Everyone, this debate about the Spinosaur VS. Tyrannosaur is, and I hate to admit it, silly. We know next to nothing about these great creatures, so we don't know if T.Rex or Spinosaurus would win in a fight, if that was even possible. I'm not taking sides, because I love all dinosaurs, and don't think I'm trying to be dominant, I'm just neutral. (Although we all know that T.Rex could EASILY beat Spinosaur)
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; June 14, 2001

JP 1, 2, and 3, are made for entertainment (I think.). No offence to anyone. Besides I don't think they really care, they just want to make the dinos look big & scary so they can make lots of $$. Although I think they should make them as realistic as possable.
from Katie V., age 13, Tabernacle, NJ, U.S.A.; June 14, 2001

A lot of the T-Rex fans are worried that the Spinosaurus may be the top predatory dinosaur. That the "falsified" Spino in JP3 doesn't deserve it's fame. I totally disagree.

In my opinion, the Spinosaurus is the top hunter. Also, I don't even think T-Rex would come in second. The raptors would be in second.

First off, a lot of people think the Spino eats fish because of its long snout and jaw. But, it has the same jaw as a crocodile. Crocs eat meat and big animals. I believe the Spino does to.

I don't believe that if these two dinos, the Spino and Rex, would ever fight one another. If they did, however, the Spino would probably go for the neck say scientists. And I don't care just how strong the Rexes jaws are, once the Spino gets his jaws around the Rexes neck and starts thrashing it around the neck....the Rex has no chance.

The Spinosaurus is supposedly one of the smartest dinosaurs, along with the Carnosaurs.

As for the "falsified" Spino in Jurassic Park 3, I think that if there was only one good skeleton of him, nobody really knows just how big this Dino is. Especially since recently, scientists found bones that suggest the Spino could of grown up to 60+ feet long! What falsified things do you see. I believe since we don't know, it isn't falsified at all. We don't know how aggresive or vicious it is, but any animal with half a brain would know not to mess with that! Personally, not that they would, but the Spino would slaughter the T-Rex in a battle. The Spino was bigger, stronger, probably smarter, and probably more aggresive seeing that the T-Rex is smaller and has sticks of celery for arms.
from Nick, age 21, Brooklin, New York, U.S.; June 14, 2001

Flying lizards? Pterosaurs are far from lizards...
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

I've played Dino Crisis 2...
But anyways, Sean, Carnotaurus and Abelisaurus are not the same genus...that should be obvious. They aren't really even that similar-looking (Abelisaurus being hornless).
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

SABI, I never said anything about jp3 helping the public's view of dinosaurs--of course, we don't know how it will help since it isn't even out yet! Jurassic Park (you know, the FIRST movie) immensely improved the accuracy of the public's view of dinosaurs.
And if we want to watch a dinosaur documentary, we have "Walking with Dinosaurs," and stuff like that. We don't like Jurassic Park for that reason! Who cares if it isn't scientifically immaculate? That's not why they made it!!!
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

And oh yeah hee hee to make laughter you need to go hea!Hea!
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 14, 2001

Wait a minute carnotaurus is going to be jp3!? COOL!
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 14, 2001

Oh it is possible to recreate the dinosaurs! Maybe not now but in the future! Right now we just need support.
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 14, 2001

Let the GTVA Colossus tell you something!

I shall give you three reasons why T.rex is better then Spinosaurus

1. Life Experience
T.rex has spent his entire life fighting the deadly herbivores like Triceratops and Ankylosaurus, and he is known to fight other T.rexes too. He knows the pins. He knows the punches. He knows the fake falling. T.rex knows it all.

2. Continuous Winning
T.rex has won nearly every fight he has been in. This obviously makes T.rex the stronger between himself and Spinosaurus. Why, you heretics may ask, why? Because out of all the dinosaurs the mighty and deadly Ankylosaurus and Triceratops worried about, was it Spinosaurus (lets just say they met)? Of course not! It was everyone's favorite lizard, T.rex, and that says a lot. Spinosaurus just picked on smaller dinosaurs who could not fight back. Oh, that's hard.

3. Title Dictates Authority
T.rex has two name factors that shall make him the greatest. If you could choose between the names of Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus, what would you choose? Tyrannosaurus. Sure, Spinosaurus may have some weird Latin meaning that might be nice, but that just leads up to my next point. Tyrannosaurus is a king: Tyrant King of the Dinosaurs. Spinosaurus is just whatever his lame name says, and that's not saying much. 'Nuff said!
from Nichol N., age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Look at the T-beast. He's practically his own military. He's stomped on the Ankylosaurus army (which, I agree is no great feat,) crushed the Duckbill navy, swatted the big-flying-lizards air force, laid waste to entire dinosaur populations, not to mention the various foolish dinosaurs that have tried to impede on his Trademarked riots. Clearly, Tyrannosaurus is ready for anything! Hell, he can fight (army,) he can fly (airforce,) he can walk underwater (navy,) he can bite through virtually anything. He's a walking meat grinder with an attitude. We should be declaring Tyrannosaurus his own mobile militant state bent on human humility.

Then there is Spinosaurus. He's spent his life bullying others who cannot fight back. The only opposition he's faced is way smaller dinosaurs lashing out with their weak, frail limbs at him. Ouch. ooh. pain. Let's face it. He's soft, confused, and incapable of a decent fight. Hell, he'll probably lose his composure simply trying to deal with a few fly-boys totin' pea shooters. Besides...if he has remembered the occasion he had encountered a more powerful dinosaur (not unlike T-man), he's likely to have remembered his traumatic experience and lose the edge on self-consciousness. (Home court is not necessarily an advantage here.)

Face it. Without a 20 foot Ray gun and a huge jetpack, Spinosaurus is walking to his funeral.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Lets obey the instinct to defend T.Rex aggressively.

Bigger Spinosaurus? You kidding? If Spinosaurus got any bigger, its sail would be too unwieldy to allow it to move effectively. Besides Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus were already at the limit for an effective land based predator, so the only way I can see Spinosaurus getting much bigger then these carnivores is when its a scavenger!

Besides Spinosaurus conocial teeth are hardly injuring Tyrannosaurus, the Tyrannosaurus is angry enough to will open their White-House- Eating, Empire-State-Building-Eliminating, Kremlin-Krushing, Big-Ben- Bending, Hague-Holocausting, LA-Lambasting, Versaille-Vandalizing, Quebec-Qruching, Sydney-Swallowing, Peking-Ducking, Big Momma Brand Ultra Kill-O-ZAP Richter-Scale 15 Whammo-Super Jaw (tm Roget Technology) and blow the ever-loving collectivist authoritarian waste product out of the Spinosaurus with one bite!!! One bite from Tyrannosaurus will surely break some bones in the lightly-built Spinosaurus and while dinosaurus can fight with torn skin or flesh, they couldn't walk if they had a bone that was totally smashed.

Tyrannosaurus is 5 bites.
from Demean, age ?, Ok. City, Ok., USA; June 14, 2001

Man, I'm posting alot today, but I think I'll do some pictures myself soon, watch for them!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

"I read that scientists found bones that belonged to the Spino that if the measurements were correct, then this Spino would be bigger than any known T-Rex or Giganotosaurus."

Once again, I can't help but notice that this statement is not terribly accucrate. Spinosaurus, being a spinosaur, was actually very light for its size. Saving the illusion of its sail, it was actually a very slim dinosaur. T.Rex or Giganotosaurus were built considerabily heavier, with barrel-chests and heavy tails. I have no idea what you mean by bigger, but really, Spinosaurus was not built for any close-in work like T.Rex or Giganotosaurus and would not, I repeat, would not hold its own! It's better running away!

While I find their aggressive demeanour irrating, I am forced to conclude with Students Against Blatant Ignorance. Size here hardly matters as its akin to compairing a Diplodocus with a Brachiosaurus. Size is really hard to measure, and I'm sure what the scientists were saying that the Spinosaurus is "bigger" in was actually length, not actual weight. A Spinosaurus would really have to be big (in excess of 20 meters!) to match up in weight with T.Rex or Giganotosaurus. And in any case, pound for pound, T.Rex or Giganotosaurus could easily overpower it. Though I find any confrotation unlikely, I say Spinosaurus, being the light weight and light-hitter it was, best avoid a fight with the harder biting, stronger predators of its time.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Say, I was reading the dialouge in the latest installment of Counterstrike and noticed that the ' was a little screwy. What up?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Spinosaurus vs. T.Rex? I though that was resolved a long time ago.

Anyway, please refrain from posting anymore on this matter, its clear enough that T.Rex could easily defeat a Spinosaurus anytime, anywhere ;)
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Ever heard of this prehistoric elephant called mammut?Resembled Anancus but larger.
from Donovan c., age 11, ?, singapore, ?; June 14, 2001

The Pteranodon with teeth was a mistake by someone in Stan Winston's studios. It has been corrected.

The Ballad of Big Al was quite disappointing, but it was still good.
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Very few Spinosaur skeletons have been found. None are complete.
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 14, 2001

Hee hee...saying Spinosaurus can defeat T.Rex is like saying a monkey armed with a stick can defeat a man driving a tank. :)
from Hee...hee, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

You kidding? JP3 is really helping the dinosaur ignorant public by convincing them they are super-smart? And man oh man how come there are teeth on one of those flying lizards? I thought they were supposed to be toothless?
from SABI, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

Are you kidding? Spinosaurus was never a match for the super-predator designs. Its long arms were better made for fishing and its body was laterally compressed, meaning that even if it was 20 meters long, it would have weighted less then a T.Rex that was only 13 meters long. Spinosaurus had a crocidilian with 3 centimeter fish snaring teeth. That thing was a fisher and scavenger, hardly the fierce predator JP3 makes it out to be. T.Rex would kick its butt anythime, anyday. In fact, there is very little evidence pointing that Spinosaurus was a deadly hunter at all, virtually everythign we see suggests it just an oversized fishing dinosaur. Saying a Spinosaurus is bigger is hardly a good compairism as T.Rex would have been far meaner than any Spinosaurus bigger (or longer) then it.

Also Spinosaurus having what it takes to take on T.Rex? Come on! Think harder! T.Rex is TOUGH! Spinosaurus is NOT! From what we know, Spinosaurus was lightly built for its size, and its slender head gave little muscle attatchments for biting hard. T.Rex D-shaped teeth were perfect for crushing bone and we know that it could exert up to 3 tons of force and recent tests prove that its teeth could wistand up to over 19 tons of force before failing! Also, terrible healed injuries we find on T.Rex indicate this dinosaurus was incrediblly tough. T.Rex survived broken necks, smashed compound fractures of BOTH legs in one animal and even a hole in the brain case. In all cases we have evidence that the animal survived to recover fully. Any of these injuries would have finished just about any dinosaur in the world, and Spinosaurus light framed construction would be totally smashed.

So there is no way a Spinosaurus could take on T.Rex. What you see in JP3 is nuts. A single bite from Spinosaurus would have been laughed off by T.Rex (who is used to taking bites from other T.Rexes) And one bite from T.Rex would just about mortally wounded Spinosaurus. Theres no way Spinosaurus can win! It's like saying a fly the same size as a lizard is a match for it!
from S.A.B.I, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

I know I'm a little behind on this. Anyway, I personally think that nobody knows exactly how vicious a Spinosaurus was. Or even how strong the Spino may have been. Nobody knows how it hunted or if it hunted other dinosaurs or fish. It has the snout and jaw of a crocodile-like animal and I think it can hold its own against any dinosaur.

Since there was only one good skeleton, we don't even know exactly how big it can be. There is probably bigger ones...much bigger. I read that scientists found bones that belonged to the Spino that if the measurements were correct, then this Spino would be bigger than any known T-Rex or Giganotosaurus.

As for the Spinosaurus in JP3, I think it deserves all the fame it will recieve. As I said before, we don't know exactly how big he was or how vicious the Spinosaurus was. I do believe that it can take down a T-Rex if it needed to. Although, I doubt that they would even fight eachother. Example is that a lion never fights with a tiger. I am not taking strong sides though as I love both the Spino and Rex. I am just saying what I believe.

Peace.
from Nick N., age 24, Iselin, New Jersey, U.S.; June 13, 2001

DINOS ARE COOL
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ja, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy; June 13, 2001

"No kidding Brad but carnotaurus and abelisaurus are still two different species of the same genus"

Carnotaurus and Abelisaurus ARE genera! The type species of Abelisaurus is A. comahuensis, the type species of Carnotaurus is C. sastrei. Abelisaurus and Carnotarus are in the same family, though.

"And i'm realy curious about whether or not you advocate recreating the dinosaurs."

I'd advocate it if I felt it was possible.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 13, 2001

No kidding Brad but carnotaurus and abelisaurus are still two different species of the same genus. And i'm realy curious about whether or not you advocate recreating the dinosaurs. You see Brad i'm huge dino fan just like you. I want to recreate the dinosaurs so badly that i'll do it no holds barred! At any rate giganotosaurus as opposed to carcharodontosaurus has been getting some fame lately on dino crisis2! Man that is an awsome game! Have any of you guys ever played dino crisis2? If you havent you'r realy missing something! I was a little reluctant to buy it at first because it set up to kill dinosaurs but then i thought to myself it's just a game. Talk about crazy dinosaurs the dinosaurs on that game are nuts! In addition to being predictable they are'nt as well detailed as the ones on jurassic park. Heck there's one point in the game where you'll find a giganotosaurus that destroys a nuclear warhead just to kill you!
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 13, 2001

Sorry if I was unclear, the "either way" I was referring to was _Halticosaurus_ being related to _Liliensternus_ and _Dilophosaurus_ (Halticosaurini?) or being synonymous to _Liliensternus_. I also never said that _Halticosaurus_ was a "prosauropod," but could be closely related to the "herrerasaur-like" "prosauropods." Sorry for being ambiguous.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

My Fulengia should be up in the picture page soon. The holotype skull appears very crushed and fragmentary- and it was cnsidered a lizard when the material was illustrated- this was a difficult animal to restore! Did I do okay? I think the camera angle shortened the snout a bit.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 13, 2001

Disney's recent Dinosaur movie has abelisaurs in it. JP/// will also briefly feature Carnotaurus (It's true!)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 13, 2001

Halticosaurus isn't called a nomen dubium in Dinosaurs: the Encyclopedia, but you're probably right. I'm not sure what you mean by 'either way, it would be a ceratosaur'. If its a prosauropod, it can't be a ceratosaur! If it isn't Halticosaurus, what is the "hererrasaur-like prosauropod"?

You didn't object to my placement of Megalosauridae... interesting.

My cladogram (at least the re-posting, the first one is kind of messed up) does show the ceratosaur + tetanure clade as the siter group to Hererrasauria, I just didn't name it. Neotheropoda (Bakker 1986?) really only applies to this cladogram:

Theropoda
|--Hererrasaurs
|--Coelophysoids
Neotheropoda
|--Neoceratosauria
`--Tetanurae ("Avipoda")

If you use Ceratosauria to include coelophysoids and neoceratosaurs, "Neotheropoda" doesn't apply in its original meaning. I haven't decided yet which way I'm going to classify the coelophysids and neoceratosaurs.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 13, 2001

Hmm..I think I said "1991" in that last post. If I did, I meant "1993."
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

I agree with Brad about the JP "raptors." And anyways, it's just fiction, and if they made a perfect scientifically accurate embodiment of a dinosaur for JP3, in two years it would probably be outdated anyways, somehow. Remember, the JP "Velociraptor antirrhopus" were pretty scientific for 1991, besides the blatant lack of feathers. The arms were a little off too, but back then even Greg Paul restored the hands that way. And despite how much we all want to criticize Jurassic Park for not being perfect, it actually helped the public's view of dinosaurs more than any other movie in history. At least now people know that they weren't all gigantic or carnivorous (remember those fierce meat-eating Triceratops from the seventies movies??).
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

Sorry, Brad, I didn't see that cladogram the first time you posted it.
I always classed _Halticosaurus_ as a coelophysoid, closely related to _Liliensternus_ and _Dilophosaurus_, although probably crestless or having a smaller crest. Perhaps it is even the same as _Liliensternus_ (same area, same time). Either way, it would be a ceratosaur. However, I can understand, based on how fragmentary it is (only mandible, vertebrae, humerus, ilium, femur, and metatarsal known) that it could have been closer to the theropodan "prosauropods" as you suggest. Is _Halticosaurus_ a nomen dubium (should be)?
Also, it is common to group Ceratosauria and Tetanurae in Neotheropoda (Aves sensu Olshevsky) separate from the herrerasaurs.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

Brad would you by any chance want to recreate the dinosaurs? I read you'r earlier posts and i wondered if you were strong advocate of recreating the dinosaurs. If you do happen to be that way why don't jump aboard the band wagon with us?
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 13, 2001

Is anyone tired of hearing about tyrannosaurus!? I for one think we should put new dinosaurs in the movies like abelisaurus or carcharodontosaurus.
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 13, 2001

I have a bad feeling about that JP institute...
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 13, 2001

Continuity problems? Achung! I say JP3 carries some serious continuity problems! They seem to have boosted the intelligence of the raptors by 500 times! From what I see in the trailers, the raptors in JP3 look like they could outthink Homo-errectus and just about any proto-human! Gahh! Our brains are highly specialized for complex thought and such and its amazing how the JP3 raptors have gone from opening doors (highly improbble) to setting traps! I tell you, that's a total load of rubbish they are putting up on that movie! Gahh! Velociraptor fans who believe Velociraptor was 6 feet tall will all have a field day on this one. Frankly, I can't imagine how much garbage they have on this movie and how much they are trying to insult our intelligence but the dinosaur "expert" who adviced the movie makers on JP3 better hide his face! What is this? A dinosaurian version of Deep Blue Sea? Raptors with super-intelligence? Bahh! Watch WWD anytime! The ignorance of the JP3 movie makers on dinosaurs is encyclopedic and a total intsult to any self-respecting dinosaur fan and paleontologist. If they are going to boast on how "realistic" their movie is, I'll blow chunks!
from Students.Against.Blatant.Ignorance (SABI), age 13, Washington DC, SABI Headquarters, USA; June 13, 2001

OMG look what they've done:
http://www.jpinstitute.com/index.jsp
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

Hey what's up wih the JP3 bashing?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

Walkign With Dinosaurs is so cool! It allows us to observe dinosaurs as if they were rwally alive. Talking heads bore the stuff out of me, and its alot easier to see the poitn they are tryign to make when the information is presented to you in a visual way. We can now easily see that raptors would have had quite a hard time bringing down their prey and that Tyrannosaurus would have pretty ridiculus as the slow moving scavenger Horner makes it out to be. Thanks to moder computer animamation, its paleontologists are being thought one thing or two. Paleontologists are an arrogrant bunch anyway, they seem to make alot of of nothing and you need alot of them to cancel each other out. Now we just pump the info into a bunch of anatromics and computers and we'll know who's right.
from Josh T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

I guess this got burried in the other posts.... either that, or nobody cares or understands what I'm saying.

______________________________________________________________
A Speculative Reclassification of the Theropoda, Concering the position of the Megalosauridae

Theropoda
|---Unspecified "herrerasaur-like prosauropods"
|...|--Halticosaurus*
|...`--Megalosauridae** (=Torvosauridae)
|......|--Poekilopleuron
|......|--Megalosaurus
|......`--Torvosaurus
|--Herrerasauria
|--Ceratosauria
`--Tetanurae

*Halticosaurus may be close to the "herrerasaur-like prosauropods". It seems to have a mixture
of theropod (long, slender metatarsals) and prosauropod (structure of illim, if restored correctly;
form of femur; only two fused sacrals; lack of pleurocoels on cervicals) features (Norman 1990).
However, its remains are poorly-preserved and nondiagnostic.

**Megalosauridae lacks a modern diagnosis and cannot be conclusively assigned to any theropod
group. Gregory Paul (1984) has called Megalosaurus, Polikopleuron and Torvosaurus are among
the most archaic of theropods, having prosauropod-like hands; pelves with short anterior iliac
blades; short, broad pubes and ischia; and femora with small lesser trochanters. He also stated
that they may be congeneric. Torvosaurus has a mixture of advanced and primitive characteristics,
including a prosauropod-like brachyiliac pubis and ischium, and a 'coelurosaur'-like dolichoiliac
ilium. Poelikopleuron [holotype destroyed] was described by Huene (1923) as having five digits on
both the manus and pes. Reexamination of the illustrations have not proven this, but if there is
any truth in Huene's statement it would certainly indicate a very primitive position on the
theropod family tree. The megalosaur record may extend back to the Rhaetic (LTr), represented
by Megalosaurus cambrensis from Wa! les. Although now often assigned to the genus
"Newtonsaurus" [nomen nudum], this species agrees in 6 of 9 diagnostic characters for M.
bucklandi, three seemingly shared derived characters. The remaining three characters cannot be
determined. Despite its older age, M. cambrensis does seem referrable to Megalosaurus (Molnar,
Kurzanov and Dong, 1990).

So, what do you think?

PS. This research would not be possible without _Dinosaurs: The Encylopedia_ by Donald Glut,
the best dinosaur book ever!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 12, 2001

I have no problem with the size of the Jurassic Park "Velociraptor". They may use the name "Velociraptor" because:

a) Utahraptor was not known in 1989, when the story takes place. Having the characters call the raptors Utahraptor would create a worse problem.

b) Greg Paul had just synonymized Deinonychus and Velociraptor, so characters saying Velociraptor may actually mean Deinonychus- evident in Grant's "Velociraptor antirrhopus" excavation.

So they are either calling Deinonychus "Velociraptor" because thats what people did in the late '80s, or they call Utahraptor "Velociraptor" because the name Utahraptor hadn't been invented yet. Dr. Wu says that the JP 'raptors are _Velociraptor mongoliensis_ because the amber came from China. Up until recently, Velociraptor was the only named East Asian deinonychosaur. But Dr. Wu's amber may have actually contained the DNA of _Achillobator giganticus_, the 5-metre deinonychosaur from Mongolia named in 1999. It might be closer to the Dromaeosaurines than the Velociraptorines, giving it a thicker JP-style head. I'm not aware of anything that would exclude it from being the JP 'raptor.

There are of course features in the 'raptor not found in any deinonychosaur- lack of feathers, flexible tails, and those weird hands. But this isn't real, so I have no reason to be typing this. I'll send it anyway.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 12, 2001

Ah, Dinosaurs. I've heard of those :)

I'd really, really like to know the cladisitc position of Plateosaurus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 12, 2001

Brad,I didn't mean Hinosaur I meant dinosaur defense my fingers slliped.The Prosauropods were Anchisaurus,Thecodontosaurus,Mssospondylus,(the commonly known) plateosaurus,Mussaurus(the smallest one) and (one of the biggest exept for plateosaurus whose the biggest of all)riojosaurus
from Donovan c., age 11, ?, singapore, ?; June 12, 2001

Contunity probems? I don't think so. Besides, they have been changing the look of the Velociraptor throughout the movies and I think its pretty irresponsible of them to ignore blatant paleontological fact!
from JP3 Stinks, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 12, 2001

Besides, they corrected the myth about T.Rex not being able to see you when you stayed still.
from JP3 Stinks, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 12, 2001

Sorry, "Jehotosaurus" was a typo, of course, I meant _Jeholosaurus_. The Dinosauricon classes it as a genasaur because it has a predentary, there was some discussion on DML that it was in fact a "prosauropod" or a "prosauropod"-like genasaur/basal predentate.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 12, 2001

They haven't narrowed "Willo" down to a specific species yet, but its genus is _Thescelosaurus_. I think they thought it was a _T. neglectus_.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 12, 2001

There is no clear-cut "warm-blooded" or "cold-blooded." The smaller the animal, the more "warm-blooded" it is. For example, compared to a mouse, humans are gigantothermic--less warm-blooded than the mouse. And recent studies suggest that elephants aren't really totally warm-blooded, that they are in fact a type of gigantothermic. Giant sauropods probably depended mostly on gigantothermy, and large theropods were probably only partially gigantothermic, like elephants.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 12, 2001

Well, if they corrected themselves now about the raptors in JP3, then there would be some major continuity problems...
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 12, 2001

"Dinosaurs actually represent a large and varied number of different animal species. To slap a tag on all of them and say they were like that would be extremely unwise."

Dinosauria is a monophyletic clade, all members sharing a number of derived characterisitcs. You object to all taxa above species?
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; June 12, 2001

DW, I for one think that to support three T.Rexes, assuming they weren't scavangers, and a pack of raptors as large as that, there would have to be quite a sizeable number of herbivoers, probably around 30, of the large size. For the land area, all dinosaurs more than likely were quite territorial. Thus this means they would need more than the dinky little island the movies give them. You have to think about a balanced ecosystem as well. All the herbivores there would need ALOT of greens. One little island wouldn't support the lot of them. Plus the dinosaurs are breeding continuously. Unless the population was controlled, like the dinosaurs not breeding above a certain limit, there would never be enough room. Also, there would need to be more predators to keep the population of other dinosaurs in check. But then you need more herbivores to feed the carnivores. The whole island idea just wouldn't work.
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, ?; June 12, 2001

If JP3 carries on the tradition of describing Velociraptors as 6-foot tall animals that was bigger than a man! What blatant ignorance of paleontological fact! In fact, they have been ignoring obvious paleontological facts for 8 years and running now! Heck, if they were really recreating the dinosaurs in the movie as accucrate as possible (like in WWD), we would not see the oversized, obese Spinosaur in the movie and T.Rex woudl be kicking Spinosaurus' can all voer the place.
from JP3 Stinks, age ?, ?, ?, USA; June 11, 2001

Dinosaurs actually represent a large and varied number of different animal species. To slap a tag on all of them and say they were like that would be extremely unwise. I believe its highly likely some dinosuars would have been warm-blooded. On the flip side, its almst certain some of them would have been cold-blooded for the simple reason they didn't need to be. None of the evidence found to suggest warm-bloodedness or cold-bloodness has been really conclusive in either way, but my bet is, the larger dinosaurs were probally not warm at all, and the smaller ones would have been quite hot. It's also possible that dinsosaurs may have been warm-blooded when young and later lost it as they built up bulk.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 11, 2001

Megan, I guess you could say that Apatosaurus was a real dinosaur. Have you ever heard of Brontosaurus? Supposedly Apatosaurus was the name first. But here's what happened. The skull was originally never found on the first found skeletons, and the skulls were recreated as short like Camarasaurus. This dinosaur was originally called Brontosaurus. In 1979 two scientists studied the field notes made by earlier bone collecters one hundred years earlier.
They found the original skull did not fit, and changed it, and found that Brontosaurus had a longer skull like Diplodicus. So for some reason they renamed it Apatosaurus. It is the same dinosaur, whichever name you call it.
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, ?; June 11, 2001

Here's an interesting question. Were dinosaurs warm-blooded or cold-blooded? Remember that they found evidence that they were warm-blooded from that dinosaur "Willo." The dinosaur had a four chambered heart like many warm-blooded animals today, and that the bones of dinosaurs had lots of little holes. Our bones also have those holes so blood vessels can go through our body. This means more blood can travel around, and this allows us to be warm-blooded. Since modern reptile's bones dom't have alot of these holes, this means they are cold-blooded. Dinosaurs have lots of little holes in their bones. This means that they were probably warm-blooded. I for one beleive they were warm-blooded.(Could someone tell me the species "Willo" was? I forgot.)
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, ?; June 11, 2001

The 'spitter' is Dilophosaurus. There is no evidence for a frill.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 11, 2001

I can't find anything on "Jehotosaurus". The Dinosauricon has _Jeholosaurus_ as a basal ornithischian (genasaur, actually). It also appears to be one of the few dinosaurs named in 2000 that somehow avoided being on the list I was making back then.

How complete is my 2001 list?

Asparavis ukhaana
Aucasaurus garridoi [undescribed]
Draconyx loureiroi
Eotyrannus lengi
Losillasaurus giganteus
Masikosaurus knopfleri
Paralititan stromeri
Ricardoestesia isosceles
Saltriosaurus [nomen nudum]
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 11, 2001

A Speculative Reclassification of the Theropoda, Concering the position of the Megalosauridae

Theropoda
|---Unspecified "herrerasaur-like prosauropods"
|...|--Halticosaurus*
|...`--Megalosauridae** (=Torvosauridae)
|......|--Poekilopleuron
|......|--Megalosaurus
|......`--Torvosaurus
|--Herrerasauria
`--Ceratosauria
.`--Tetanurae

*Halticosaurus may be close to the "herrerasaur-like prosauropods". It seems to have a mixture of theropod (long, slender metatarsals) and prosauropod (structure of illim, if restored correctly; form of femur; only two fused sacrals; lack of pleurocoels on cervicals) features (Norman 1990). However, its remains are poorly-preserved and nondiagnostic.

**Megalosauridae lacks a modern diagnosis and cannot be conclusively assigned to any theropod group. Gregory Paul (1984) has called Megalosaurus, Polikopleuron and Torvosaurus are among the most archaic of theropods, having prosauropod-like hands; pelves with short anterior iliac blades; short, broad pubes and ischia; and femora with small lesser trochanters. He also stated that they may be congeneric. Torvosaurus has a mixture of advanced and primitive characteristics, including a prosauropod-like brachyiliac pubis and ischium, and a 'coelurosaur'-like dolichoiliac ilium. Poelikopleuron [holotype destroyed] was described by Huene (1923) as having five digits on both the manus and pes. Reexamination of the illustrations have not proven this, but if there is any truth in Huene's statement it would certainly indicate a very primitive position on the theropod family tree. The megalosaur record may extend back to the Rhaetic (LTr), represented by Megalosaurus cambrensis from Wa! les. Although now often assigned to the genus "Newtonsaurus" [nomen nudum], this species agrees in 6 of 9 diagnostic characters for M. bucklandi, three seemingly shared derived characters. The remaining three characters cannot be determined. Despite its older age, M. cambrensis does seem referrable to Megalosaurus (Molnar, Kurzanov and Dong, 1990).

So, what do you think?

PS. This research would not be possible without _Dinosaurs: The Encylopedia_ by Donald Glut, the best dinosaur book ever!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 11, 2001

I forget what the dino's name is on JP that spit poison into Nedry's eyes. I read that he didn't have that frill around its neck but I also heard that he did, so which one is it?
from Katie V., age 13, Tabernacle, NJ, U.S.A.; June 11, 2001

I'm not sure of what prosauropods had beaks...I think _Jehotosaurus_ had a predentary, and there are probably some others. I'm not sure about _Anchisaurus_ either...
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 11, 2001

I think we're discussing prosauropods now, and maybe Godzilla. I have no idea what a Hinosaur is.
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; June 11, 2001

Well, we never actually saw the total no. of herbivores on Isla Sorna so we can't guess the predator prey relationships in the movie. In Crichton's book Isla Sorna was a puny small island (I have the hardcover with illustration), smaller than Sentosa. By my guess, the island potrayed in the movie is bigger than Singapore, to support the herbivores and carnivores.

Let's take stock of the predator's on Isla Sorna as seen in TLW:
3 T-Rexes
6-12 Raptors(Can anyone count them?)
Dozens of Procompsonathus (Scavengers)
Several Pteranodons (Fish eaters?)
1 Spinosaurus(JP///)
and Maybe a few Dilophosaurs.
Can someone get back to me on the no. of herbivores required to feed them, and the land area required to support thr herbivores?

P.S. the lab scene reminded me of Aliens too.
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 11, 2001

On HT's report... no comment...
from Leonard, age 13, ?, ?, ?; June 11, 2001

Ahem, I don't mean to complain but what are we discussing? How about Hinosaur defense,after all this site doesn't have every dino defense.P.S. Those triassic and other reptiles are included.
from Donovan R., age 11, ?, singapore, ?; June 10, 2001

Haha! Nice report Honkie!
from Billy Macdraw, age 19, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

Jp is killer
from ??????, age 39, ??????????????, ??????????????????, ??????????????; June 10, 2001

Enough with the T-rex and denonichus stuff
from ?, age 39, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

Has anyone else read "Parade of life Through the Ages," the 1942 National Geographic article by Charles R. Knight? It seems that he did't really like dinosaurs- in fact, you might say he dislikes them. He called the Styracosaurus a pathetic non-entity! I'm kind of angry now.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 10, 2001

Besides Massospondylus, what is another Massospondylid? Which ones have beaks? I thought Anchisaurus was the prosauropod closest to the Ornithischia. Is this incorrect?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 10, 2001

Wow, this message board exploded with posts.
I'm not exactly sure of what excludes _Sinornithosaurus_ from dromaeosauridae...the body form of _Sinornithosaurus_ is very gracile and the claw is more troodont-like than dromaeosaurids. The head is also less robust, the tail is shorter, and the hands and arms are much longer.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

Yes I was aware of the Gow study showing _Massospondylus_ to be non-beaked. But other massospondylids do, perhaps _Massospondylus_ itself was closer to the herrerasaurian/more primitive condition.
And I don't know exactly which "prosauropods" go where, we'll need someone to do some indepth anatomical studies..."Prosauropoda" is a big mess of different kinds of dinosaurs.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

Hey Chandler, did you see this?

http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Jun/msg00344.html

Heterodontosaurs are marginocephalians? That doesn't really agree with making them the ornithischians closest to anchisaurs.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 10, 2001

Godzilla: A close study
A report by Honkie Tong

Godzilla is actually a dinosaur?!! Yes its true! Read about it in the orginal story! Apparently, Godzilla belongs to a previously unknown 122-meter predatory dinosaur species called Godzillasaurus that somehow managed to survived the KT extinction in a deep oceanic catnap without going up for air for about 65 million years despite being a reptile and was somehow enhanced, instead of killed by radioactive fallout to be able to project atomic fire. Godzilla also seems to have skin made of extremely tough non-carbonic material as he could absorb tank rounds, laser beams, missle warheads and even nuclear bombs without flinching (besides opening and closing his mouth to roar the overplayed Godzilla roar). Godzilla also seems to be able to resist temperatures up to 6,000 degrees as he came out from the magma of an active volcano once. Amazingly, nobody has bothered to explain why he died after his internal body temperature reached 2,500 degrees in the last movie. If he could resist 6,000 degrees of liquid rock, why melt at 2,500? That aside, Godzilla also seems to be so resistant to just about everything, he didn't even stir when the superpowers of the world lobbed hundreds of thermonuclear warheads at him while he was sleeping during an eposide. Godzilla has also repeatedly defeated the Japanese Military (Confirmed by Jane's Weaponary to be the most efficent and effective monster supression force in the world). I knew dinosaurs were tough, but Godzilla pushes the limits.

On the dowside, Godzilla seems slow. Despite being 122-meters tall and having a 35 meter stride, he seems to take a step every now and then, moving at a top speed of about 45-55 kilometers. Another problem is his hands: What are they for? They don't look antrophied enough for like the Tyrannosaurids to have no use. But Godzilla rarely uses them except to grapple with opponents. And I have no clue, given his stubby fingers and arms, how he coudl even do that. I suspect its easier for Godzilla to spin on of his stubby arms clockwise, and the other counterclockwise to cause his opponents to laugh uncontrobally and then move in the finish the job while they are trying to compose themselves.

Despite external differences, scientists suspect that Godzilla is actually a ultra-coelurosaur directly decsended from the super-coelurosaurs of the late cretacious. The ultra-coelurosaurs evolved too late to take advantage of the Ultrasauros prey and the Stegosaurus they could fool by pretending to be one the herd, thus the need for the stegosaur plates. Finally noticing that their intended foolsource died out years ago, most of the ultra-coelurosaurs trived by using their ridiculus toughness to go mano-a-mano with ankylosaurids and eat them. When the KT finally came, most of the dinosaurs died out, some like Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor survived by being so cool that some boneheaded species later would come by and decide they are so cool they are worth bringing back. Apparently, most of the ultra-coelurosaurs died out except Godzilla who was smart enough to adapt his then-usless back plates to acommidate atomic energy and his ridiculusly B-grade dinosaurian body to secure a movie deal with any director making a movie in the 1950s.

Yes...I'd say the Japanese version is kinda hard to swallow...but all in all, it was fun to watch.

About the American version. Apparently, in the American version, the American producers decided that America being directly responsible for the creation of a monster in an American movie would not be exactly patriotic, so the blame was shifted to the French instead. (Note: The American movie makes the American military and the French GIGN look bad) Godzilla is now a modern animal species directly mutated to a movie-monster. How random radioactive fallout managed to hit DNA strands with their Alpha and Beta particles and Gamma Rays in such a way it arranged a 122-meter reptile instead of creating a horribly deformed version of the original species is beyond me.

But the American Godzilla seems faster, smarter and certainly more believable. (Though believability hard to find in any Godzilla movie) But he/she is pratically a wimp. The American Godzilla didn't do damage anywhere near the lumbering Japanese Godzilla did and it was a total wimp compaired to the atomic-fire breathing, Toyko-vandalizing version.

I find the cartoon strikes a good compromise between our need to see realistic monsters (an oxymoron), and the need to see monsters do what monsters do. The cartoon Godzilla is vulnerable, but is at the same time more capable then the wimpy movie version. All in all, I find the cartoon gives Godzilla the best shot as an animal and as a monster.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

I forgot a book. It is not out yet, give it a year or so, but I hear it it going to be really good. It tis called Albino I think and it is about an albino t-rex. I'll tell you when it comes out!
from Carcharodontosaur, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

Remember me? I just dropped in to reccomend a few really good books:
Title: Anonymous Rex
Storyline: Dinosaurs have invaded our planet. Various species of dinosaurs wear latex suits to disguise themselves as humans and take on professions. The main idea is a "Raptor" who is a dectective and he goes on this big case.
Comments: Very imaginitive but disses the T-Rex a lot. good for raptor fans. Some "Drug" use (They get high off of basil leaves) and a tiny bit of (Well this is a kids site, but i think this book is best for kids aroud thrirteen, twelve, I'm not sure really.)
Sequel: Casual Rex

Clan of the Cave Bear
Author: Jean M. Auel
Storyline: This takes place in the ice age. A young girl that is,
I think, Homo erectus, is orphaned and adopted by a clan of neanderthals. She has to learn to understand the customs and along the way learns a lot. I cannot summarize the whole book in one short summary because it is about 450 pages. Oh yea, lots and lots of I Ice Age animals,(Mammoths, Cave lions, and about a dozen others. Sorry, no smilidon.) but not nearly as many as the second book(Listed Below.)
Comments: I think this is supposed to be an adult book because it is so long but it is really intriguing. Probably for forurteen give or take a year.
Chronicles: Valley of horses, The Mammoth Hunters, The Plains of passage.
from Carcharodontosaur, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

WOW! Leonard you'r favorite meat eating dinosaur is allosaurus!!? Mine is too!
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 10, 2001

More JP3 bashing! (Just kidding, looks like a cool but unlikely movie)

I dunno man, I guess I would like JP3, but it just smacks of Alien (tm.). The dinosaurs remind me too much of the aliens in Aliens instead of real animals. Un oh...well, I guess it's the shock from watching too much WWD and WWD2 and then watching JP movies. I'm suspecting it's gonna be kinda hard to fight the urge to go "Ah ha! A dramatization!" in the movie theatre... what the heck... :P

Anyway, humans seem to be exceptionally tasty and crunchy and worth the immense amount of energy for virtually any know predatory dinosur species to chase down and eat then a 5 ton hardosaur... I wonder why? Better ask the Spinosaur...

Grant: "They set a trap, they actually set a trap."
Corporal Hudson: "How can they do that? They are only animals man!"

Smarter then primates? Un oh... if the adverage raptor is dumber then a crow...then a crow is...

Lastly, I'll like to add that the island seems to support a ridiculus amount of predators for its size. The predator biomass must be almost tenfold then the highest every recorded!

But whatever... Hollywood has been bending the laws of physics even since it was set up...
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 10, 2001

What good am I if I yet known lossilasaurus giganteus no fair,I had good dino knowledge now its all over.Actually,scientist found a new triceratops more larger than the other triceratops skeletons and its no female,its a male.Oh,no one talks on walking with dinosaurs?There is series 2 coming.
from Donovan c., age 10, ?, singapore, ?; June 10, 2001

Instructions for a LEGO Dilophosaurus can be found in the pictures section.

Has anyone found the official "Transforming Dinosaurs" or "Jurassic Park ///" LEGO sets? I want those dino parts!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 9, 2001

Hi guys! Long time no see.
Honkie, I have seen the trailer too, but to me it looks great! The new raptor looks cool. I don't think WWD killed JP3 (nice rhyme)JP3 IS a movie, for example, "They were smarter than primates." Don't count on paleontological misconceptions not popping up. "They set a trap, they actually set a trap."
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 9, 2001

Derived Characters of Prosauropoda- Are They Valid?

I checked the formal definition of Prosauropoda in Donald Glut's Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia. I'm posting them here, with my own comments. Reply with any comments of your own.

I. Skull about half the length of femur
No, proportions are not good indicators of a relationship.

II. Jaw articulation slighlty below maxillary tooth row level.
A feature of herbivorous reptiles (see VanHeerden in Farlow and Brett-Surman 1997, Table 19.2) not unique to Prosauropoda. Also seen in Heterodontosaurus (Bakker 1986)

III. Teeth small, homodont or weakly heterodont, spatulate, with coarse, obliquely angled marginal serrations.
Again, this is probably not unique to Prosauropoda, more likely just a feature of herbivory.

IV. Manual digit I bearing a twisted first phalanx and enormous, trenchant ungal medially directed when hyperextended.
This is the 'twist-thumb claw' Bakker (1986) used to prove dinosaurian monophyly, noting that it is found in prosauropods, primitive theropods, and heterodontosaurs. Unless he was lying, its means nothing for prosauropod monophly.

V. Digits II and III of subequal length, with small, slighly recurved ungal phalanges.
This doesn't seem significant.

VI. Digits IV and V reduced, lacking ungal phalanges.
Wouldn't this apply for a lot of dinosaurs? And I wouldn't call it a "high-weight novelty", meaning its easily convergent anyway.

VII. Typical phalangeal formula 2-3-4-(3 or 4)-3.
Variable, and 'typical' implies that there are exceptions.

VIII. Blade-like distal part of pubes forming broad, flat apron.
I don't know enough about this to comment.

IX. Fifth pedal digit vestigial.
So? Since it was lost in theropods and ornithischians, you'd expect that from a wide-spread assemblage of basal dinosaurs.

X. Femur with longitudinal crest proximal to lateral condyle, situated in continuation of posterior end of condyle.
XI. Lesser trochanter a weak ripple proxiomodistally lying on lateral on latero-anterior surface, main part of trochanter below level of femoral head.
Sorry, I know nothing about the anatomy of the femur. I wonder which and how many species were included in this study?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 9, 2001

There were far more plant-eaters than meat-eaters. Predator-prey ratios are actually important in determining if dinosaurs were warm-blooded, Bakker has written a chapter on it in The Dinosaur Heresies.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 9, 2001

There was no Victorian view of Godzilla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My painting is based on a photo of Godzilla destroying Tokyo from the 1954 movie _Godzilla, King of the Monsters_. The 1998 Godzilla film was pretty bad, I didn't like it much either. Godzilla is a prehistoric monster, not a mutated iguana! I wouldn't say the cartoon is best, its too much like the 1998 movie.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 9, 2001

What places Sinornithosaurus outside of Dromaeosauridae?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 9, 2001

Ah, here it is:
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Jun/msg00218.html
Now, a few questions:

Which prosauropods fall outside of Dinosauria?

Which prosauropods are 'herrarasaur-like', and thus theropods? I can't think of any.

Which prosauropods are 'sauropod-like'? Melanorosaurids?

Is Anchisaurus now a Massospondylid? Where is Plateosaurus?

Also, this recent message says that Massospondylus was not beaked:
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Jun/msg00223.html
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 9, 2001

Brad, I think Apatosaurus and the rest of the sauropods are indeed dinosaurs. "Prosauropods" are really the only thing that radically change here, obviously because that they are not a natural group. This cladogram by Mike Keesey gives sauropods as dinosaurs but not basal "prosauropods." There also is no Saurischia (scary) and some "prosauropods" are defined as theropods! Also, some predentary-possessing "prosauropods" are placed in ornithischia (they're just all over the place now), and some are placed where they originally were in the sauropodomorpha.

--+=="lagosuchians" (pre-dinosaurs)
..`--+==basal "prosauropods"
.....`--Dinosauria
........|--Theropoda (Aves sensu Olshevsky)
........|..|==herrerasaur-like "prosauropods"
........|..`--+--Eoraptor
........|.....`--+--Herrerasauridae
........|........`--Neotheropoda (all other theropods, incl. birds)
........`--Ornithischiformes (=Phytodinosauria)
...........|--Sauropodomorpha
...........|..|==sauropod-like "prosauropods"
...........|..`--Sauropoda
...........`--Ornithischia
..............|--Massospondylidae ("prosauropods" with predentaries)
..............`--+--Lesothosaurus
.................`--Genasauria (all other ornithischians)

I tend to agree with the majority of this, although I prefer the name Phytodinosauria over Ornithischiformes.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 9, 2001

Deinonychosauria is a monophyletic group containing _Sinornithosaurus_, dromaeosaurids, and a whole lot of incertae sedis (including _Utahraptor_). No Troodontids. Troodontids are more closely related to ornithomimes, and are not particularly close to the dromaeosaurids or other deinonychosaurs.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 9, 2001

Which of the population is more.Meat eaters or vegeterians
from Adam T, age 9, Witham, Essex, England; June 9, 2001

Yes Brad. My name is infact Sean. The s. is my initial.
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 9, 2001

Brad, your picture of Godzilla represents the victorian view of Godzilla as a slow, lumbering, stupid animal that can defy tanks and nuclear missiles (Only the Japanese can come up with ways to bend physics to make this possible), and I would say your picture of Godzilla is outdated. On the other hand, the hollywood version of Godzilla is a total wimp, and the reason he could cause so much havoc was that the US military is completely camera-shy and thus screws up when being flimed. (Thus all the negative reports on CNN, movies and such, JAG being an exception) I think the best way Godzilla is showed is in the cartoon. Yeah!

PS: Godzilla does not actually exist, but some scientists have decided he's actually a direct decendent of Tyrannosaurus Rex Osborn which had adapted long arms to swipe helicopters and stegosaur plates not to control body temperature by to act as high capacity plasma capaticators to gather his biofusion green atomic fire blast before its projected from his mouth. Cool!
from Godzilla Researcher, age 12, ?, ?, ?; June 8, 2001

Sorry, I didn't see it. But you mean you hadn't know that fact till now Brad? Of course everybody rushes to defend T.Rex!:P
from Leonard, age 13, ?, ?, ?; June 8, 2001

What's an Apatosaurus?
from Megan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 8, 2001

If you say Tyrannosaurus couldn't hunt, everyone rushes to correct you. If you say that Apatosaurus is not a dinosaur, no one repiles... check the late May 2001 page to see what I posted.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 8, 2001

Chandler, you keep saying deinonychosaur- what are they? I thought the Deinonychosauria was a polyphyletic grouping of Dromaeosauridae and Troödontidae. What does it mean to you?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 8, 2001

No, South Hemispherean deinonychosaurs are quite likely. It is just that the curve of the _Megaraptor_ claw is much shallower (less curved) than those typical of deinonychosaurs. It is possible that this particular deinonychosaur possessed a shallower, perhaps more primitive avian-like claw, but it is more likely that the claw belongs to an avialan. That's all.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 8, 2001

Coming soon...COMMUNIST CRISIS! It's a spoof of star trek with allosaurs on a 5 year mission to seek out new life and new civilizations and convert them to communism. Nice stories but i think you all should have put more Leslie Nielson type humour though. This is what type i use to make comedies.
from Sean.S, age 13, ?, ?, U.S.A; June 8, 2001

Chandler, why is it that you think Megaraptor is unlikely to be a dromaeosaur?

Are you basing this on geography alone? There are Gondwanan Velociraptorinae, reported by Rauhut and Werner in 1995, known from the Cenomanian Wadi Milk Formation in Sudan. Specimens are too fragmentary to assign a genus and species name, but can be assigned to the Dromaeosauridae based on the following characteristics:

I: difference in denticle size of anterior and posterior serrations of tooth (Vb-875), similar to Deinonychus, Velociraptor, and Saurornitholestes, morphology of posterior serrations simlar to Deinonychus and Saurornitholestes;

II: prominent ventral 'heel' and deeply grooved ginglymodial distal articular facet of pedal phalanx (Vb-713), similar to Deinonychus and Saurornitholestes;

III: shape of ungal (Vb-714 and Vb-860) in combination with asymmetrical arrangement of claw grooves, as in Utahraptor, Deinonychus, and an undescribed dromaeosaurid (MOR 660), and a sharp ventral margin, both features known only in dromaeosaurids.

A South American dromaeosaur is certainly not improbable.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 8, 2001

I agree, Megaraptor probably doesn't deserve a nomen validum at this point.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 8, 2001

I have some more Pteranodon paintings, a Stegosaurus pair, Oviraptor, and Pentaceratops...there are probably more that I'm forgetting about...I also have a lot of drawings (hundreds) so I might pick a few of them to post up here.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 8, 2001