HOME | DD

SpinoInWonderland In reply to acepredator [2015-09-28 16:02:06 +0000 UTC]

I wouldn't compare their ecosystem to that of the Bahariya/Kem Kem region.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

acepredator In reply to SpinoInWonderland [2015-09-28 19:27:19 +0000 UTC]

Amphibious environment heavy in predator biomass?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SpinoInWonderland In reply to acepredator [2015-09-29 02:50:22 +0000 UTC]

Sphenacodon and Dimetrodon were separated from each other by the Hueco Seaway. Also, Dimetrodon was likely terrestrial.


And please stop with the "heavy in predator biomass" thing, there's something called an incomplete fossil record and preservational bias.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

acepredator In reply to SpinoInWonderland [2015-09-29 12:12:59 +0000 UTC]

They ruled out preservation bias for these two ecosystems.....

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SpinoInWonderland In reply to acepredator [2015-09-29 17:07:35 +0000 UTC]

Since when?

Without actual evidence, preservational bias should be assumed by default due to 1) larger bones (such as those of multi-tonne megafauna) being easier to preserve, and 2) that some animals lived in places where it's easier to fossilize.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

acepredator In reply to SpinoInWonderland [2015-09-29 19:14:23 +0000 UTC]

Since 2014.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SpinoInWonderland In reply to acepredator [2015-09-30 06:01:02 +0000 UTC]

And what would be your source(s)?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

acepredator In reply to SpinoInWonderland [2015-09-30 12:13:28 +0000 UTC]

I already showed the Kem Kem paper to you:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/…

As for the Red Beds:
gsa.confex.com/gsa/2014AM/fina…

I don't think we can argue with bite marks. Dimetrodon was a shark-eater.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SpinoInWonderland In reply to acepredator [2015-10-05 19:35:01 +0000 UTC]

Ok, at least you provided sources this time.

Bone microanatomy can, actually. Eating sharks doesn't automatically make it a semiaquatic animal. It's safer to say that Dimetrodon was a mainly terrestrial, generalist carnivore that pretty much ate anything it came across.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0