Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why do so few of today's animals resemble dinosaurs?
Topic Started: Feb 27 2015, 01:13 AM (1,022 Views)
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Seeing as the dinosaurs were a highly succesful group, how come we see so little convergent evolution? Have mammals and birds found more effective ways to deal with locomotion and have more fitting adaptations? Is it more a matter of chance and a different environment?

I would say that it is all of these. There are different selective pressures which result in different animals, in some ways they might have found better solutions. The current selective forces might make it impossible to evolve into something more dinosaur-like, even if it is otherwise possible; the niche is there but to come from the current niche to that niche is impossible because of the selective pressures. Also, the different ancestors would be another factor; it would be more likely for a bird to evolve in dinosaur-types than mammals.

The kangeroo hop for example is something new (is it?) and might be more energy efficient as normal bipedality. Or are there more similarities than I think between dinosaurs and current mammals and birds?

That what I was thinking of and would like to discuss, however I'm unsure if there's much left to discuss this way. I used to think that mammals and birds were somewhat better, but they are not, at best they are more fitting currently. Recent discoveries have shown that there's more to dinosaurs and other archosaurs.
Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 28 2015, 05:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Honey Badger
Member Avatar
Ur ready 4 Freddy, butt f*cked bi Foxy
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

But in all seriousness, it's just them adapting to being able to find more food, at least I believe so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
If your asking why mammals haven't developed dinosaurian bipedalism, it's because the ancestral mammal had the bulk of its mass before the hips, where as the proto dinosaur was balanced out by the tail. As mammals evolved, the tail often was reduced to a stub or short whip, only in aboral and sprinting species did the tail retain a balancing function, but it is too small to provide evolution with the "raw material" for developing a tail with the nessissary structure and mass needed to form a theropod like stance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
snap
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Posted Image
Edited by snap, Feb 27 2015, 08:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Allosaurusatrox
Feb 27 2015, 02:14 AM
If your asking why mammals haven't developed dinosaurian bipedalism, it's because the ancestral mammal had the bulk of its mass before the hips, where as the proto dinosaur was balanced out by the tail. As mammals evolved, the tail often was reduced to a stub or short whip, only in aboral and sprinting species did the tail retain a balancing function, but it is too small to provide evolution with the "raw material" for developing a tail with the nessissary structure and mass needed to form a theropod like stance.
Yes that is one of the things I was wondering, thanks!

Quote:
 
But in all seriousness, it's just them adapting to being able to find more food, at least I believe so.


Yes the kangaroo. Right? Which seemed like a bad example after I wrote it. It has evolved to deal with the environment, not so much predators. I wonder how well kangaroos would do against leopards, hyenas or other Old world predators.
Edited by Mesopredator, Feb 27 2015, 09:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Your welcome meso!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There are of course bipedal birds, that fly little or not at all, such as ratites and galliformes, and the extinct ones such moas, terror birds and demon-duck of doom. It seems that mammalian predators have a better "synergy", or are better adapted to deal with the current prey species, and that a more fitting niche of bipedal birds is that of insect, seed and fruit eater; the omnivorous lifestyle. I'm not that well-known with more herbivorous galliformes, but I thought they exist. Not sure if they can compete with the ungulates.

There doesn't seem to be a reason to have teeth again. Unless you count penguins and geese having teeth. It is interesting that we did see convergent evolution with the ankylosaurus and doedicurus clavicaudatus.

What about duckbills? Why no duckbills? What about their way of locomotion? Out of the question because of ancestors of birds and mammals? That and the replacement of arms by wings? Any other?

Another question: could some of today's animals evolve to resemble dinosaurs again? Since this is very hypothetical, are there any species that have potential for this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grimace
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mesopredator
Feb 28 2015, 05:20 AM
Another question: could some of today's animals evolve to resemble dinosaurs again? Since this is very hypothetical, are there any species that have potential for this?
Birds maybe. They've done it in the past with the terror birds and etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grimace
Feb 28 2015, 05:35 AM
Mesopredator
Feb 28 2015, 05:20 AM
Another question: could some of today's animals evolve to resemble dinosaurs again? Since this is very hypothetical, are there any species that have potential for this?
Birds maybe. They've done it in the past with the terror birds and etc.
Well I mentioned that. The terror birds and etc.

Anyway, if most large mammals would go extinct they could certainly co-evolve with rodents to become larger. But I guess the truth it that we can hardly know. Not that it was my intention or goal to go after the truth. I just want to speculate in a way that is more accurate as those people on the speculative biology forum whom seem to just use fantasy and call it speculative biology.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply