Prehistoric Breakdown: Saurophaganax
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ค. 2024
- A group of Ceratosaurus are trying to scavenge an Allosaurus carcass. But the larger predators may be close by as well as something much, much larger.
Today we breakdown the controversial hunter, Saurophaganax.
00:00 Narration
06:25 Breakdown - บันเทิง
I just wanna say, dinosaurs couldn't roar. They didn't have the voice structure to produce roars.
I agree, I think they made sounds similar to what crocs and gators make
Crocodiles and alligators CAN roar, though. Lion and tiger-like roars are not the only things that can be classified as roars in nature.
@@william3100exactly my thoughts. Eventhough roaring is a so called "mammalian trait", that doesn't neceserally mean that other animals don't roar in a different sense.
I love it when stories have continuations :3
Saurophaganax is a cool Dinosaur and needs some more recognition so this video is really awesome and cool
Amazing video glad to see saurophaganax in one of your vids . I hope to see torvosaurus in one.
Your videos are great! the stories at the beginning are very entertaining and the information part is amazing too
nice video
I agree with the quite well-founded opinion among many respected paleontologists that the so-called “Saurophaganax”--which has always been at least to a *significant* degree, a *hypothetical* construct based on extraordinarily fragmentary and supposedly “rare” fossil evidence--is *not* a separate, “new” species of giant Late Jurassic therapod predator at all; it was merely, if the way the questionable fossil evidence has been interpreted is correct and it existed at all, it was merely an abnormally large Allosaurus with a few cosmetic skeletal peculiarities that *certainly* don’t differ from Allosaurus fossil evidence *so* significantly as to qualify as morphological distinctions between *two* separate but obviously related species. Claiming that “the rarity of Saurophaganax fossil evidence indicates that the predator must have been a RARE ANIMAL” solves nothing, as it is based on the logical argumentative fallacy of *hysteron proton,* which means that one puts *first* what should logically come last--in other words, when one commits this argumentative logical fallacy, one begins one’s “argument” by groundlessly ASSUMING the **very thing one is theoretically attempting to prove.**
This, sadly, is **yet another** example of paleontologists discovering fossils that at first *appear* to have unusual features, and then jumping to wild, huge, hastily generalised conclusions because of the notorious paleontological ego’s insatiable NEED to get credit for supposedly “discovering a new species of dinosaur.” Nothing more.
Anything on Sonorasaurus? Quite little information on that dinosaur.
Personally, I believe it’s it’s own species
You should do barsbolia if you haven’t already
Heeeyyyy, Raptor Rex, Whaaaat's happenin? Yeaahh Hi, I'm gonna need you to do a breakdown of the Chilesaurus, mmkay? Yeaahh, apparently Its a, uh, plant-eating "platypus" dino which may in fact be the, um, missing link between the Saurischians and Ornithiscians, making it one of the most basal dino species? If you could get that in for me in the near future that would be terriiiiific. Great, thaaanks!
I'll see what I can do for that request. (And yes all the ones you've made previously as well mate.)
@@raptorrex3954 mmkay, lol. You definitely don't have to do every species I've requested, as some may be similar to others. Just one member per family or subfamily is totally fine.
Currently saurophaganax was reclassified as a charcarodontosaurid. Makes alot more sense as to why was so large.
Also i think the cera revenge thing is going a bit too far. And it is almost certan theropods couldnt roar. And more so that they didnt hunt in groups.
Wait what? That doesn’t make any sense, especially considering the oldest charcarodontosaurid lived 150-154 mya *in Tanzania* so uhhh
*w e i r d*
@@gorgoaku4444 🤷♂️🦖
@@dagoodboy6424source for saurophaganax being a carcharodontosaurid?
@@Why79-dx4rf ill get back 2 u for def sources. but it was stated in a more recent EDGE channal video. So thats pretty reputable. Many older websites and papers therized this aswell. Personally idk what i think bout this. Try to search it if u can
Heres 1.psdinosaurs.blogspot.com/2023/05/saurophaganax-is-carcharodontosaurid.html?m=1#:~:text=This%20author%20proposes%20a%20different,at%20once%20or%20by%20professionals.
@@Why79-dx4rfsimilarities to acrocanthosaurus mainly and because 7shot the person with acces to most snap material believes soo it could be a basil carcharadontosaurid
Woo-Hoo!
Its not at all unreasonable to believe that there could be two species of allosaurus in the same region, when you consider that leopards and tigers(or lions if you like) belong to the same genus and coexist through different predator niches.
Also consider that a tiger is about 4 to 5x the size of a leopard, so who knows how big the saurophaganax/allosaurus maximus could've gotten???
Saurophaganax isn't 4 tons or 13 meters.
Saurophaganax is 12.9 meters long & weights 8.3 tonnes. It's currently the 6th largest carnivorous dinosaur and the king of Jurassic
T-Rex should be number since it was found to be the heavier animal.
Rex is the largest by a ton or 2 at max weight.
There is no true evidence confirming any of this. One single not well understood leg bone doesn't indicate anything. All reliable sources currently say saurophaganax was at best 4 to 5 tons, and 12 meters long.
@@william3100yeah 12 meters long ( 12.8 meters) but weights much higher at 8.3 tonnes
whos here from PE?
Me lol
I personally believe Saurophaganax was probably just a large sub species of allosaurus or was a genus. It’s definitely not it’s own thing imo.
@@gorgoaku4444 that’s still up for debate. Anything can and will change in this field
@@b_radbrad8899 i was talking about your terminology, if it was a genus then it would be its own thing
@@b_radbrad8899sauro has many distinguishing feature that allo lacked to distinguish itself from allosaurus
Saurophaganax is definitely a valid genus and it's own thing.
@@MonsterZero521Not DEFINITELY, but very likely (Sauro probably isn’t allo, it’s just that most reconstructions base it off allo due to sauros fragmentary fossils)