Besides, the lighter gravity theory was suggest by this fustrated biomechnist trying to figure out how dinosaurs moved as a joke! It's classified along with non-serious theories like how dinosaurs burried themselves in poop, velociraptors escaped earth in UFO's and that the dinosaurus died off because they cause a world wide flood rivaling Noa's with their pee (now wait a minute...) Now as with the "All your base" craze that swept the new, apparently somebody with a horrible understanding of gravity (and science in general) swept along and picked it up as a valid scientific item.

We don't see Tom Holtz or Bakker going around saying "Now, T.rex would have being much faster as he only weighted about 2 tons back then) hardly...
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

I asked two of my friends at school today about the small Mesozoic earth theory, and they agreed with me in saying that it was definately false.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 25, 2001

Or was it skeptic's argument? No matter, it's about as dead as a duck could get.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

The Tong finally speaks!

Pardon me, I'm a little informal today. But I think the persons who suggested this theory (both on the netlink and here) have a very poor understanding of how gravity actually works. You see, gravity has nothing to do with volume or size, but rather, mass. Now it is a common misconception that more mass = more volume here, which is false. According to him, Lava which expands after cooling with on the surface increases in volume (actually it should shrink by normal, according to the normal laws of physics, with water being the only exception I can think of.) But it never, ever increases in mass! A 5 kilo block of molten rock will still weight 5 kilos after it's solid, no matter the increase or decrease in it's volume. What would have changed in this case is it's densisty, not it's mass. In either case, the gravitional forces exerted by both 5 kilo masses solid or not remains the very same.

The same remains with the earth. The earth isn't increasing in mass at all (save from as Lt.Os-Sa-Mar Bi-ean Lard-en's brillant post(Osama?), by space material arriving). From creation, when the earth was young, it started out with as much rock as it did today, no matter what form. In other words, the earth 4 billion years back (if there was an earth then) would still have as much mass as it did today. The earth isn't getting more massive (having more mass) apparently the person who proposed his theory equated "massive" as being big in volume, which in science is really a misnomer. Mass is quite a seperate thing from the size of the object.

And to answer Brad's question and all those who were not forced to study detailed Geography in school as a core subject back in school, (it's a competitive educational atmosphere here in Singapore) We aren't really getting bigger by adding lava onto our surface at all. What is simply happening is when the surface plates subduct into the mantle and melt, thereby creating new lava for us, as a result, another end of the plate will be pulled apart, creating openings for volcaones and making new crust. One cannot happen without the other, it's cause and effect. We are still stuck with roughly the same amount of crust as the dinosaurs were, the crust is constantly being destroyed by subducting and replaced by areas of lava leakage, volcanoes, rift valleys...bla bla bla. And no, in all this, the mass of the eart does not increase! Even if we had no magma left (which is impossible), and all of the lava was solidified as crust. The mass of the earth would still be the same, and we or the dinosaurs would still be stuck with the depressing gravitional acceleration of 9.8 meters per second square. Da Masta's theory is dead.

Thank you, and have a very nice day.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

Never mind, Tim. you can make SuperRex win easily if you want to. Its your story.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

I'm honestly not sure what those pink things are, but I think they're muscles.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

"Wow, are you going from memory, or did you look that up in dinodata..."
Well, both. I looked up Styracosaurus to find out when it was named, but the rest was from the reasearch I did last Spring.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

Aahh, it is quite amazing how many things can happen while you're gone for 4 days! Let's get started:
First of all, Gianna, my story is FICTION. I can write whatever I want.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

Coelophysis was ten feet long.thats two and a half of me!
from Sean K, age 7, West Chester, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; October 25, 2001

"In my original statement I never said it decreases, though. Maybe "Da Masta" said that, but if he did, he's wrong. (Thanks for taking interest in my topic, "Da Masta"!)"

He never directly said it, I just took it from his statement that Cretaceous animals were smaller than Jurassic animals, but Eocene animals are huge.

"1. The Earth is still expanding today. All the lava and molten rock rising up through the bottom of the oceans (like that that created Surtsey, Iceland) gets colder when it comes into contact with the
ocean's water and expands. As this same process continues over millions of years the Earth slowly gets larger as more layers of molten rock cool and expand."

If all of the lava rises up onto the ocean floor and hardens, wouldn't that eventually make the earth hollow? (Please, all I want is an answer.)

"2.The movements of the plates (Continental Drift Theory, Alfred Wegner) causes molten rock to rise up and harden. If you reject the theory of a larger Earth as time passes you might as well be
ignorant enough to reject ths theory too."

I accept coninental drift as a fact. I've never heard of the link between moving plates and expanding earth, though.

"But there's lot's of worthy debaters. There just hasn't been a good discussion yet. Even Brad's getting restless, that's why he ignorantly attacked the expanding Earth theory (which according to a site I visited a while back [don't remember it] many scientists agree that this theory is true)."

Was it this site?

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth?

Sorry, but I'm waiting to see this important fact presented in a real textbook. And if it's true it should be, if it explains so much. ("Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth", according to chapters.ca, is not a real book) Hey, maybe The Onion really is America's Finest News Source!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 25, 2001

I don't think the earth really increases in mass a great deal since the late KT, we've been recieving about 250 tons of material from space a year, but then, in 65 million years, that would equate to tons 16250000000 tons, which is quite a healthy amount, but hardly amounts to much in terms of of increasing the earth's overall mass, which is about 15000000000000000 (fifteen with ten to the power of fifteen) tons (the gravitional increase via terms of space material over 65 million years translates to about 0.0001 g, so it would take about 30 billion years even to double the gravitional acceleration, about 10 times the age of the supposed earth). And the earth really isn't expanding as lava reaches the surface and creates new crust as rock is also being destroyed by subducting into the mantle too! (Geography 101) Besides, the inherent gravity of the planet is due to the actual mass, not the size of the object. Jupiter, a gas giant, has a gravity of 11 gees, despite being what? 110 times the size of the earth? That's because Jupiter is mainly a gas giant, which is a great deal less dense then a planet made out of rock then our earth. If Jupiter was equally as dense as a rock ball like earth, I compute it's gravity to be about 550-1,100 gees. Volume has hardly anything to do with gravity. Besides, if there was significantly less gravity last time, we would note this immediately in the fossils of the animals who lived back then (like considerable less bone density then animals nowadays) which we don't. Gravity back then was not too much different to have an effect, at 0.9999m/s2. Back another 60 million years in the jurassic, gravity would have been at 0.9998m/s2, so the giant sauropods back then had an advantage of only 0.0002m/s2 to help their weight over todays animals, not much. A 70,000 kilo sauropod would weight about 69,986 kilos, 11 kilos less... not much if you ask me...also not I am allowing gracious blatant errors in my calculations, taking your point to it's most ridiculus extreme, if I bothered to sit down and check my calculations, I project I come up with a gravitional increase of a mere 0.0000001 gees. But I am rounding things to the closest 0.0001 for the sake of an argument. No, gravity was pretty much the same back then. Take it from a physics and geography major.

One thing we can be sure of though, the dinosaurs lived 23-hour days.
from Lt.Os-Sa-Mar Bi-ean Lard-en, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 25, 2001

If youre here, tim M., read this.

I read your story. You said SuperRex faced of with an Allosaurus. Just because you are not fond of Allosaurus doesn't mean you should make them look like a wimp. SuperRex should win, but with minor injuries, not "That was so easy" thing. I like Allosaurus. It was very powerful. So please, make Allosaurus be strong and still let thr Rex dude win.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

Tim M. hasn't been posting lately, has anyone noticed?
And what do you liked to be called, Tim or Tim M.?
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

"I don't believe the Earth increases and decreases in size."

Believe it or don't, that's your choice. The best I can do is attempt to prove my case by showing evidence.

In my original statement I never said it decreases, though. Maybe "Da Masta" said that, but if he did, he's wrong. (Thanks for taking interest in my topic, "Da Masta"!)

"Why would anyone believe that?"

I do, and for quite a few reasons:

1. The Earth is still expanding today. All the lava and molten rock rising up through the bottom of the oceans (like that that created Surtsey, Iceland) gets colder when it comes into contact with the ocean's water and expands. As this same process continues over millions of years the Earth slowly gets larger as more layers of molten rock cool and expand.

2.The movements of the plates (Continental Drift Theory, Alfred Wegner) causes molten rock to rise up and harden. If you reject the theory of a larger Earth as time passes you might as well be ignorant enough to reject ths theory too.

3. When the Earth gets bigger, the more gravity it's total mass exerts. That means that there is more gravity today than when T. Rex roamed the plains of North America. It's this very theory of strengthened gravity over time that is why we don't have any creatures as large as Brachiosaurs and Apatosaurs stumbling around outside today. (I'll explain: Animals do not grow very large when gravityis too strong. Eventually they are too large for gravity that their bodies loose mechanical efficiency and due to the force they cannot form muscles strong enough to withstand it let alone move appendages. However, all animals do not reach the peak size for gravity because of other reasons. Perhaps they need to be fast to hunt or must be able to fly. Anyway, there is a limit to how bg you can get with gravity pulling on you [Water animals like the blue whale tend to be larger than terrestrial ones because they don't need to move very fast when you're a gigantic herbivore. You're size alone preotects you and the fact that it lives in water helps it brace it's body).

"It's going to take a lot to convert me to your smaller Earth "fact""

The more you need to convert you to this theory, the more thick headed you are. That's what I say.

"Might as well save my strength until worthy oponents come along..."

Talking down to the rest of us? How "hendonistically egotistic" of you, Honkie. Why, I thought you had more manners than that.

But there's lot's of worthy debaters. There just hasn't been a good discussion yet. Even Brad's getting restless, that's why he ignorantly attacked the expanding Earth theory (which according to a site I visited a while back [don't remember it] many scientists agree that this theory is true).
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 24, 2001

I think Argentinosaurs are the biggest. Well, I know how it feels to be left out Donovan. U__U Maby some dinosaurs have sounds very low like humans can never hear - like elephants. Extremely low pitched sound virbrations.
from Neko, age 11, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

What was the smallest dinosaur?
from Kaylin.M, age 8, trumbull, C.T., United States; October 24, 2001

Alamosaurus is da bomb & so is Micah Dillen1
from Micah D., age 11, Altoona, UNITED STATES OF AMERIVA, America; October 24, 2001

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST DINOSAUR, I USED TO THINK IT WAS ULTROSAURUS AND ARGENTINASAURUS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY NEW LARGER ONES?
from CRUNCH, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

Roof Three Oak Before lizard, and yes it is easy for some people but I tried to make my trivia questions a little easier for some people.

And if everyone is tired of trivia questions than I'll stop giving them for a while. And from now on my nickname will be T-master.
from Trivia master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

I found a funny article about dinosaurs today. Is anyone else familiar with The Brunching Shuttlecocks? Lore Fitzgerald Sjöberg has given a rating to various dinosaurs, for often hilarious reasons. My favourite is the pterodactyl.

The Ratings: Dinosaurs
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 24, 2001

The most popular thing here: Trivia questions. I'm getting tired of it.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

"The earth was smaller at the time of the dinosaurs, and exerted less gravity. So big dinos evolved... So why is the earth increasing it's size and gravity? Post your own ideas everyone. I have a feeling (and I hope) that I've just started a BIG discussion…"

I don't beleive that the earth increases and decreases in size and gravity. Why would anyone beleive that? It's going to take a lot to convert me to your smaller earth "fact".

And I've said this countless times before: what's up with the &hellip? Is it a code error?

"My dad is a european history fanatic and the house is full of latin and greek dictionaries. I bet there isn't a "what does this dinosaur's name mean" question that I can't answer!"

I've always assumed that consulting any kind of reference for a trivia question would be called cheating.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 24, 2001

Still, I think "spinosaurids" are not related and are the result of adaptive radiation within different dino families
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

The theory on the science forum is really quite good. I've known something like it for quite a while, but now I have the opportunity to discuss it. The earth was smaller at the time of the dinosaurs, and exerted less gravity. So big dinos evolved. Tim, you know that already and probably some others do too. In the Jurassic, and particularly the late Jurassic, huge sauropods evolved. With less gravity, they were'nt too heavy and could could move quite easily, and maybe even fast. But in the cretacious, large sauropods declined, and smaller sauropods like nemegtosaurus and saltasaurus evolved. Large carnivores remained, they never reached sauropod size. In the early Palaeocene, mammals where only just evolving, but by the Eocene giants like Megatherium (a 6m high ground sloth) and Indricotherium (a bulky, 5m high rhinoceros) had evolved. Then, sizes continued to dicline, at one time most animals where like dwarfs, tiny horses, etc.
So the earth didn't suddenly put on weight after the huge sauropods declined. This was a gradual process, and I believe that it is still going on today. So why is the earth increasing it's size and gravity? Post your own ideas everyone. I have a feeling (and I hope) that I've just started a BIG discussion…

I am actually immune to "what does this dinosaur's name mean" questions. My dad is a european history fanatic and the house is full of latin and greek dictionaries. I bet there isn't a "what does this dinosaur's name mean" question that I can't answer!

The smaller earth theory, which is actually not a theory but a fact in my opinion has something else about it. Jumping dinosaurs like deinonychus, etc. could have jumped more easily, because there's less gravity. And maybe larger dinosaurs like megaraptor could have jumped on other dinosaurs' backs too! Also, wouldn't the tides be larger? They are caused by the moon you all know, but when the earth's gravity is smaller, the moon could affect the tides more, so more tasty items would be swept up the beach, and beachcombing dinosaurs (eusteptospondylus is thought to be one) could find a meal more easily. ALSO, wouldn't the air pressure be less? Air rises and forms clouds, so it rains, so the Jurassic at the time of the giant sauropods was fittingly lush and wet!

When people say "raptor," what they often do not know is that there is actually a dinosaur called "rapator" or "plunderer," from early cretacious eastern australia. CALL "RAPTORS" DROMAESAURIDS, THE CORRECT NAME!!!!!!!! Oops, I left caps lock on… (thanks for that idea Gianna, by the way.)

I have another thing about velociraptors. Cheetahs are the fastest things whith legs on, (DUH) and velociraptors we know where very fast for their body size. Cheetahs, after a few minutes running, stop, because they start to overheat. So raptors would probably also have done short bursts. But T REX was larger, and each step covered a lot of distance. So T rex would have been able to run fast for long periods of time. Honkie Tong said everything else a week ago, so I won't bother.

Trivia master - easy, I didn't even need a latin dictioary - roof three oak before lizard

And NEKO, T Rex had a massive, but kind of narrow skull, and it was kind of flattened where the top of the head is. The teeth I reckon would have pocked out.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

OK, I get your T REX thing now. And what I meant about anteaters and elephants etc. is that there where elephants on both america and africa, and they evolved quite sparately, when the two were'nt joined.
If I bung everyone on mesozoic mumblings loads of great ideas could come out. Just post a message to tell me your interested, and a date and time can be arranged, and loads of great ideas could come out.

Gravitholus - pachycephalosaurid - alberta - YA
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

hov dinosaurs live
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 24, 2001

Not only am I not-here-often,but every one ignores me like I'm never here .Okay,so some people don't ignore me but its no difference.
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; October 24, 2001

Normally I never get a chance to respond to anyone because I'm hardly ever here like Honkie Tong there.
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; October 24, 2001

I'm taking a break....*yawn. Might as well save my strength for later when worthy opponents come along...
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; October 23, 2001

Someone asked earlier where Honkie went. My opinion is he felt the site got too boring with all the trivia and the lack of any debating. So far the only slightly big debate that has occured recently was over what year a dinosaur was discovered. Maybe he felt bored and decided to seek out a new message board.

Either that our he's taking a break. If he comes back I'm sure he'll answer your question.

Anyway, I've been feeling the same way lately.............
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 23, 2001

Earlier there was some arguments over which dinosaur was the smallest. So, since lately there has been little debating and more trivia, I took it upon myself to look up the measurements for competitors for the smallest dinosaur:
Microceratops:
This was a cretaceous herbivore found in Mongolia, I think. He was bipedal and may have grazed in all fours at times. Here are the measurements I came across:
Dinosauricon: 60 cm (however, this specimen is a juvenile)
A small "tripod" site: 76cm long
Another site I found at Google: 60cm long, 25 centimetres tall
An AOL site: 60cm (did not specify if it was juvenile; probably was becuase of dinosauricon statistics), 8-15 pounds

Compsognathus:
A cretaceous carnivore which moved on two legs. His name means "pretty jaw," so I've heard.
London Natural Museum: 70cm-140cm long
Dinosauricon: 100cm
Dinosaur directory at Natural History Museum: 60cm

Procompsognathus:
A slightly larger, Triassic form of his succesor Compsognathus, Procompsognathus was a bipedal carnivore with a name that mean "before pretty jaw."
Dinosauricon: 120cm
Saskatoon Website: 120cm
Another website I found at Google:100cm
"Ladywildlife" Website: 100-120cm (roughly; the measurements were in feet and I had to estimate.)

So you see, it looks like Procompsognathus is out of the running. Going by numerical order, Microceratops was 60 centimetres. However, this was a juvenile, as specified by the dinosauricon, and one of the measurements for Compsognathus was 70 centimetres, very close to the juvenile Microceratops. It looks to me like the size comparison is very close, and with the measurements varying slightly from most of the sites I visited, I think it would be difficult to determine which one was really smaller. In conclusion, I'd say they were approximately the same size.

*I'm talking dinosaurs, here. I didn't include any of the weird bird- reptile hybrids like "Caudiopteryx," or any of the early birds like Archaeopteryx.

**If you're looking for the sites I got the info from type in the dinosaurs names at Google to look 'em up.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 23, 2001

GROWL GROWL GROWL! or low "grrr" sounds...but louder!
from evilneko, age 8, ?, ?, ?; October 23, 2001

"Macrodontophion! (And the Nesodon mentioned earlier, but I think it has been synonymized with something else.)"

Correct!
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 23, 2001

"1) What is the one dinosaur genus that lacks a species epithet?"

Macrodontophion! (And the Nesodon mentioned earlier, but I think it has been synonymized with something else.)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 23, 2001

Tim - It's DA masta, me and Trivia Masta are different people. You're probably just used to typing "Trivia master" but I thought I'd tell you. And the book I used was good but old, so you where right about Azendosaurus.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

BOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Why is this taking so long to load?!!! On the science forum people are arguing abou the loch ness monster, so I thought I'd bring it here. Also, Mkele Membe is actually just a rhinoceros.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

T.rex is about as far removed from being a carnosaur as your tiger is from a wolf. T.rex was, think this, a gigantic ornithomimid modified for super-predatory behaviour. Yes, I recon we don't even need to pour a great deal of info to prove you wrong.
from Da masta over masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 23, 2001

I notice trivia questions have become rather popular in this forum, so I figure I'll add one too:

1) What is the one dinosaur genus that lacks a species epithet?
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

By the way,many movies make t-rex sound like a beastly roar.That spinosaurus sound in jp3 is hard to discribe.Dinosaurs would have made low rumbling noises or most likely growl.
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; October 22, 2001

What do you think some dinosaurs sounded like,

As probably everyone knows Parasaurolophus is the loudest dinosaur,

Scientists think that it could be heard from at least 5 miles away, Parasaurolophus might have even been able to have sounds higher pitched than even humans could here.

At first before they discovered that giganotosaurus was smaller than t-rex scientists thought it was the second loudest dinosaur after the honking dinos like parasaurolophus, but now it is known that rex had a deep roar, It would have been a terrifying sound.

A raptor could have had a low squeaking sound, but the bigger the raptor the lower the sound. The lowest a raptor could probably growl was a growl to threaten other raptors or when attacking a dinosaur. In JP3 raptors can communicate in there own language, that is very untrue as probably most of you know, like any animal they probably had some ways to mean something like " I smell food over there" or where to go. But they couldn't communicate like humans.

There is a website where you can here the sound of Parasauropholus but I forgot it, I'll try and find it again but its really long!
from Trivia master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Here is a fairly hard trivia question,

What does Stegtridryoprosaurus mean,

This is not a true dinosuar but I put some common dinosaur names together and wanted to see who could figure it out.
from Trivia master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

wut's oekaki? My nickname use to be Necko with a c, but i figured it'd look better as "Neko". Who's Neko Pheonix? A friend of yours? When my brother saw the name "evilneko", he thought that your my evil twin -___-;;

Yeah...where the heck is honkie...? Even though I never even know him that much, he seems to be an expert too. =) Wut'dee ya mean DUMB microceratops?? Is he stupid?

Any of You have Palace? ^.~

Anyone know what Tyrannosaurus Rex really looked like? every single show / movie ( Jurassic Park, Walking with Dinosaurs, When Dinosaurs roamed america) I see them all differently. did he have a round broad head or a long snout? I think the Jurassic Park ones look good. ^__^
from Neko, age 11, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Gravitholos, a pachacephalasaur found in alberta, and descovered and named in 1979. It was about three meters long, not to much smaller than pachasephalasaurus.
from trivia master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Oh yah number three was true and false, megaraptor mostlikely could have taken down prey larger than it, and false because megaraptor is not a type of raptor, its just in the droamiosaurds group.
from Trivia master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

1. Massospondylus is slighty bigger and longer than dryosaurus but no much.

2. Gorgosaurus, Leptoscerritops, procomsagnathus, are three excamples, but there are more. Close da master, it was once thought that Gorgosaurus was a type of albertosaurus but now they are known to be different dinosaurs but almost the exact body form.

3.
from Trivia Master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Neko you remind me of someone at an oekaki named Neko Pheonix. cause of your name. and uh...BYYOOOTIFUL FANART! what there's nowhere else to say this.

yeah lil compy's waaaay smaller then any dumb microcera. microcera's scale is prolly boston terrier sized. and boston terriers are definetely bigger then female chickens yeah yeah.
from evilneko, age 8, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

>But Tyrannosaurs where CARNOSAURS weren't they!? Yeah!? Not >coelurosaurids! They where both SAURISCHIANS, so they where >distantly related, but not closely. Ornithomimids where more closely >related to Saurornithoidids and Dromaesaurids. Tyrannosaurids where >Carnosaues. Post back UR answer soon as U can. And I reckon however >much information you pour on me I will still be right

Tyrannosaurids are NOT carnosaurs. They are quite coelurosaurian. A quote from the Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs will help further elaborate this (p.155, Classification and Evolution of the Dinosaur Groups):

"Another clade of coelurosaur that is characterized by an arctometatarsus is the tyrannosaurids. Most famous for the last and largest member of the clade, Tyrannosaurus Rex, tyrannosaurids at first glance seem far removed from the ostrichlike ornithomimosaurs. However, the hindlimb anatomy of tyrant dinosaurs is nearly identical to that of ornithomimosaurs...Additional derived features in the pelvis and skull suggest in my own analyses that tyrannosaurids were closer to ornithomimosaurs than to other coelurosaur groups. That said, additional data suggest other alternative placements (tyrannosaurids, for example, as primitive maniraptorans; or tyrannosaurids as the sister group to the rest of the maniraptoriforme) in analyses by Paul Sereno and Peter Makovicky of the American Museum of Natural History, and Hans Sues of the Royal Ontario Museum. Regardless of their precise position, all observations indicate that tyrannosaurids are derived coelurosaurs, and developed their g! iant form independent of true carnosaurs such as Allosaurus and Giganptosaurus."

So, as you can see, Tyrannosaurids as I stated above, are quite coelurosaurian.
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

da masta:

"The dinosaur Gravitholus, where does it come from and what type of dinosaur is it?"

It's a pachycephalosaur from Alberta.

"Tim! I'm not trying to offend you, but I really want to get my point across. If you remember my explosive entrance last week, you said tyrannosaurs are related to ornithomimids. I may be being
nicer now but in this case my view remains the same. You correctly said that Ornithomimids belongs to the coelurosauridae!"

That's not correct, because there is no "Coelurosauridae". It's Coelurosauria.

"But Tyrannosaurs where CARNOSAURS weren't they!?"

Nope, they weren't. :)

"Yeah!? Not coelurosaurids! They where both SAURISCHIANS, so they where distantly related, but not closely."

Coelurosauria and Carnosauria are both Avetheropods, which is a lot more closely related than just both being Saurichians. Or do you have a polyphyletic Theropoda theory you're not sharing?

"Ornithomimids where more closely related to Saurornithoidids and Dromaesaurids."

I think they were closer to Tyrannosauridae than Dromaeosauridae. But I could be wrong, coelurosaur classification is always difficult!

"Threre is a dino chat room - mesozioc mumbling - that I would like to argue with someone in. Who wants a chat? Ya know ya want to! Don't be SHY! We can arrange a time and date. (For someone clever like Brad, Tim, Honkie Tong, Trivia Master, anyone else interested."

I typically _never_ "chat" on the internet, but if everyone else is going I might go too. What do you want to argue about?

"You know, back to Lanasaurus, isn't that a heterodontosaurid or a hypsilophodontid?"

Heterodontosauridae.

"Tim - you said you love researching stuff. I know. I do too. But what I wanna know and I can't find out is, you know at the sides of carnosaurs' jaws there where these muscle things? Pinkish ones on both sides of the jaw? At the place where it opens and closes? Like this > ? Could you tell me what that is? 'Cause you have more dino encyclopedias an' stuff than me!"

I've always wondered that too!

"I have a theory about Spinosaurids! I reckon a lot of 'em aren't related!"

I've also questioned the monophyly of the Spinosaurus-Baryonychid clade. I'm undecided on this one, but I think you could be correct.

"They're just plonked together because of that sail on their
backs!"

Actually, they're just plonked together for having the dentary constricted behind the fourth tooth, and elongated relatively straight teeth. I don't think that elongated neural spines is a requirement for inclusion in Spinosauridae anymore.

"Because similar animals like lions and rhinos and elephants and anteaters evolved VERY separately in Africa and America during the quartenary period, as they where very successful designs they evolved in different places, in different families, but still the same."

Why would anyone place lions, rhinos, elephants, and anteaters in the same family? I don't think I understand this sentence.

"Stegosaurs also evolved in china and america separately, as they where a successful design, so why not spinosaurs?"

I've always thought that Stegosauria was monophyletic. What suggests to you that they evolved seperately? (And what about European stegosaurs?)

"After all, a lot of them only have the sails on their backs in
common with each other! Actually I ! am getting quite intersted in Spinosaurids. I'll name a few! Acrocanthosaurus, Altispinax, Becklespinax, Metriacanthosaurus, Spinosaurus."

Of the ones that you named, only Spinosaurus is presently considered a spinosaurid. And no sail is known for Altispinax- it's just a tooth, since its vertebrae were referred to Becklespinax.

"Also, Tim, where do you get all those latin names at the end of
the genus from!? I wanna know!"

Those are species. He probably gets them from books, or the Dinosauricon site.

"I dunno, but people are mentioning Gorgosaurus.Gorgosaurus is actually albertosaurus. They are the same! Doesn't anyone know? Now many dinosaurs thought to be separate species are being re - classified as members of other species. But Gorgosaurus has been known to be albertosaurus for ages!"

Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus were lumped together in 1970 by Dale Russell. Gorgosaurus as a seperate genus is a more recent development, happening sometime in the 1990s.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 22, 2001

WHERE"S HONKIE TONG LATELY?
from a fan, age ?, ?, ?, USA; October 22, 2001

Jesus, today waiting for this to load is BORING.
The utahraptor in europe argument is closed then, I guess, and er, I have so much to say. But everything's taking ages to load today so I'll just send one massive kik(_|_) newsletter! Please read carefully, It's important! And it might apply to you!

I feel like some good trivia.

Try this one out:
The dinosaur Gravitholus, where does it come from and what type of dinosaur is it?

Most of you probably know, but, actually, MUSSAURUS (mouse lizard) is the smallest dinosaur ever found. It was a baby prosauropod. Christ. Anyone got any suggestions on what tense to use when talking about dinosaurs?

T rexes arms I reckon where there for no reason. It's ancestors didn't need them so they just got smaller. By the time Rex evolved the arms where tiny. Look at triassic carnivores. Long arms. Jurassic, and the arms are smaller, but the skulls are bigger. By the cretacious, the largely dominant tyrannosaurids had 'powerhouse' skulls and puny arms. That's about it, really.

For the person who said the science forum is getting faster.
>From what I can gather from these messages, the science forum is faster because virtually no - one is using it. The message board is very popular so it takes longer to put the messge up!

JC - Not that it's any of my business, but is managing this site your job or are you a volunteer?

"T-Rex was realted to the Ornithomimids. They were all bird-like Theropods, called the Coelurosauridae, and they were closely realted. Need more information? Just ask and I'll pour it on you."
Tim! I'm not trying to offend you, but I really want to get my point across. If you remember my explosive entrance last week, you said tyrannosaurs are related to ornithomimids. I may be being nicer now but in this case my view remains the same. You correctly said that Ornithomimids belongs to the coelurosauridae! But Tyrannosaurs where CARNOSAURS weren't they!? Yeah!? Not coelurosaurids! They where both SAURISCHIANS, so they where distantly related, but not closely. Ornithomimids where more closely related to Saurornithoidids and Dromaesaurids. Tyrannosaurids where Carnosaues. Post back UR answer soon as U can. And I reckon however much information you pour on me I will still be right. But I'll wait and see your answer. You MIGHT have a good point.

Threre is a dino chat room - mesozioc mumbling - that I would like to argue with someone in. Who wants a chat? Ya know ya want to! Don't be SHY! We can arrange a time and date. (For someone clever like Brad, Tim, Honkie Tong, Trivia Master, anyone else interested. And I'm not sexist, I mean anyone with a keen interest of dinosaurs and reasonably good knowledge.)

Tim - I think I know what an earlier person meant by "Spinosaurus is a more defensive dinosaur." They are probably wrong, but they meant that T Rex is more aggressive, and Spino more docile, and defended itself more from other carnosaurs' attacks than it attacked other dinos itself. But I do disagree with that.

Skeptic by name, skeptic by nature, huh? I reckon you'll have to agree with this statement.

I don't mean to be intrusive, but how old is everyone here? I mean no one puts their age - I'm 13, (I'll be 14 Sunday!) I was pissing about when I said 127 as you undoubtedly know - and I wanna know! (If that's OK.)

You know, back to Lanasaurus, isn't that a heterodontosaurid or a hypsilophodontid?

Tim - you said you love researching stuff. I know. I do too. But what I wanna know and I can't find out is, you know at the sides of carnosaurs' jaws there where these muscle things? Pinkish ones on both sides of the jaw? At the place where it opens and closes? Like this > ? Could you tell me what that is? 'Cause you have more dino encyclopedias an' stuff than me!

I have a theory about Spinosaurids!
I reckon a lot of 'em aren't related! They're just plonked together because of that sail on their backs! And what I think is, they belong to different already existing dino families, and as at the time that sail appears to be a successful evolutionary design, many dino families evolved it simultaniously. If U look up close, they look so different! The bones do too! They just have the sails on their backs! I reckon they should be studied more closely. Because similar animals like lions and rhinos and elephants and anteaters evolved VERY separately in Africa and America during the quartenary period, as they where very successful designs they evolved in different places, in different families, but still the same. Possums in Austalia and South America. It really goes on. Stegosaurs also evolved in china and america separately, as they where a successful design, so why not spinosaurs? After all, a lot of them only have the sails on their backs in common with each other! Actually I ! am getting quite intersted in Spinosaurids. I'll name a few!

Acrocanthosaurus, Altispinax, Becklespinax, Metriacanthosaurus, Spinosaurus.

Anyone know any more? Tell me! Also, Tim, where do you get all those latin names at the end of the genus from!? I wanna know!

I am dino nut. I love dinosaurs. But dinosaur religions? It's just weird in my opinion. That's just taking it too far. I am a dino fanatic, OK, but I don't worship them. Well, not normally. Not most speciesÖ erÖ

You know everyone, I've got some dinosaur fiction under my nickname (U NEVER ask my real name, see?) at the dinosaur fiction thing. If you've got some spare time then take a look, and feel free to make comments and ask questions.

Christ, It's like I'm going on this site like, every day! It's wicked here!

Ah, you know everyone, I really like this site. And I don't reckon anything should be added, or changed. There is a nice community of regular people here and if this site gets all big it won't have that nice feeling of being part of something special to it. You can tell me that's stupid but that's what I think.

I agree with Neko. Compys may have been longer, but I think they would have been smaller than Microceratopsians.

Anybody know about when the feathery dinos where found?
from da masta, age 13&358/365, ?, ?, Da land of da things; October 22, 2001

Jesus, why is this thing taking so long to load?!
1)Massospondylus I'd say.
2)I dunno, but people are mentioning Gorgosaurus.Gorgosaurus is actually albertosaurus. They are the same! Doesn't anyone know? Now many dinosaurs thought to be separate species are being re - classified as members of other species. But Gorgosaurus has been known to be albertosaurus for ages!
Hasn't it? Or am I wrong? 'Cause I don't thimk so this time!
3)Possibly
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Why is this dino thing taking ages to ocme up!?! What was I going to say? Uh, crap, I'll have to check agai.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Thanks for the Paleocene duckbill Tim, that was intersting. And the theory is good.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

"OOOps, I forgot to name three dinosaurs named in 1914! Well, here you go:
Anchiceratops,Gorgosaurus,Gryposaurus,(Styracosaurus was named in 1913),Brachyceratops."

Wow. Are you going from memory, or did you look these up at Dinodata? I knew Gorgosaurus, but I just guessed on my ceratopids.
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; October 22, 2001

wouldn't it be cool if dinos were still around? Except T.Rex because it would kill all of us. (That is a compliment!)
from allosaurus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

OOOps, I forgot to name three dinosaurs named in 1914! Well, here you go:
Anchiceratops,Gorgosaurus,Gryposaurus,(Styracosaurus was named in 1913),Brachyceratops.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

"I think Dryosaurus and Massospondylus are about the same."
In a way yes. According to what I know about Massospondylus and Dryosaurus, Dryosaurus would be about 10 to 12 ft. long, while Massospondylus would be 12 to 18 ft. long. Slightly larger. Technically they are about the same.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

"So just because Europe and America were connected doesn't mean Utahraptor lived in Europe"
Well, it COULD have. For sure. It is deffinetely possible. Walking with dinosaurs is a speculative view at dinosaur life, but you can't excactly say that they made a mistake regarding the whole Utahraptor Iguanodon thing.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Ah,Tim M.,yes,I do like mammal like reptiles like dicynodonts and another reptile called pareiasaurus and I don't know why I'm so fond of them even most of my stories are on other beasts I notice they make no sense or meanings but I'll write one.Now Dicynodon is a reptile that looks like lystrosaurus but has a triceratops-like beak. Anyway dicynodonts were mostly ranging from the average dog size to lystrosaurus who grew to large pig-sized.The dicynodonts were easy target but had tusks for protection.
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; October 22, 2001

1. Which of these dinosaurs are the largest, Massospondylus, Dryosuarus, or Ornitholesteis?

I think Massospondylus and Dryosaurus are about the same.

2. Name at least three dinosaurs named in 1914!

Uh, Gorgosaurus is one. Maybe Styracosaurus. And..... Chasmosaurus?

3. Being one of the most advanced raptor speices, Megaraptor was able to hunt prey even bigger than it, true or false?

Considering the known material for Megaraptor, I don't think we could know if that was true or false.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 22, 2001

"My book said Azendosaurus is a Fabrosaurid. Either my book is outdated , or you are wrong."

Your book is outdated. Galton identified it as a prosauropod in 1990.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; October 22, 2001

EvilNeko....?? =| Umm.....The name sounds like I'm evil...oh well U__U

Anyways, I think compy is smaller then a microcero.
from Neko, age 11, ?, ?, ?; October 22, 2001

Da Masta I know that North America was connected to Europe but in walking with dinosaurs it says they are in europe and utahraptor has only been found in the US. So utahraptor would've hunted Iguanadons that lived in america but not in europe. So just because europe and america are connected it dosen't mean utahraptor lived in europe.
from Owain, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

My theory for the extcintionof the dinosaurs is as follows:
A 6 mile wide comet traveling at 18 miles per second hits earth.
Immediate effects: Enormous explosion of 100 million megatons occurs, enough to open a huge hole in the earth's crust.
Short term effects: Massive earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions occur, as well as many huge Tsunamis.
Long term effects(these were the worst): Cloud of pumice and ash blocks out the Sun. "Fireballs"- burning remanents of the explosion rain down. Acid rain occurs. Rapid climat changes- which brings us to your theory Trivia master.
In total, this would be enough to wipe out the dinosaurs in a few years.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Good questions.
1. Massospondylus is the largest of those dinosaurs
2.
3. Megaraptor was more primitive than other Dromeosaurids, but probably could take down prey bigger than itself.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

1. Which of these dinosaurs are the largest, Massospondylus, Dryosuarus, or Ornitholesteis?

2. Name at least three dinosaurs named in 1914!

3. Being one of the most advanced raptor speices, Megaraptor was able to hunt prey even bigger than it, true or false?
from Trivia master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Sorry Tim I read the question to soon to relise that wasn't it, and Brad is right.
from Trivia Master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

The paleocene duckbill finds are based by an isolated duckbill femur from the San Juan basin. The Sedimentery rocks the femur was found in are 64 million years old.

When I come back, I'll tell you about MY exctiction theory. (very similar to yours, da masta.)
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

To save time, I will make one Huge post...
"thanks for taking time to answer my question..."

As I said, I LOVE answering questions...

"My book said Azendohsaurus was a Fabrosaurid..."

It is quite trivial, actually. This dinosaur is known by only skeletal fragments, so we can't tell for sure. What's the publication date on your book? My research indicates that Azendohsaurus USED to be thought of as a bipedal plant eater, but later, it was I dentified as a prosauropod. What does your book say?

"Lanasaurus was part of the Heterodontosaurs family..."
Yes, but that wasn't the question!

"experts like Tim M. and Brad and Trivia Mater can confirm this..."
Yup, he's right.

"TIM M-Sangonghesaurus- a chinese ankylosaur..."
Yes, absolutely!

"Tim m., I would like to more about the Paleocene duckbill"
(Just to tell you, this is my response to that whole post...)

Yes, your theory is very similar to mine. I agree. I have a few other parts to that theory, but you must understand, I'm short for time...
I tell you about the Paleocene duckbill in a minute...
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Yep, da masta, this IS the best site. I go here every day.
from Gianna, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

chickens and rabbits...in that case Microceratops is bigger then a rabbit. prolly something like a...cat? the Mussaurus that could fit in the palm of your own hands is classified a really young(but older the a baby) Mussaurus. i'm wrong aren't i?
from evilneko, age 8, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Here we go....

Mussaurus was a very small dinosaur which only measure 9 to 16 inches long. That's so small that it could fit in a person's hand. A Mussaurus was also a prosauropod dinosaur, originating from the late triassic, not a sauropod.

So far no adult Mussaurs have been found. It has been estimated that an adult would be 10 feet long andweigh up to 260 pounds.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 21, 2001

"There is a creature called Mussusaurus but I'm pretty sure it was just a juvenile sauropod. Does anyone have anymore details?"

Yes, you're right, it was a juvenile. I don't have that many details either, I'll try to find something......

welcome back, Jason.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; October 21, 2001

"People say Microceratops is as little as a rabbit - Compsagnathus about the size of a chicken. If Microceratops is about the size of a rabbit (if it's true) then that means that Compsagnathus isn't the smallest dinosaur ever. I think chickens are bigger than rabbits, don't any of you think so too? Maby compsagnathus isn't the smallest dinosaur that had ever live....maby there is. Anyone know?"

There is a creature called Mussasaurus but I'm pretty sure it was just the juvenile of a sauropod. Does anyone have more details?

Yeah, I'm back, that "T.rex hater" from some while ago. Check out my debate in the archives, though I'm not sure anyone will support what I said.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; October 21, 2001

My favorite is T-rex.
from Nathan T, age 7, Breckenridge, Texas, USA; October 21, 2001

DICYNODON sounds VERY familiar but I have not found it anywhere yet.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

This is so addictive. I've been on this site over 2 hours today. It's just so good. This is the damn best site i've ever been to. And I mean it.

Bet everyone agrees.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Tim - I would like to know more about the paleocene duckbill. Also, I have a theory that I nabbed of Ian Malcolm in the original novel of the lost world. (you should read the original novels of jurassic park and the lost world - they are really good!)By the end of the maastrichtian age, the dinosaurs where very well adapted to their habitat. They where SPECIALISED. And if an animal is well adapted to one habitat, it is almost certainly badly adapted to another one. Imagine a penguin in the sahara or a camel in antarctica, to give you the basic idea. So if the climate changed a lot, (and it did, probably thanks to the meteor. The dinosaurs not directly affected by the meteor would probably be affected by my theory.) the dinosaurs would be badly adapted to it.Grass. New plant defenses like poison, communication with other plants (find out about the douglas fir if you find that interesting) and a colder temperature,and less oxygen(the meteor's fireball would consume a lot of oxygen), would all have helped to extinct the last remaining dinosaurs.

What do YOU think? And don't forget, I'm really interested in the paleocene duckbill.
from Da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

TIM M - Sanghongesaurus - A chinese Ankylosaurid, is that no right?
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Ah, I take back my pterosaur/lanasaurus guess. Well, I tried. I didn't look at Brad's explanation for lanasaurus properly.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Owain - a while ago you said that there where some scenes in walking with dinosaurs that could not be true. I agree about the first one, but, er, not the second one. Ya see, the continents wheren't the same. They where closer together. Europe would STILL be connected to North america. So eastern Utahraptors could have hunted western Iguanodons in the Appalachian mountains. Also, Iguanodon lived in:

1) Belgium
2) Western europe

3) Romania
4) Western north America
5) North africa
6) Mongolia

Experts like Tim M and Brad and Trivia Master (sorry clever people who I missed out) can confirm this for you if you don't believe me.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

When people give examples of dinosaurs bigger than brachiosaurus they always use examples like sauropseidon, and argentinosaurus. There are some quite old dinosaurs bigger than brachiosaurus. It's just strange no - one ever mentions seismosaurus or ultrasaurus.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Lanasaurus was from the Heterodontosaurs family, I think thats right.
from Trivia Master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Donovan c., you like mammal-like reptiles now? Let's talk about them.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

"Ah, Lanasaurus, one of the more interesting names..."
That's why I chose it!
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Well, my questions aren't TOO hard because Brad and Trivia Master can answer them. But I should make them easier so more people can try...
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Good, yet again you've answered some hard questions, Brad!
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Argh, thanks person with no name. I will try the chat room 'mesozoic mumblings' as soon as I can. CHEERS!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

(to Tim M.) thanks for taking the time to answer my questions! time to put those dinos on my list. ^^
from evilneko, age 8, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

I came in last week and cussed half of 'yer! "What reputation have you got to repair" INDEED! PAH!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

My book said Azendosaurus is a Fabrosaurid. Either my book is outdated , or you are wrong.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Brad! No! It's a FABROSAURID. Found in the obscure village of Azendoh in Morocco's Atlas mountains.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Jesus I thought I was one of the best under 18 dinosaur know -a - lot people in the country before I came to this site.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001

Craspedodon is an Iguanodont. Brad answered it first but you can believe me, I DID know anyway.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; October 21, 2001