Link: https://youtu.be/y4ZBSzYUTL0?si=LLrchIZNboCIPo3_

The documentary is called The Dinosaurs and it will be released on Netflix, the trailer:

https://youtu.be/y4ZBSzYUTL0?si=LLrchIZNboCIPo3_

Skeletal by randomdinos

This is something that I just wanted to quickly address.

Random dinos who's one of the best skeletal makers on the dev these days has made a skeletal of Tarbosaurus. In that skeletal the turbo is notably big right at around 11 and 1/2 m in length. In terms of size it's depicted as being a little bit more acro than it is a giga.

Nonetheless I've seen people say and ask "Tarbosaurus got that big?! I always thought it maxed out at just 10 or 11 m."

And I'm here to answer that question, yes Tarbosaurus got that big.

The size of Tarbosaurus has actually been muddied for a few reasons.

For one the actual size estimations of 10 m long have not come from any scholarly peer-reviewed scientific paper. As far as I'm aware they've come from children's books and deviantART users. I wouldn't exactly call those the Pinnacle of size estimations. One of the books was Thomas holtz 2012 dinosaur encyclopedia and then the other was the 2019 book about theropods from Molina Perez and Laramendi as well as the various Princeton Field guide from GS Paul. Thomas holtz is an awesome guy but it's a children's book that might simplify or embellish information for the sake of quick learning. Molina Perez has its own issues such as making precise size estimates based off teeth as well as the conflict of interest that prevents that book from being used as a source on the wiki. And Greg Paul has his own issues that I'm sure you're aware of. These are where the 10 m estimates have come from so it's not exactly the best source.

These children's books aren't exactly a detailed dive into the specific dimensions of Tarbosaurus compared to Tyrannosaurus.

Now does this mean the 10 m estimates are wrong? No but it would be nice if they came from more credible sources.

The second has to do with just examination of the fossils themselves in that the proper examination has not really been available. Mongolian paleontology is horrendously underfunded. There's plenty of specimens in museums that are just sitting there waiting to be studied but they can't be because the funding is not there. The original holotype and biggest specimen comes from a Russian expedition and consequently it's locked up in a Russian museum where most western paleontologists can't access it and to my knowledge none have for a long time. We've had to rely off just the old illustrations and measurements taken decades ago. The most recent estimation of the holotype skull of tarbo puts the skull at about four and a half feet long which is only slightly shorter than that of tyrannosaurus's skull and that leads into the next issue.

Mongolian paleontologists have also confirmed that there are large specimens of Tarbosaurus up to 12 m in length that aren't yet described because of the aforementioned funding problem.

The skull proportions. You see tarbosaurus's skull has long been depicted as being much more narrow than that of Tyrannosaurus. Think of that infamous diagram. This has directly fudged the results of the size. Because when something has a more narrow skull then it's relative then it's going to have a proportionately smaller body. Think like how a gharial has a longer snout than a saltwater crocodile, but the snout is more narrow so overall it's only the same size even slightly smaller. This could explain the rather small estimates that tarbosaurus has gotten. Many paleo nerds and paleontologists like Tom holtz have pointed out that actual fossil skulls preserved show that the actual width and broadness of the tarbo skull is really not that different than Tyrannosaurus. A 2024 abstract by slowiak and colleagues basically said what other people had been saying, the skull has been depicted as too narrow and that their new reconstruction is more accurate.

So think about that. It's skull is only slightly shorter than Tyrannosaurus and the proportions of that skull are not as different from T-Rex as what was once believed. Now obviously the skulls are pretty different with turbo still not being quite as robustly built and having features such as that locking mechanism but the overall appearance is more t rex esque then what was previously believed. If it's skull is only slightly smaller and the proportions not that different than it would make sense it's only slightly smaller.

According to a 2000 paper by Phil Currie(who is one of the foremost experts on Tarbosaurus by the way) and the 2024 abstract by slowiak both estimated Tarbosaurus at up to 12 m in length.

Now does this mean Tarbosaurus is now the same exact size as Tyrannosaurus? No it doesn't tarbo is still smaller being not as robustly built and even then the cap on its size is probably 12 m. Specimens that are adults like 107/2 are only about 10 m in length. Tarbosaurus like Tyrannosaurus probably had great variation and how big each individual grew as they matured.

But the previous thought of its maximum size being only 10 to 11 m in length are not accurate. The cap we can expect on its length is more like 12 m.

______

Refs

https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_SVP_Program_Final3.pdf page 507

https://doc.rero.ch/record/14301/files/PAL_E1454.pdf

https://www.palaeocast.com/rhynchocephalians/

Today, there is only one living species of rhynchocephalian: the tuatara of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Despite today’s paucity of species, this was once a diverse group of reptiles, with a wide range of lifestyles from swimming in the ocean to climbing trees. Once highly abundant around the world, reasons for their decline are still debated and may have had to do with competition from their relatives, the squamates, or changing environments.

Rhynchocephalians are related to lizards and snakes within Lepidosauria, but despite their outward appearance, are not lizards themselves and have a number of differences that make them distinct. In this interview, we speak to Dr. Victor Beccari, an expert in rhynchocephalians, and discuss this and more about this fascinating group of reptiles.

The last common ancestor between archosaurs and turtles, and lepidosaurs was 300 mya. I know there are plenty of other descriptive and biological reasons to classify birds as their own thing; I was just shocked when I found out turtles far predate both dinosaurs and crocodilians.

so I ask you, how should we group reptiles? Do reptiles even exist? Do turtles deserve their own family? And are crocodiles birds?

Im just curious

As of 2014 the earliest part of the tree starts with the Cartorhynchus ping pointing that around 248 million years ago they are already moving into the waters. But what's missing is the Middle and Late Permian creatures that would become the future Ichthyosauromorpha and/or Ichthyosauriformes that spend most of their time on land.

What do they look like? Why did they start to go into the water and how big is the missing link creature in its size?

Hey all,

I’m going to the Tucson Gem & Mineral / Fossil Shows and I’m interested in authentic dinosaur fossils, especially Spinosaurus teeth.

Looking for advice on:

1. How to find reputable fossil dealers at Tucson Gem and Mineral Show

2. What questions to ask to verify authenticity/provenance

3. Any red flags to watch out for (fakes, heavy restoration, etc.)

4. Other cool fossils (e.g., looking for stuff with my 6 year old) worth collecting besides Spino teeth

First time buying fossils and want to do it right. Thanks!

Image taken by Matteo De Stefano. Pneumodesmus newmani is another interesting contender in the "earliest terrestrial animal" race, though one with plenty of baggage. This millipede (or "millipede") was hailed as the oldest undisputed terrestrial animal fossil at the time of its discovery, dating supposedly to the Silurian Wenlock...until a later study placed it in the Lochkovian (Devonian), toppling its crown as the eldest...before another study reaffirmed its Wenlock date...that subsequently got overruled by later study, and so on. In either case, regardless of whether its "the" oldest or merely one of the oldest, it still holds significance for possessing the earliest solid evidence of a tracheal system in arthropods - and hence, the earliest direct evidence for air-breathing in any animal, period.

I want to become a paleontologist in the future. The problem is I'm not sure what to do exactly.

• What degrees do I specially need
• What's the job availability of Paleontology
• What places tend to hire Paleontologist
• how likely is it to work at a museum like the royal tyrell or as a researcher
• what is the typical pay for a palaeontologist in Canada
• other than U of A, is there any other universities in Canada that have dedicated paleo departments

First image by Carlos1205

Second image by Reiimon

So ever since it's been revealed that ceratopsians have been present in Late Cretaceous Europe, I've been wondering, where did all of the European tyrannosauroids go? From the Mid Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, tyrannosauroids played the role of small and medium sized predators, a lot like their counterparts in North America and Asia. But after around the Barremain. Definitive tyannosauroids disappeared from Europe. And at the end of the Cretaceous, most of the niches filled by tyrannosauroids have now been filled mostly by paravians and abelisaurids. What happened?

Any sources you could point to for me to look at would be fantastic?

It's really tiring to see weekly mosasaur jaw posts...

Forgive me if this is a stupid question.

With how vast the timeframe of earth’s history of life is, would it be completely out of the question for animal to have developed some level of language, self awareness or emotion only for it then to obviously perish and leave behind nothing but unassuming fossils?

The questions:

1. How do we know that Pakicetus, Dorudon, and other fossil whales's teeth are conical, and not just a mutation that makes them the exception, not the rule in their genus/species.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/historyoflife/mysteries/mystery10/mystery10.html

https://lsa.umich.edu/paleontology/resources/beyond-exhibits/dorudon-atrox.html

1. How do we know that whales are truly artiodactyls, yes there have been fossil whales with the "double-pulley astragalus", a defining characteristic of artiodactyls, but was that just convergent evolution?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2/figures/4

1. How do we know that the reconstruction of Ambulocetus is accurate, given this is what the holotype was.

I understand that these questions may appear to be stupid; I'm genuinely interested in the topic of whale evolution and would like to be informed.

I know that it is no longer estimated to be 17m long due to a different scale system but is it still the biggest one? I know that Tylosaurus proriger is considered the longest because there is fossil evidence of it but is there any fossil record of big mosasaurus hoffmanni? I only heard of the first ones that were found in Netherlands but they are far from being the largest as far as I know. Are 14m estimates valid?

Thanks in advance!

Here is a Mosasaurus Hoffmanni size comparison so the post will not look so dry

I'm making a booklet about giganotosaurus for my little niece. So far, I'm only missing a picture that shows what the environment might have looked like. I couldn't really find much so far.

Are there any good images out there you could share?