 years. If it was legit, you'd think these guys would be either writing a book on it or at least taking a pile of polaroids if they didn't have digital cameras, and mailing them to researchers abroad, at least do SOMETHING in all those 30 years.

Meanwhile we are for some reason up to our eyeballs in hi-fi photos and open-source papers on just about every vanilla "this one looks so much like the last one" Morrison diplodocid you can think of (except the ones that are still a bit unique, like Seismosaurus). But good luck finding anything verifiable on Ruyangosaurus, Fusuisaurus, Huanghetitan, or even the 30+ Brachiosaurus specimens besides the holotype and the Potter Creek one, without paying out the nose for a 6-page paper with a handful of crappy and possibly mis-scaled photos. The species that really matter for understanding the truly dark and murky parts of the Sauropod family tree, get horrible scientific coverage, if any at all. Meanwhile everything that looks like a Diplodocus clone gets the Red Carpet Treatment in full HD megapixel resolution.

There is probably an axiom here... the more interesting, gigantic, and taxonomically significant the species (for our understanding of sauropod evolution), the worse the photographic record and published literature on it tends to be - and the less work tenured professors (in general) can be bothered to do on any of it. Call it Sassani's Law.

deviantID

Paleo-King
Nima
Artist | Professional | Traditional Art
United States
Current Residence: A dinosaur museum/bone bed near you
deviantWEAR sizing preference: Somewhere between Otto Arco and Louis Cyr
Favourite style of art: that's rather self-evident...
Operating System: Anything but Vista!
Skin of choice: mammalian, watertight, preferably soft, hairless and well-insulated
Personal Quote: "It must be new or bust!"

I am a Paleo-Artist and Independent Paleontologist. I aim for both accuracy and elegance in my visual time-travel back to the Mesozoic, as is the case we observe in nature today. I have been featured in blogs, twitter, and even in a few very good books.

All images are my own copyrights unless explicitly noted otherwise. If you are interested in commissioning work or using any of my images in a paper, book, presentation or website, drop me a line at Paleo_King@hotmail.com.

Website: www.sassani-dinoart.com/

Blog:
Interests

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2017
Earlier you mentioned fast quadrupedal dinosaurs...those included ceratopsians, hadrosaurs, anything else?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
It depends on how you define "fast".

Even sauropods and possibly some thyreophorans could easily outrun a human give enough open space. Especially long-limbed brachiosaurs with a big stride length, and flexible basal thyreophorans like Scelidosaurus or Huayangosaurus (though for totally different reasons).

However if you mean cursorial quadrupeds that are built for sustained running (flexed standard posture in the joints), then that includes ceratopsians, hadrosaurs, large iguanodontids (think Ouranosaurus and Lanzhousaurus), and... that's pretty much it!

Unless we start seriously discussing the theory that some theropods like Spinosaurus or Therizinosaurus were quadrupedal, but I don't buy that notion, and also even if I'm wrong, they still wouldn't be fast, they weren't exactly super-fast even as bipeds, and they would have been far slower as quadrupeds.
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Edited Mar 11, 2017
Alright.

Also, I've been wondering. How would you summarize the issues with Hutchinson's old Tyrannosaurus speed paper? From what I recall, one part had something to do with using a chicken as a model or something (I especially need that explained more)? I believe I also remember knees being too straight. I'm not sure if it took elastic tendons and ligaments into account or the "resonant spring-like effect of the torso and tail" (as GSP said in the Princeton Field Guide), or even tail muscles. Is that it?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
Hutchinson's issues are too many to name the full list. The highlights go roughly like this:

1. He was basically trying to reconstruct some very stiff T. rex legs, not quite as straight as elephants but close. This of course would require disarticulating the knee joint in T. rex. How's that for crippling arthritis...

2. Then he was also trying to reconstruct the musculature of T. rex based on domestic chickens (which have been bred for thousands of years to be short-legged, slow, and fat as possible - though with mixed success). Not ostriches, not cassowaries, not pheasants or secretary birds... not even roadrunners - but squat, waddling domestic chickens. At least he didn't use ducks :XD:

3. And then he was overbulking the tail base (caudofemoralis muscles) like a crocodile because apparently that is the only way you can make a runner out of a T. rex with elephant-legs and chicken-muscle mass proportions (even though crocs only have that huge bulge on the tail base because their tails are aquatic propulsion devices - which a T. rex tail was most certainly not).

4. Then he claimed that even this wasn't enough to move those stiff elephantized (and disarticulated!) legs and short-stride chicken muscles very fast, and that for T. rex to run at all, it needed 90% of its mass in the legs. Well, what did Hutchinson expect? It's as if he violated every rule of non-avian theropod anatomy, even the structural integrity of the knee joint itself, just to make running impossible for an animal that's clearly built as a runner. Well yeah... shop owners in 1920s Brooklyn who didn't pay the mob and got capped in the knee, typically couldn't run very well afterwards either.


Am I the only one here who is wondering, when people like Horner and Huchinson will actually start allowing a T. rex to just be a T. rex... and not all these other things that look nothing like it?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2017
Hey Paleo-King. I was wondering about two things.

1.) I'm still curious about what I asked you earlier about mega theropod limb bone strength:

What I'm confused about by the study [Christiansen, 2000] is that the femora of giant theropods were apparently not stronger than the femora and humeri of elephants. But elephants have columnar limbs where resistance to compressional force is emphasized. By contrast, theropods didn't have such columnar legs and their femora would have been more subject to bending and torsional forces.

This notion seems to be further supported when you compare the femur/humerus diaphyses of mega theropods and proboscideans. On a forum, someone (who btw is on dA) pointed out to me that Sue had a femur circumference of 580 mm (per the Tyrant King) while the humerus and femur circumferences of a 10.5 tonne steppe mammoth were 512 and 491 mm, respectively. That's pretty darn impressive when you consider the fact that Sue was less massive than such a mammoth. To add to this, mammoth and mastodon limb bones apparently had markedly greater midshaft diameters than do those of modern elephants (link). That the femora of giant theropods ended up having strength indicator values on par with those of elephants surprised me. Any explanations?


2.) If some herbivorous dinosaurs (e.g. sauropods) couldn't chew like mammalian herbivores, did they have another way of increasing the amount of nutrients out of the plants they ate?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
1. It's no surprise that T. rex has robust limb bones. However raw circumference can only tell you so much (as in, not very much at all). What really matters with those torsional forces is the shape of the femur, not just the circumference. The reason that a big tyrannosaur had limb strength comparable to steppe mammoths despite less mass, is that it was running at much higher speeds and thus incurring harder impacts through the whole leg. The faster you hit the ground, the more stress or "artificial weight" you place on the bones and joints. T. rex's condyles indicate that not only was the bone very strong, but also it had insane amounts of cartilage in the knees and hips by the standards of any modern mammal. Of course since we don't have too many 7-ton biped animals running around today there's really no perfect living analogue. But that is the main reason why the leg is so strong despite the animal having less mass than the biggest elephant species that ever lived - much of that bone strength was not for supporting the mass at all, but rather for running.

Look at how giant alloauroids had more slender legs and a generally more low-slung body design, they didn't have T. rex's level of femur robustness and this is probably because they moved slower and were mainly hunting sauropods.

2. Sauropods had a gizzard like modern birds and they were swallowing stones to help grind the food in the gizzard, this released more nutrients. Many specimens have been found with "clasts" or gastroliths in place in the rib cage. Back when Bakker wrote The Dinosaur Heresies, it was mainly diplodocids that were found with them, so for a time it was popularly believed (not due to Bakker, but rather the assumptions of fans who read too much into Bakker) that brachiosaurs and other big-toothed sauropods didn't need them - but with Cedarosaurus and Sonorasaurus we know that brachiosaurs were swallowing stones too, they had more teeth and bigger teeth than diplodocids and were biting off tougher food, but these still were NOT chewing teeth. I would be interested to see what sort of clasts titanosaurs had, or how many, given how wide their rib cages were.
Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2017
1.) Ahhh, I think I get it. So, because femur shape also has to be taken into account (Tyrannosaurus' femur was curved IIRC, while the proximal limb bones of proboscideans aren't), those strength indicator values for Tyrannosaurus' femur are actually misleading when it comes to determining how fast it could run? Right?

2.) Weren't there some authors who argued that sauropod gastroliths weren't actually used for digestion?
Reply
:iconpaleo-king:
Paleo-King Featured By Owner Edited Mar 2, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
1. Exactly. T. rex limb bone strength was as much to resist the shear forces of a fast run as to support its mass. Elephants don't have to deal much with the former as they are not cursorial runners.

2. I'm not aware of these authors but I would be interested to know more about them. If sauropod gastroliths were not for digestion then that leaves a mystery as to what they were for. Other than calcium carbonate rocks being useful for neutralizing a bad case of acid reflux (which I don't think was common in sauropods since they weren't downing any Tabasco), digestion seems the only logical reason for swallowing stones in the first place.

We know that plesiosaurs also had gastroliths and there is a theory that they used them as ballast when diving... but they were swimmers with fins so this doesn't carry over to landlubber sauropods at all. And even in marine reptiles this idea is problematic, as plesiosaurs in particular were not built for extreme depths and are mostly found in places that were shallow inland seas. Also having to vomit rocks just to rise up to the surface to breathe makes little sense... as does the paradox of how a surface-swimming plesiosaur that "needs" belly ballast to dive deep would be able to get it without diving deep first! Unless by going to shallow waters near the beach, but this would make a single dive a needlessly extended journey over many miles back and forth for each new ballast run / dive.

Most likely plesiosaurs also used them for digestion just like crocodiles today. Eating gastroliths or just plain gravel for digestion seems to be a basal archosaur habit that went along with the gizzard... chickens and many other birds still do it today, as do crocs.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconpaleo-reptiles:
Paleo-reptiles Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2017
my friend, Nima

Please tell me your personal opinion about my idea :) Thank you


Dinosaurs or Mammals, which one adopt with earth the better?

Did Dinosaurs were king of mesozoic world ? I do not think :) Dinosaurs just were successful in land. They rent sea and rivers to reptiles. Dinosaurs were good swimmers but they cannot adopt for life in sea .... in Mesozoic, the sea belong to marine reptiles but dinosaurs did not have portion of living into sea. Even, Dinosaurs did not have portion in rivers. Crocodiles have been kings of rivers since they appear ...in the world until now.

Dinosaurs have feather but they cannot get sky. in Mesozoic world, Pterosaurs were king of sky. Pterosaurs were reptiles that their body were covered with fur for keeping their body warm in low tempreature of the height. Although Dinosaurs were origin of birds but Dinosaurs never able to fly to sky. raptors morphology were good for jumping on prey but do not good for fly. Even, first birds like Archaeopteryx that was created from dinosaurs, cannot fly like birds of our world.


Dinosaurs were successful in Mesozoic because their advance system of their pelvic gave them this chance movement in land. long migration ability adopt dinosaurs with new places on the earth. the previous kings of land, mammle- like reptiles, with different pelviceand movement system cannot perform same migration and this issue made success Dinosaurs since they were appear in earth.


mammals not only move in land like mammal-like reptiles and dinosaurs, but also, they can fly in sky, live in sea and even rivers. They adopt with earth better than previos kings. However, some Humans for having the more portion, change life rules and move the life in earth toward extinction!

Reply
:icondinopithecus:
Dinopithecus Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2017
I don't think it's really all that fair to compare dinosaurs and mammals in terms of what niches both have occupied. Mammals comprise a whole class while dinosaurs are just one clade in a class. Therefore, comparing mammals with dinosaurs may just be analogous to comparing reptiles with gondwanatheres.

In light of the fact that there were many other reptile clades (besides dinosaurs) "ruling the planet", I think a more fair comparison may be between reptiles as a whole and mammals.
Reply
Add a Comment: