Hello hello! If you're new to the channel, I like to make a comment thread devoted to any factual errors or outdated info that made it into my long-form videos, either through my own mistakes or science moving on and rendering something I said outdated post-release. If you have anything to add, please do! *Correction #1:* At 26:09 I mention the 2016 study by Reide _et al._ which looked at the evolution of closed-mouth vocalizations across archosaurs. To clarify, this study was not suggesting that this trait is basal to the group, instead it's actually saying that these calls evolved independently in different groups of large-bodied members and so it's reasonable to assume dinosaurs independently evolved this as well. The 2018 study I mentioned at 26:48 is the one that actually described the evolution of the syrinx and proposed a more limited vocal repertoire for non-avian dinosaurs. This doesn't really change my overall point of the section, but it's worth clarifying. *Update #1 on Feb. 16, 2023:* Regarding my section "The Sounds of Saurians" (25:04), we officially have a non-avian dinosaur larynx! It comes from an already known fossil individual of _Pinacosaurus,_ an Asian ankylosaur, and displays characteristics that are associated with complex vocal capabilities, though not quite to the level of control that syrinx-bearing birds have. This means that these sorts of structures did indeed at least exist across the dinosaur family tree before birds and that dinosaurs were capable of more than just my proposed baseline repertoire of hisses, booms, hoots, and coos, though whether it was independently evolved or a shared common feature is still up for debate. You can read the study here: www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04513-x
When I heard that dinosaurs couldn't roar, I was very confused...if only because it seems so disapointing... Now, however, I am more interested to see what their actual sounds where and what it would have been compared to if anything?
I recall a conference study in 2014 by Marsh and Rowe et al. also found the Kayenta Formation to be from younger rocks at 183.7 Ma instead of 193 Ma. "The age of the Kayenta Formation of northeastern Arizona: overcoming the challenges of dating fossil bone."
You are correct that "Syntarsus" is "sunk for good" as far as the dinosaurs are concerned. Genus names cannot be reused for different animals, even if the original name gets synonymized with another. (This is also the reason that the name Brontosaurus could not be used again for another animal, even when it was considered synonymous with Apatosaurus.)
@@Adasaur250 GOD, that is my all time favorite paleo-show despite its problems. I love its presentation to death, even if the problems and shrink-wrapping are also bad.
5:50 = The reason paleontologists are sore is the disrespect the "jokers" showed to Mike Raath, the South African researcher who discovered the original fossils and who was in the middle of writing a redescription of S. rhodesiensis (+ deciding on a new name). The entomologists claimed they thought Raath was dead. I was able to find Raath's current email and get in touch with him within 48 hours of the Megapnosaurus story blowing up (he was understandably pissed). Didn't help that the lead author of the Megapno-paper made a total ass of himself on the Dinosaur Mailing List, becoming defensive and dismissive when paleontologists didn't laugh along with his taxonomic joke.
Ooh, this is some extra spice I missed. The only argument I've managed to see on a behind-the-scenes level re: this was a lot of folks claiming that the entomologist had no right to name it because it wasn't published in a paleo journal. That seems kinda flimsy to me and I'm pretty sure cross-topic taxonomic decisions have been made like this before, so I dismissed it accordingly. I've heard of this Dinosaur Mailing List but it always sounds like the paleo equivalent of the Wayback Machine. The name is admittedly kinda funny though, can't front.
@@Adasaur250 Yeah, the DML now is a shadow of its former self, but pre-2004 it was a major resource for international communication between dinosaur researchers and enthusiasts.
my first exposure to the movie was the late cretaceous segment my dad taped it from the TV, 10 years later when i think i was like 11 - 12 i finally saw the whole thing on DVD
I don't think the 'half a continent away' bit is a persuasive reason to discount a Dilophosaur presence in eastern U.S. Large animals have massive ranges, especially when not constrained by human development. Just look at the modern distribution of the genus Panthera. It could easily have been a different species or subspecies, but something in the genus of Dilophosaurus, which as far as we know was the top predator of that time - I'd be surprised if it didn't have a continent-wide distribution. As for the difference in time - that's a much more valid cause for skepticism. Genus and species can stick around for millions of years, especially if they've hit on a successful strategy and the world doesn't change too dramatically, but 7 million years is a lot. Maybe the head canon can be that it's a close relative that belonged to the lineage that evolved into the known Dilophosaurus?
I like the name Megapnosaurus. I don't know if it was done with contempt or with humor, but I think 'big dead lizard' is a very funny and for reasons entirely ascientific I hope it remains valid. Syntarsus for one species and Megapnosaurus for the other is my personal ideal but we'll see how it shakes out.
If one wanted to depict North America during the early jurassic, and keep as many of the desired species in the depiction as possible, should one set their depiction in Lake Dixie Utah (198 million years ago) or in the Kayenta Formation (193 million years ago)? Also, does ceolophysis have any relation to syntarsus? If not, what would be a suitable substitute.
Yeah, either of those two sites would work. They're better studied insofar as yielding more dinosaur (and other animal) species. Places like Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut are cool, but it's almost entirely footprints. As far as the _Coelophysis_ question, it's probably (or at least currently, anyway) in the same general family as _"Syntarsus"_ but anyone who cares about the specifics of genera-level taxonomy will probably tell you that those don't belong in the same genus anyway.
@@Adasaur250 I am not sure what kind of small theropod to use then. I suppose we don't know who made grallator tracks. Until we do paleoartists will use syntarses. But I'm not sure how accurate that would be.
@@Adasaur250 In the Prescence of Dinosaurs did similar things to when Dinosaurs Roamed America. This book, which I recommend, portrayed the rift valley where the Atlantic was forming as home to Dilophosauris, Syntarses, and prosauropods. The book justifies trackways on the east coast. There's almost a lore in paleo media that may need to be changed.
Awesome episode. Dilophidsurus is also the state dino of Massachusetts since its tracks were discovered in Mass a while ago. I think it was made the state dino back in the early to mid 80s.
Thank you for watching! The next part is still being worked on; life's put me on a bit of a hiatus for the past year so my scripted long-form stuff is on the back burner. Progress is being made though!
Honestly, dilophosaurus didn’t have a osteoderms or feathers at all. They just had well scaly. And of course, that this animal was not close related to the feathered dinosaurs, that we know such as a dromeosaurs and troodontids, and the other Theropods that were more bird like it wouldn’t.
Hello hello!
If you're new to the channel, I like to make a comment thread devoted to any factual errors or outdated info that made it into my long-form videos, either through my own mistakes or science moving on and rendering something I said outdated post-release. If you have anything to add, please do!
*Correction #1:* At 26:09 I mention the 2016 study by Reide _et al._ which looked at the evolution of closed-mouth vocalizations across archosaurs. To clarify, this study was not suggesting that this trait is basal to the group, instead it's actually saying that these calls evolved independently in different groups of large-bodied members and so it's reasonable to assume dinosaurs independently evolved this as well. The 2018 study I mentioned at 26:48 is the one that actually described the evolution of the syrinx and proposed a more limited vocal repertoire for non-avian dinosaurs. This doesn't really change my overall point of the section, but it's worth clarifying.
*Update #1 on Feb. 16, 2023:* Regarding my section "The Sounds of Saurians" (25:04), we officially have a non-avian dinosaur larynx! It comes from an already known fossil individual of _Pinacosaurus,_ an Asian ankylosaur, and displays characteristics that are associated with complex vocal capabilities, though not quite to the level of control that syrinx-bearing birds have. This means that these sorts of structures did indeed at least exist across the dinosaur family tree before birds and that dinosaurs were capable of more than just my proposed baseline repertoire of hisses, booms, hoots, and coos, though whether it was independently evolved or a shared common feature is still up for debate. You can read the study here: www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04513-x
When I heard that dinosaurs couldn't roar, I was very confused...if only because it seems so disapointing...
Now, however, I am more interested to see what their actual sounds where and what it would have been compared to if anything?
I recall a conference study in 2014 by Marsh and Rowe et al. also found the Kayenta Formation to be from younger rocks at 183.7 Ma instead of 193 Ma.
"The age of the Kayenta Formation of northeastern Arizona: overcoming the challenges of dating fossil bone."
You are correct that "Syntarsus" is "sunk for good" as far as the dinosaurs are concerned. Genus names cannot be reused for different animals, even if the original name gets synonymized with another. (This is also the reason that the name Brontosaurus could not be used again for another animal, even when it was considered synonymous with Apatosaurus.)
I really miss the days of ambitious and grandiose documentaries like this.
_Prehistoric Planet_ is coming soon...
@@Adasaur250
GOD, that is my all time favorite paleo-show despite its problems.
I love its presentation to death, even if the problems and shrink-wrapping are also bad.
Some people think Dilophosaurus' crests might have been used for sound production like hadrosaurs; of course, that is speculative.
5:50 = The reason paleontologists are sore is the disrespect the "jokers" showed to Mike Raath, the South African researcher who discovered the original fossils and who was in the middle of writing a redescription of S. rhodesiensis (+ deciding on a new name). The entomologists claimed they thought Raath was dead. I was able to find Raath's current email and get in touch with him within 48 hours of the Megapnosaurus story blowing up (he was understandably pissed). Didn't help that the lead author of the Megapno-paper made a total ass of himself on the Dinosaur Mailing List, becoming defensive and dismissive when paleontologists didn't laugh along with his taxonomic joke.
Ooh, this is some extra spice I missed. The only argument I've managed to see on a behind-the-scenes level re: this was a lot of folks claiming that the entomologist had no right to name it because it wasn't published in a paleo journal. That seems kinda flimsy to me and I'm pretty sure cross-topic taxonomic decisions have been made like this before, so I dismissed it accordingly.
I've heard of this Dinosaur Mailing List but it always sounds like the paleo equivalent of the Wayback Machine. The name is admittedly kinda funny though, can't front.
@@Adasaur250 Yeah, the DML now is a shadow of its former self, but pre-2004 it was a major resource for international communication between dinosaur researchers and enthusiasts.
my first exposure to the movie was the late cretaceous segment my dad taped it from the TV, 10 years later when i think i was like 11 - 12 i finally saw the whole thing on DVD
I don't think the 'half a continent away' bit is a persuasive reason to discount a Dilophosaur presence in eastern U.S. Large animals have massive ranges, especially when not constrained by human development. Just look at the modern distribution of the genus Panthera. It could easily have been a different species or subspecies, but something in the genus of Dilophosaurus, which as far as we know was the top predator of that time - I'd be surprised if it didn't have a continent-wide distribution.
As for the difference in time - that's a much more valid cause for skepticism. Genus and species can stick around for millions of years, especially if they've hit on a successful strategy and the world doesn't change too dramatically, but 7 million years is a lot. Maybe the head canon can be that it's a close relative that belonged to the lineage that evolved into the known Dilophosaurus?
That's fair. That's partly why I labeled it as _Dilophosaurus_ sp. rather than _D. wetherilii._
@@Adasaur250 Oh, nice! I totally missed that! Derp.
I like the name Megapnosaurus. I don't know if it was done with contempt or with humor, but I think 'big dead lizard' is a very funny and for reasons entirely ascientific I hope it remains valid. Syntarsus for one species and Megapnosaurus for the other is my personal ideal but we'll see how it shakes out.
If one wanted to depict North America during the early jurassic, and keep as many of the desired species in the depiction as possible, should one set their depiction in Lake Dixie Utah (198 million years ago) or in the Kayenta Formation (193 million years ago)? Also, does ceolophysis have any relation to syntarsus? If not, what would be a suitable substitute.
Yeah, either of those two sites would work. They're better studied insofar as yielding more dinosaur (and other animal) species. Places like Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut are cool, but it's almost entirely footprints.
As far as the _Coelophysis_ question, it's probably (or at least currently, anyway) in the same general family as _"Syntarsus"_ but anyone who cares about the specifics of genera-level taxonomy will probably tell you that those don't belong in the same genus anyway.
@@Adasaur250 I am not sure what kind of small theropod to use then. I suppose we don't know who made grallator tracks. Until we do paleoartists will use syntarses. But I'm not sure how accurate that would be.
@@Adasaur250 In the Prescence of Dinosaurs did similar things to when Dinosaurs Roamed America. This book, which I recommend, portrayed the rift valley where the Atlantic was forming as home to Dilophosauris, Syntarses, and prosauropods. The book justifies trackways on the east coast. There's almost a lore in paleo media that may need to be changed.
@@Adasaur250 where there ceolophysoid dinosaurs in Arizona living alongside Dilophosaurus? Just want to be clear.
@@sevenidols607 Likely so; I don't know which taxa specifically, if they've been named and aren't just evidenced from ichnofossils.
Awesome episode. Dilophidsurus is also the state dino of Massachusetts since its tracks were discovered in Mass a while ago. I think it was made the state dino back in the early to mid 80s.
I can't wait for part 4, 5 and 6! Is this series still bring made. Thank you for taking the time to research and make this Dino Doc Review.
Thank you for watching! The next part is still being worked on; life's put me on a bit of a hiatus for the past year so my scripted long-form stuff is on the back burner. Progress is being made though!
@@Adasaur250hey take your time; I’ll keep my notifications on until then!
Honestly, dilophosaurus didn’t have a osteoderms or feathers at all. They just had well scaly. And of course, that this animal was not close related to the feathered dinosaurs, that we know such as a dromeosaurs and troodontids, and the other Theropods that were more bird like it wouldn’t.
Just as a note for the future, check the Tarchia study about dinosaur sounds
Made mention of it in my pinned comment for corrections and updates as soon as that study was published!