Jump to content

Talk:Thrinaxodon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 18: Line 18:
Yeah I agree. This is not scientific. Perhaps it gives the correct idea of what the scientist say about this fossil. But this category of science of palentology is very mutch made up of wishful thinkin. One quick glance at that fossil, and You can see that the animal is more liklely to be a dinosaur, than a half dinosaur half hound/mamal/lizard. I want to see clear evidence before bold statements like the cited one above are made, otherwise it's just psuedo science. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.82.118.217|78.82.118.217]] ([[User talk:78.82.118.217|talk]]) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Yeah I agree. This is not scientific. Perhaps it gives the correct idea of what the scientist say about this fossil. But this category of science of palentology is very mutch made up of wishful thinkin. One quick glance at that fossil, and You can see that the animal is more liklely to be a dinosaur, than a half dinosaur half hound/mamal/lizard. I want to see clear evidence before bold statements like the cited one above are made, otherwise it's just psuedo science. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.82.118.217|78.82.118.217]] ([[User talk:78.82.118.217|talk]]) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In any case it's not a dinosaur, and has never ever been thought of as such. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
:In any case it's not a dinosaur, and has never ever been thought of as such. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

::No one is saying it is a dinosaur, but the question remains...? [[Special:Contributions/97.104.210.67|97.104.210.67]] ([[User talk:97.104.210.67|talk]]) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:59, 10 March 2010

WikiProject iconPalaeontology Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles Start‑class
WikiProject iconThrinaxodon is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAntarctica Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cannablism

In Walking with Dinosaurs it was shown eating its own young..

Curling

I once read a book that showed a thrinaxodon fossil that had been found curled up like a sleeping cat or dog. The book cited this as further evidence that they were warm-blooded. I'll have to track that reference down if I can... it's been years! --Iustinus (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskers?

Pits on the skull indicate that Thrinaxodon had whiskers and, therefore probably also had a covering of fur.

I don't recall this being definite. I thought it was determined that the pits could also have been muscle attachment points? Contributions/97.104.210.67 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Sweden: Yeah I agree. This is not scientific. Perhaps it gives the correct idea of what the scientist say about this fossil. But this category of science of palentology is very mutch made up of wishful thinkin. One quick glance at that fossil, and You can see that the animal is more liklely to be a dinosaur, than a half dinosaur half hound/mamal/lizard. I want to see clear evidence before bold statements like the cited one above are made, otherwise it's just psuedo science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.118.217 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it's not a dinosaur, and has never ever been thought of as such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying it is a dinosaur, but the question remains...? 97.104.210.67 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]