well mosasaurs were not the end result of evolution of pliosaurs, there were indeed pliosaurs in the cretaceous, two examples would be koronosaurus queenslandicus and its south american counter parts, but yes they were all killed by mosasaurs,
Convergent evolution is the result of two species with different ancestry that evolve in similar ways. Bats and Dolphins have echolocation. Koronosaursus were early Cretaceous which in the long run is very close to extinction at the end of the Jurassic. "Killed by Mosasaurs" isn't really known, you might want to say that Mosasaurs replaced Koronosaurus as top predators.
In one interview a telltale employee said that the Mosasaurs were actually Tylosaurus. And they also mentioned that they tried to include traits that these creatures might have had into the gameplay and are going to show the mosasaurs using echolocation to find their "food".
mosasaurs with the radar of a dolphin? that crap, the mosasaurs was a predator hunting prey larger than if he needed the radar? dolphins or bats they use it because they hunt small prey animals but do not need a huge radar but smell like a shark, a good view but the radar has nothing to do but if you excuse me a rovineret mosasaurs with a radar image of this animal
mosasaurs with the radar of a dolphin? that crap, the mosasaurs was a predator hunting prey larger than if he needed the radar? dolphins or bats they use it because they hunt small prey animals but do not need a huge radar but smell like a shark, a good view but the radar has nothing to do but if you excuse me a rovineret mosasaurs with a radar image of this animal
Orcas have echolocation too and they hunt large animals. Sharks don't have echolocation because their ears have evolved differently from land animals. As for the mosasaurs eating large prey, that is still speculation.
killer whales have the radar because they use to communicate among themselves and between coordinanzi the pack for hunting, as regards the hunting of large prey is wrong killer whales hunting seals, penguins and other seabirds pede their pups are larger of whales but they are still puppies.
The mosasaurs could hunt all that met
killer whales have the radar because they use to communicate among themselves and between coordinanzi the pack for hunting, as regards the hunting of large prey is wrong killer whales hunting seals, penguins and other seabirds pede their pups are larger of whales but they are still puppies.
The mosasaurs could hunt all that met
mosasaurs im pretty sure didnt possess ecolocation.. (no ones seen one alive im not saying its not possible) but echolocation is a adaptation formed by whales and dolphins of a predatory nature during the oligocene period i believe. mosasaurs could have had it because they inhabited the same niches but its entirley up for debate. if they want to add something factual about the mosasaur they could include the fact that their inner ear (a portion of the ear used in orientation of the animal) shrank in size in mosasaurs so that they could twirl spin and dive after prey without the dizzy side effects that we humans recieve when ever we go on a roller coaster,
killer whales have the radar because they use to communicate among themselves and between coordinanzi the pack for hunting, as regards the hunting of large prey is wrong killer whales hunting seals, penguins and other seabirds pede their pups are larger of whales but they are still puppies.
The mosasaurs could hunt all that met
Your point would be more valied if you would spellcheck your work. Coordination in whales by means of language has not been proven, humans are the only animals proven to use language in attack patterns. I don't even know what you are saying about orca hunting in the last part.
mosasaurs im pretty sure didnt possess ecolocation.. (no ones seen one alive im not saying its not possible) but echolocation is a adaptation formed by whales and dolphins of a predatory nature during the oligocene period i believe. mosasaurs could have had it because they inhabited the same niches but its entirley up for debate. if they want to add something factual about the mosasaur they could include the fact that their inner ear (a portion of the ear used in orientation of the animal) shrank in size in mosasaurs so that they could twirl spin and dive after prey without the dizzy side effects that we humans recieve when ever we go on a roller coaster,
By looking at the ear bones of bats and whales, you can observe the presence of sonar, but I don't know what the sign is.
in the last part i say that preys bigger than orcas are little whales, not at all adult whales. the mosasaur instead hunted preys that were bigger than him, though they were adults
in the last part i say that preys bigger than orcas are little whales, not at all adult whales. the mosasaur instead hunted preys that were bigger than him, though they were adults
Your grammar is still deplorable. All organisms would prefer to take on the easiest source of food which would be infants. There is very little evidence to support behavior in the fossil record so most ideas of ancient animal behavior comes from understanding modern animals. And from the modern record, marine animals hunt animals that are smaller or weaker than themselves. No matter how much you want the animals from the Mesozoic era to be great monsters, they are still animals. You have evidence that mosasaurs hunted larger prey, be my guest and show me.
Your grammar is still deplorable. All organisms would prefer to take on the easiest source of food which would be infants. There is very little evidence to support behavior in the fossil record so most ideas of ancient animal behavior comes from understanding modern animals. And from the modern record, marine animals hunt animals that are smaller or weaker than themselves. No matter how much you want the animals from the Mesozoic era to be great monsters, they are still animals. You have evidence that mosasaurs hunted larger prey, be my guest and show me.
its a well known fact that mosasaurs (tylosaurus in particular) killed large pliosaurs like koronosaurus queenslandicus and killed long necked plesiosaurs like elasmosaurus by severing the long neck and slowly consuming the body, they also killed large 23 foot ginsu sharks in bursts of speed. if you want proof i would email a paleontologist with knowledge of the western interior sea, but your right most mosasaurs killed what fit in their mouths or could be easily brought down
its a well known fact that mosasaurs (tylosaurus in particular) killed large pliosaurs like koronosaurus queenslandicus and killed long necked plesiosaurs like elasmosaurus by severing the long neck and slowly consuming the body, they also killed large 23 foot ginsu sharks in bursts of speed. if you want proof i would email a paleontologist with knowledge of the western interior sea, but your right most mosasaurs killed what fit in their mouths or could be easily brought down
Sounds interesting, probably not likely that an elasmosaurus would last long with a broken neck. But that is still easy prey. I was saying that predators don't take down really large prey, lions rarely take on water baffalo.
Sounds interesting, probably not likely that an elasmosaurus would last long with a broken neck. But that is still easy prey. I was saying that predators don't take down really large prey, lions rarely take on water baffalo.
very true, i did a little research on the ecolocation of marine animals and it would appear that in order for this to be possible (a mosasaur with ecolocation) the animal would have to have a decently sized area in its head for the melon organ that most eco-locating marine mammals posses, i have tried to compare the two skulls of both tylosaurus neapolics (not progier) and a modern killer whale and i think that if mosasaurs had ecolocation (it would be unlikley) but the skull does have some spots where a small melon organ could have been located (im not a professional and i am unfamilliar with brain sizes) but it seems like the cranium could hold a small amount of extra baggage (the melon) i dunno its anyones guess, some oligocene whales had echolocation, basilosaurus (the first whales) (before the oligocene) had uncanny skull structures when compared to mosasaurs (Note: basilosaurus was incappable of eco-location) but ill show you what i mean, Exhibit a: Basilosaurus, Exhibit B tylosaurus
mosasaurs with the radar of a dolphin? that crap, the mosasaurs was a predator hunting prey larger than if he needed the radar? dolphins or bats they use it because they hunt small prey animals but do not need a huge radar but smell like a shark, a good view but the radar has nothing to do but if you excuse me a rovineret mosasaurs with a radar image of this animal
Well they're going to be hunting humans supposedly right? That's pretty small by mosasaur standards. I think it's creative. So what if they didn't have radar in real life? Pteranodons didn't have teeth, Velociraptors weren't 7 feet tall, and Brachiosaurus couldn't stand on their hind legs. Even if it's not possible it's still Jurassic Park authenticity. It's politically correct to be wrong in this franchise lol.
pardon my error lol elasmosaurs were a cretaceous breed of plesiosaur and when i mentioned them as an england resident i was meaning to reffer to its jurassic era counterparts like cryptoclidus or maurenosaurus leedsi, i have found a solution to the Marine reptile DNA debate and it actually roots itself in reality. i was reading marine reptiles of the oxford clay part 1 by charles andrews, and he mentions his finding bone marrow on many of the specimens collected from peterbrough by alfred leeds and others, bone marrow contains DNA and if it can survive the Late jurassic, it can easliy survive the late cretaceous on the body of well preserved mosasaur,
Well, it´s an interesting discussion, but I have seen "koronosaurus queenslandicus" here couple of times. This is wrong, because this species of this marine reptile is called Kronosaurus queenslandicus.
And how to get a DNA of marine reptile in Jurassic Park universe?
Some of marine species were depended to land - they had to leave theit eggs there, or they just have been resting there. But this is not Mosasaur´s case - this species probably didn´t have the ability to move on dry land. BUT! 1. What if the specimen of Mosasaur was beached on a dry land? Events of this type were really extremely probable. Just look at beached whales of today. Now we just need a mosquito to preserve reptile´s DNA in it´s amber coffin. That´s not a problem in JP universe. 2. Scientists also have found specimens of mesozoic marine insect in prehistoric amber. I guess, some of marine insect species could partially parasiticaly feed on marine reptiles. Well, this is rather optimistic view, don´t you think? :-)
Well, it´s an interesting discussion, but I have seen "koronosaurus queenslandicus" here couple of times. This is wrong, because this species of this marine reptile is called Kronosaurus queenslandicus.
And how to get a DNA of marine reptile in Jurassic Park universe?
Some of marine species were depended to land - they had to leave theit eggs there, or they just have been resting there. But this is not Mosasaur´s case - this species probably didn´t have the ability to move on dry land. BUT! 1. What if the specimen of Mosasaur was beached on a dry land? Events of this type were really extremely probable. Just look at beached whales of today. Now we just need a mosquito to preserve reptile´s DNA in it´s amber coffin. That´s not a problem in JP universe. 2. Scientists also have found specimens of mesozoic marine insect prehistoric amber. I guess, some of marine insect species could partially parasiticaly feed on marine reptiles. Well, this is rather optimistic view, don´t you think? :-)
. Yea but they did need to come up for air but the marine parasite thing is new to me. And I mean ginsu shark mummies have been found so a mosasaur is always a possibility. Thanks for the info btw
And how to get a DNA of marine reptile in Jurassic Park universe?
Probably they got the DNA from the marine reptile bones themselves, rather than going the insect-in-amber route. Though not as innovative as the amber method, this was mentioned briefly in the movie and touched on a few times in the novel.
In real life, some research suggests that it is possible for (very fragmentary) traces of DNA, blood vessels and soft tissue to survive fossilization and millions of years, under very certain conditions.
Probably they got the DNA from the marine reptile bones themselves, rather than going the insect-in-amber route. Though not as innovative as the amber method, this was mentioned briefly in the movie and touched on a few times in the novel.
In real life, some research suggests that it is possible for (very fragmentary) traces of DNA, blood vessels and soft tissue to survive fossilization and millions of years, under very certain conditions.
exactly, like i said the people at the british meuseum of natural history in london found bone marrow on their marine reptiles. and i honestly think these should be examined for remaining soft tissues, id say your right JR
exactly, like i said the people at the british meuseum of natural history in london found bone marrow on their marine reptiles. and i honestly think these should be examined for remaining soft tissues, id say your right JR
Moreover, we see whales and dolphins dying washed ashore. Mosquitos can attack them there I guess.
They could get the DNA from a specimen trapped in a glacier.
Or they could just extract it from their bones like @jurassiraptor and fill the eventual missing gaps with DNA from other animals.
They did find a way to clone extinct plants which are very degradable (although they haven't explained that in the movies or books if i recall,but of course they didn't get the DNA from mosquitoes ) ),but i hope they will comment on that in the game.
Specimen of a marine reptile from a glacier? Well, this is really nice, but extremely improbable. Scientists really have so far found several carcasses of primitive mammalian megafauna - especially mammoths or prehistoric bisons. And even these are very rare. Finding a frozen specimen of dinosaur or marine reptile in a glacier? I don´t think so. By the way - it´s like a plot from some very bad B-grade movie (DinoShark, Wyvern, Megashark vs Giant Octopus)...
Specimen of a marine reptile from a glacier? Well, this is really nice, but extremely improbable. Scientists really have so far found several carcasses of primitive mammalian megafauna - especially mammoths or prehistoric bisons. And even these are very rare. Finding a frozen specimen of dinosaur or marine reptile in a glacier? I don´t think so. By the way - it´s like a plot from some very bad B-grade movie (DinoShark, Wyvern, Megashark vs Giant Octopus)...
And finding a prehistoric mosquito (with blood from dinosaurs) inside amber isn't?
And finding a prehistoric mosquito (with blood from dinosaurs) inside amber isn't?
Actually finding mesozoic marine reptile in a glacier is just ridiculous, but finding a mosquito with DNA of dinosaur in it is technically much more probable - at least in Jurassic park movie/novel universe. Because, as we know DNA degrades by the time, and could last for only tens of thousands years (but not apparently in JP universe). Finds of primitive insects trapped in prehistoric amber are actually quite common. And even mosquitos have been found in amber. You should purchase magnificent book called The quest for life in amber by Hendrik Poinar and his wife Roberta - it´s really well-written and informative...
Actually finding mesozoic marine reptile in a glacier is just ridiculous, but finding a mosquito with DNA of dinosaur in it is technically much more probable - at least in Jurassic park movie/novel universe. Because, as we know DNA degrades by the time, and could last for only tens of thousands years (but not apparently in JP universe). Finds of primitive insects trapped in prehistoric amber are actually quite common. And even mosquitos have been found in amber. You should purchase magnificent book called The quest for life in amber by Hendrik Poinar and his wife Roberta - it´s really well-written and informative...
Yeah dude i know they already found mosquitoes in amber,but they never found mosquitoes with dinosaur DNA.
But they also found animals trapped in glaciers (even a woolly mammoth) as well as mummified animals ,so the chances of finding a mosquito with blood that contains dinosaur DNA are as big as finding a frozen dinosaur.
Both explanations are very unlikely,but that is not the point,the point i was trying to make is that if they want to they can give any explanation that is not IMPOSSIBLE even though it could be improbable.
Some large air-breathing marine animals will bask out of water... where a mosquito could get to them. It's more plausible than chlorophyll-sucking mosquitoes :P.
In the game, we talk a bit about why and how the Mosasaurus and the marine facility came to be.
No, a tylosaurus is a mosasaur. That's like saying a Tiger is a Lion. No, they're both big cats. They're both mosasaurs.
Mosasaur = family
Mosasaurus = genus
No, a tylosaurus is a mosasaur. That's like saying a Tiger is a Lion. No, they're both big cats. They're both mosasaurs.
Mosasaur = family
Mosasaurus = genus
I'll be.
I been schooled.
I was also confused because a fricken' paleontologist told me that the -saur vs. -saurus ending was just a sort of "easier to say" distinction, but was otherwise identical. He was probably going easy on my layman brain.
One question about the mosasaur, when they first arrive at the Marine Facility Gerry tells Jess that there's no way InGen could have made a marine reptile, yet when Dr. Sorkin announces she's going to free the mosasaur no one is surprised that there is indeed one, nor do they wonder how it got there. Even the journal entry doesn't say anything more than "I was told that they have a viable specimen (!)".
I was also confused because a fricken' paleontologist told me that the -saur vs. -saurus ending was just a sort of "easier to say" distinction, but was otherwise identical. He was probably going easy on my layman brain.
Thanks.
No prob. In the commentary you guys were saying it was a Tylosaurus so I just wanted to be sure.
Comments
Convergent evolution is the result of two species with different ancestry that evolve in similar ways. Bats and Dolphins have echolocation. Koronosaursus were early Cretaceous which in the long run is very close to extinction at the end of the Jurassic. "Killed by Mosasaurs" isn't really known, you might want to say that Mosasaurs replaced Koronosaurus as top predators.
Orcas have echolocation too and they hunt large animals. Sharks don't have echolocation because their ears have evolved differently from land animals. As for the mosasaurs eating large prey, that is still speculation.
The mosasaurs could hunt all that met
mosasaurs im pretty sure didnt possess ecolocation.. (no ones seen one alive im not saying its not possible) but echolocation is a adaptation formed by whales and dolphins of a predatory nature during the oligocene period i believe. mosasaurs could have had it because they inhabited the same niches but its entirley up for debate. if they want to add something factual about the mosasaur they could include the fact that their inner ear (a portion of the ear used in orientation of the animal) shrank in size in mosasaurs so that they could twirl spin and dive after prey without the dizzy side effects that we humans recieve when ever we go on a roller coaster,
Your point would be more valied if you would spellcheck your work. Coordination in whales by means of language has not been proven, humans are the only animals proven to use language in attack patterns. I don't even know what you are saying about orca hunting in the last part.
By looking at the ear bones of bats and whales, you can observe the presence of sonar, but I don't know what the sign is.
Your grammar is still deplorable. All organisms would prefer to take on the easiest source of food which would be infants. There is very little evidence to support behavior in the fossil record so most ideas of ancient animal behavior comes from understanding modern animals. And from the modern record, marine animals hunt animals that are smaller or weaker than themselves. No matter how much you want the animals from the Mesozoic era to be great monsters, they are still animals. You have evidence that mosasaurs hunted larger prey, be my guest and show me.
i would have to look into it and get back to you, thanks for the info
its a well known fact that mosasaurs (tylosaurus in particular) killed large pliosaurs like koronosaurus queenslandicus and killed long necked plesiosaurs like elasmosaurus by severing the long neck and slowly consuming the body, they also killed large 23 foot ginsu sharks in bursts of speed. if you want proof i would email a paleontologist with knowledge of the western interior sea, but your right most mosasaurs killed what fit in their mouths or could be easily brought down
Sounds interesting, probably not likely that an elasmosaurus would last long with a broken neck. But that is still easy prey. I was saying that predators don't take down really large prey, lions rarely take on water baffalo.
very true, i did a little research on the ecolocation of marine animals and it would appear that in order for this to be possible (a mosasaur with ecolocation) the animal would have to have a decently sized area in its head for the melon organ that most eco-locating marine mammals posses, i have tried to compare the two skulls of both tylosaurus neapolics (not progier) and a modern killer whale and i think that if mosasaurs had ecolocation (it would be unlikley) but the skull does have some spots where a small melon organ could have been located (im not a professional and i am unfamilliar with brain sizes) but it seems like the cranium could hold a small amount of extra baggage (the melon) i dunno its anyones guess, some oligocene whales had echolocation, basilosaurus (the first whales) (before the oligocene) had uncanny skull structures when compared to mosasaurs (Note: basilosaurus was incappable of eco-location) but ill show you what i mean, Exhibit a: Basilosaurus, Exhibit B tylosaurus
Well they're going to be hunting humans supposedly right? That's pretty small by mosasaur standards. I think it's creative. So what if they didn't have radar in real life? Pteranodons didn't have teeth, Velociraptors weren't 7 feet tall, and Brachiosaurus couldn't stand on their hind legs. Even if it's not possible it's still Jurassic Park authenticity. It's politically correct to be wrong in this franchise lol.
And how to get a DNA of marine reptile in Jurassic Park universe?
Some of marine species were depended to land - they had to leave theit eggs there, or they just have been resting there. But this is not Mosasaur´s case - this species probably didn´t have the ability to move on dry land. BUT!
1. What if the specimen of Mosasaur was beached on a dry land? Events of this type were really extremely probable. Just look at beached whales of today. Now we just need a mosquito to preserve reptile´s DNA in it´s amber coffin. That´s not a problem in JP universe.
2. Scientists also have found specimens of mesozoic marine insect in prehistoric amber. I guess, some of marine insect species could partially parasiticaly feed on marine reptiles. Well, this is rather optimistic view, don´t you think? :-)
Probably they got the DNA from the marine reptile bones themselves, rather than going the insect-in-amber route. Though not as innovative as the amber method, this was mentioned briefly in the movie and touched on a few times in the novel.
In real life, some research suggests that it is possible for (very fragmentary) traces of DNA, blood vessels and soft tissue to survive fossilization and millions of years, under very certain conditions.
exactly, like i said the people at the british meuseum of natural history in london found bone marrow on their marine reptiles. and i honestly think these should be examined for remaining soft tissues, id say your right JR
Or they could just extract it from their bones like @jurassiraptor and fill the eventual missing gaps with DNA from other animals.
They did find a way to clone extinct plants which are very degradable (although they haven't explained that in the movies or books if i recall,but of course they didn't get the DNA from mosquitoes
Actually finding mesozoic marine reptile in a glacier is just ridiculous, but finding a mosquito with DNA of dinosaur in it is technically much more probable - at least in Jurassic park movie/novel universe. Because, as we know DNA degrades by the time, and could last for only tens of thousands years (but not apparently in JP universe). Finds of primitive insects trapped in prehistoric amber are actually quite common. And even mosquitos have been found in amber. You should purchase magnificent book called The quest for life in amber by Hendrik Poinar and his wife Roberta - it´s really well-written and informative...
But they also found animals trapped in glaciers (even a woolly mammoth) as well as mummified animals ,so the chances of finding a mosquito with blood that contains dinosaur DNA are as big as finding a frozen dinosaur.
Both explanations are very unlikely,but that is not the point,the point i was trying to make is that if they want to they can give any explanation that is not IMPOSSIBLE even though it could be improbable.
In the game, we talk a bit about why and how the Mosasaurus and the marine facility came to be.
A Tylosaurus is a Mosasaurus.
Mosasaur = family
Mosasaurus = genus
I'll be.
I been schooled.
I was also confused because a fricken' paleontologist told me that the -saur vs. -saurus ending was just a sort of "easier to say" distinction, but was otherwise identical. He was probably going easy on my layman brain.
Thanks.
No prob. In the commentary you guys were saying it was a Tylosaurus so I just wanted to be sure.