Whats the biggest change in Paleontology that you remember

I think one of the biggest developments over the past 20yrs, is feathered dinosaurs. I don't remember most of it, as I didn't follow paleontology as closely as I have over the past few years, but it's quite notable IMO.

One that I do remember, and think is also very notable is the whole Triceratops/Torosaurus thing.

Probably a tie between the Dinosaur Renaissance and the Great Floofening.

The discovery that feathers are not raptor, compy and Rex-exclusive, but likely appeared all the way back in basal Archosauria. The Spinosaurus Revolution and the Herbivore Appreciation Movement were also quite impressive, though.

As someone who doesn't follow paleontology too closely, for sure the feather discovery. I knew dinosaurs as giant reptiles for all of my childhood, even given JP, so eventually learning they were more than likely giant birds  was crazy to me.

I'd have to say it was the dinosaurs-including the feather flying kind (I.E.birds) being found in Liaoning China, evidence that T. rex hunted in family packs, and the recent 2014 news about Spinosaurus basically being a real-life dino-croc.

CT-1138 wrote:

One that I do remember, and think is also very notable is the whole Triceratops/Torosaurus thing.

Considering how that's been largely discredited, in large part due to the limited amount of Torosaurus remains, can we really call that notable anymore?

Besides feathered dinosaurs, I think the biggest change in palaeontology that I can remember would be the revelation that T-Rex wasn't the biggest land predator that ever existed. I grew up believing what the books I had told me: T-Rex was the biggest carnivore that ever lived on land. So, you can imagine the surprise when, in the mid 90s, it was announced that the remains of Giganotosaurus, a predator bigger than T-Rex, had been found in Argentina. So poor old T-Rex got knocked off top spot as the biggest land carnivore. As we now know, currently sitting in top spot, is Spinosaurus, with an estimated adult length of 17m.

Feathered dinosaurs and the Spino mind blowing turnout.

I'll echo most of the sentiments here and say, other than the feathers, probably the reinvention of the Spinosaurus.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'll echo most of the sentiments here and say, other than the feathers, probably the reinvention of the Spinosaurus.

And it's not only the appearance, but the size. It was 50-60 ft long and 20 tons and now it's at a much more reasonable 45-50 ft long and 7-8 tons. Still longer then T. rex, but not as bulky/massive overall.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'll echo most of the sentiments here and say, other than the feathers, probably the reinvention of the Spinosaurus.

And it's not only the appearance, but the size. It was 50-60 ft long and 20 tons and now it's at a much more reasonable 45-50 ft long and 7-8 tons. Still longer then T. rex, but not as bulky/massive overall.

It's funny. The sizes that we were hearing in conjunction with being a terrestrial, bipedal carnivore never hit me quite right. The max size for bipedal carnivores seemed to be around 45-ish feet long, with this one massive exception. Always seemed weird to me.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I'll echo most of the sentiments here and say, other than the feathers, probably the reinvention of the Spinosaurus.

And it's not only the appearance, but the size. It was 50-60 ft long and 20 tons and now it's at a much more reasonable 45-50 ft long and 7-8 tons. Still longer then T. rex, but not as bulky/massive overall.

It's funny. The sizes that we were hearing in conjunction with being a terrestrial, bipedal carnivore never hit me quite right. The max size for bipedal carnivores seemed to be around 45-ish feet long, with this one massive exception. Always seemed weird to me.

That's what happens when you don't have many remains of the animal and have to base it on shorter relatives. That being said, a 50ft Spinosaurus was always a possibility. Old books had T. rex at 50ft, but this was reduced to 42-43 ft, but some do say 44-45, which is most likely the yet to be described Celeste.

I wonder if anyone else has read this, because if more evidence emerges to support this case, then it could be a HUGE shift in the paleontological landscape.

Saurischia and Ornithiscia Groups in Question

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I wonder if anyone else has read this, because if more evidence emerges to support this case, then it could be a HUGE shift in the paleontological landscape.

Saurischia and Ornithiscia Groups in Question

That's a very interesting article, but don't we need more studies to confirm it? I ask because sometimes I can't help but wonder if paleontology is rushing things like with the Archeroraptor debacle and how Dilophosaurus had feathers when it was shortly found out that it was not the case.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I wonder if anyone else has read this, because if more evidence emerges to support this case, then it could be a HUGE shift in the paleontological landscape.

Saurischia and Ornithiscia Groups in Question

That's a very interesting article, but don't we need more studies to confirm it? I ask because sometimes I can't help but wonder if paleontology is rushing things like with the Archeroraptor debacle and how Dilophosaurus had feathers when it was shortly found out that it was not the case.

So far I haven't heard of any additional studies that confirm this. Ultimately, I suspect that this theory won't gain much traction in the long run and the majority of the palaeontological community will probably point to a variety of evidence to support the established theory of Saurischia and Ornithiscia.

Feathered dinosaurs, but unlike a lot of other people, I thought it was exciting, not disappointing. I somehow find t-rex even more scary if you think of it as an enormous flightless bird with teeth like steak knives. Crazy stuff. Imagine that such creatures actually lived! It's mind-blowing if you think about it.