| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
| Strange dinosaur adaptations; Who thinks these are plausible? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 12 2010, 08:59 AM (8,957 Views) | |
| Margaret Pye | Feb 12 2010, 08:59 AM Post #1 |
|
Adult
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, as I said on the introduction thread, I haz a maniraptoran sophont. I've been fleshing out a world for them to live in. And I've been violating the phylogenetic bracket appallingly - in ways that strike me as plausible, but I've been doing it a lot and I wanted some second opinions on the plausibility of some of my critters. I've put fur on a lot of ornithopods, but that doesn't violate the phylogenetic bracket since Tianyulong. (I was writing furry ornithopods before Tianyulong, mind you - how else would Leaellynasaura have avoided freezing into a little hypsilophodont icypole? Especially since it didn't have growth rings in its bones, and therefore probably didn't hibernate.) Things I want criticism and suggestions on, mostly dinosaur-related: Opposable digits. I've been handing out opposable digits like candy, and with blithe disregard for phylogeny (I figured they could evolve repeatedly and independently.) Bipedal browsers get opposable digits with which to hold browse. Most of my small-game hunting coelurosaurs have hands like three-fingered hawk claws. Most of my grazers evolved from browsers, and most of my big-game hunters evolved from small-game hunters. Direct brooding by a lot of ornithopods (I don't know what the ceratopsians and ankylosaurs do, I'll have to figure that out: I think sauropods are extinct, perhaps very recently as a result of sophont activity, and coelurosaurs are the only surviving theropods). No, there's no fossil evidence for it. But it seems enough of an improvement on the megapode model that I'd assume, given enough time, it could evolve. Is this stupid? (The obvious way to get round "It's too heavy to sit on eggs!" is to have them lie next to the eggs rather than on top.) Pouches. I've given a lot of random dinosaurs (again, it seemed a simple enough and useful enough adaptation to evolve repeatedly and independently) some kind of skin pouch in which to incubate their eggs. A lot of the bipeds, including the sophonts, have "saddlebags" either side of the ribcage. Venom. I have a clade of venomous coelurosaurs. In most of them, the venom is quite weak: it's the slashing sharklike teeth that do the real damage, and the vasodilator, anticoagulant venom just makes the wound bleed more so that the prey collapses faster. (Yep, idea stolen direct from Komodo dragon.) I'm thinking about creating some with more powerful venom, and possibly with a fancier venom delivery system than "it's in the spit so it gets all over the teeth." In particular, I was thinking about cheetahs, and I came up with a concept for a Coelophysis-shaped creature adapted for camouflage, stalking and incredible sprinting abilities. Except when it caught up with its prey, instead of wrestling it, it'd bite it once and let go - and the prey would run for another minute or so, then drop dead. External ears. Yes, on dinosaurs. Specifically, on troodonts. Troodonts seem to have had very sensitive hearing, and asymmetrical ears like owls, so it seems reasonable to give them an external sound-focussing device. And yes, I could just give them an owly facial disc of vaned feathers, but external ears didn't seem that improbable. They aren't complex. They're strategically placed flaps of skin, plus a bit of cartilage stiffening and, if you're feeling fancy, some muscle. Asymmetrical external ears, obviously. One pointing up, one sideways. And a non-dinosaurian issue: I want to replace rabbits and hares with bipedal saltorial versions. Do you think I'm better off with wallabies, or with very large jerboas? (I also want some saltorial-biped mammalian predators and omnivores, most of them under 5 kg: they don't have to be related to the kangabunnies, and I don't know whether they're marsupials or rodents either.) |
| My speculative dinosaur project. With lots of fluff, parental care and mammalian-level intelligence, and the odd sophont. | |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Carlos | Jun 14 2010, 09:06 AM Post #151 |
|
Adveho in me Lucifero
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thing is, wolves are MUCH stupider than hyenas. Hyenas may be smart, but wolves certainly are dumb by mammal standards Troodontids clearly evolved from an ancestor that was capable of aerial locomotion, as Anchiornis can prove |
|
Lemuria: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/ Terra Alternativa: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/ My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Carliro ![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Ook | Jun 14 2010, 11:19 AM Post #152 |
|
not a Transhuman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
wolfes are still just more smart than rats,foxes,horses etc.
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Carlos | Jun 14 2010, 11:45 AM Post #153 |
|
Adveho in me Lucifero
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Rats and foxes are way more intelligent than wolves. Rats are even among the most intelligent mammals on Earth. |
|
Lemuria: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/ Terra Alternativa: http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/ My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Carliro ![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jun 14 2010, 12:04 PM Post #154 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
Well, that isn't entirely true. Wolves have in fact taken in orphans of other species and cared for them, with seems altruistic to me... there sense of smell is too developed for it to be a mistake. Wolves often do have specialised roles in hunting, like the females testing the herd and males going for the largest prey. This division of labour is very rare in nature and normally reflects a very advanced 'intelligence'.
Althoug wolves are not as capable intellectually as we are, it would be a mistake to label something as 'dumb' that we can't currently comprehend.
A rats' brain laid out would cover the same area as a postage stamp. Scaled up, they would be 'nothing special'. I'm not denying that animals like wild dogs and hyaenas are more intelligent, but wolves are certainly cleverer than domestic dogs. Once you've been with a real (as in working) dog for a while, you comprehend that they actually are very intelligent and far more than the 'dumb pet' of myth. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
![]() |
|
| Margaret Pye | Jun 16 2010, 01:49 AM Post #155 |
|
Adult
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Working dogs, yes, but I don't think that applies to wolves. I'd be inclined to put wolves and rats on a similar level... ah well, this is a silly argument anyway. Really, John, just because the internet and the furry fandom suffers from idiots who won't shut up about how smart wolves are is no reason to go to the opposite extreme. |
| My speculative dinosaur project. With lots of fluff, parental care and mammalian-level intelligence, and the odd sophont. | |
![]() |
|
| Ammonite | Jun 16 2010, 10:00 AM Post #156 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
SLIGHTLY UNRELATED FUN FACT: Tree shrews have a bigger brain-to-body ratio than humans do. |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jun 16 2010, 02:12 PM Post #157 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
So do earthworms, if you count their nervous cluster as a brain. Anyone who thinks wolves are on a level of humans needs to rethink their definition of intelligence. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
![]() |
|
| Ammonite | Jun 16 2010, 09:26 PM Post #158 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think this counts, since it isn't centralized like a real brain is and therefore can't make decisions like a real brain can.
I can sort of agree here. In many respects wolves are more intelligent than dogs are because they are able to think for themselves to more of an extent than dogs can, yet dogs also show a greater ability to learn because they are more receptive to it. But overall, wolves do have a somewhat low intellect as far as carnivores do. They have a fixed heirarchy that is - for the most part - sorted by instinct. They can't innovate very well either, due to being fine-tuned toward having specific roles for each pack member during the hunt. So I don't give them that much credit as far as intellect goes. |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jun 17 2010, 12:49 PM Post #159 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
Well yeah, but i was merely providing a fun fact for you to feast on.
Fixed hierarchy? But what about newcomers and rising pups then? I've seen wolves usurp their alpha pair. |
|
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea. "It is the old wound my king. It has never healed." | |
![]() |
|
| Ammonite | Jun 17 2010, 11:52 PM Post #160 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah OK. My bad
Wolf pups do need to fit themselves into the existing heirarchy and they do in part need to work at it by themselves - the rest of the time older pack members will discipline them when they go too far - by challenging the higher-ranked wolves, but this all gets sorted out pretty quickly in each new wolf's first several years as a functioning pack member. Most of the time, because they are still young, they get lower ranks. Then one or more of the males eventually feels confident enough as the years go by to start challenging the alpha male. This won't happen unless the existing alpha male shows signs of weakness, either by old age, sickness or injury, because any wolf who already has a place in the pack is set into thinking that place is where they belong. Thus the challenger will nearly always be either a young male who doesn't yet know their place or the "next wolf in line" in the heirarchy, though exceptions do occur (however rarely). Nontheless, a pre-existing heirarchy always exists by the time each pup starts participating in pack activities and they need to find their own place in it or they get disoriented. Once they do find their place, everything evens out for them. They are no longer confused and their mind is in equilibrium from that point forward. That is why, whenever you get a dog, you always need to establish yourself as the "alpha wolf" in their eyes and you need to treat them like subordinates if you want them to do anything for you. Compare that with a chimpanzee troop where other adult males are constantly competing with the alpha male. This male competition isn't as much about an actual heirarchy as it is about breeding rights with females, rights to live in the same territory, and rights to have the best food and other resources. To get all of those things, you need social power and influence. That is pretty much the reason why adult chimps compete with each other. They don't have any pre-destined role to play in their heirarchy because their heirarchy is always changing. Their lives aren't relient on that heirarchy either. If any competition occurs, it is because someone is either being a bully or is not happy with what they have. They don't care if that screws the social order up. If they want more, they go out and get it. Regardless of where they stand in that social order. Wolves are more monogamous than chimps are, so each male wolf - including the alpha male - has one and only one female. They all live and hunt in the same territory, and the animals wolves hunt as a pack are large enough for each wolf to have their fill at every meal. Therefore the only actual competition that occurs is going to be about sorting out one's place in the heirarchy. That is all wolves really ever fight about because otherwise they have everything they could ever want. But they need that heirarchy if they are to function coherently as a pack and get the sustenance they require for survival. When chimps do work together as a team, they need to cooperate and strategize for everything to work out. With wolves, the teamwork and the role each pack member has to ensure this teamwork runs smoothly is already set up in their minds so they don't need to arrange anything or set it up with the rest of their pack. They already know. In short, when wolves hunt as a pack, they are like a bunch of actors who are acting out a play they have rehearsed for days whereas chimps improvise on the spot. As apes, and like apes, humans don't have a pre-set heirarchy either. If a guy beats you up in a bar because there is only one pint of beer left in the keg, you aren't going to give him the last drink the following night, are you? No, you are probably going to want to sort it out with him. The both of you will probably end up sharing it, but if not, then someone is going to get beat up again. And so on and so forth. Equal-term partnership may not work as smoothly as the pre-set heirarchical organization of a wolf pack but it does allow us to be more flexible and adaptive with our sociality, which is one advantage we humans have over wolves. This uncertainty in our cooperation with one another allows us to grow and change beyond what we once were. |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jun 18 2010, 02:40 PM Post #161 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
Woah... loads of texts with a wide margin on the left. I'll go to full reply.
This behaviour is mainly documented in wolves near humans, it may vary in isolated spots. But that affects most data on wolves...
It's best to get your dog at a 'malleable age', as i got mine. But it also depends on breed- more lupine-looking dogs are harder to break when they mature. When wolves have been domesticated, they have challenged weakened pack members but are less likely to do so with perceived 'family'. Relatively often, wolves have been recorded mating outisde the alpha pair, especially with newcomers and lone roamers. While wolves learn a lot from watching older members, they can use trial and eror using past experience with similiar animals to jdge tactics. In N. AMerica, where pressure has killed many older wolves, young packs make worse choices about which prey to attack and hwere to come from, but killing ability and division of labour is unchanged. |
![]() |
|
| Ammonite | Jun 18 2010, 07:02 PM Post #162 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is interesting..... I wonder if the more a particular breed has been interbred with wolves since it branched off from its original stock in east Asia, the tougher their personality is to control and work with. I do know that many of the Asian breeds like chow-chows, shar-peis and akitas have markedly different dispositions than their western cousins in Europe. They tend to be more stoic, controlled and reserved in personality while those from Europe and North America have more exciteable and rambunctious personalities. They also look more different from their original stock, which probably looked something like dingoes and New Guinea Singing Dogs. The only exception to this that I can think of are Siberian huskies, but then there are wolves in Siberia..... The numerous breeds of Europe and North America have also been hard-wired toward certain roles (terriers, shephards, hounds) and then cross-bred with one another to get entirely new breeds so that probably has something to do with it as well. But yeah, you're right. Dogs that look more wolf-like do tend to have more un-receptive and rebellious attitudes. Hmmm..... I think I might start a thread on this topic in another forum.....
Probably because they grew up thinking those family members were higher ranked. A wolf will only challenge another pack member if they are not sure what their own rank is or what the rank of the other pack member is, or if both wolves have the same rank and they are trying to sort out who is higher and who is lower. If a wolf grew up thinking a person is of a higher rank than they are, they will be less likely to challenge that person later on in life. They might "test" that person from time to time but I don't think they would be outright rebellious against the person.
OK this I did not know about. Maybe they just don't care then, and are more polyamorous than we thought. In any case, as far as I know, male wolves do not monopolize females the way male chimpanzees do.
Oh yeah, I agree. Wolves can devise and learn alternate strategies. They probably need to do this when they move into foreign environments or start going after other kinds of animals. For the most part, though, wolves only innovate when they are forced to. And even when they do, it takes a lot of trial and error to get it right. Basically, they just go at it until they find a way that works. They don't learn from their mistakes and improve because they can't analyze specifically what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how/why it can - and should - be improved. The kind of learning dogs and wolves do is known as operant conditioning and is very similar to what a rrat does in a maze to get a piece of cheese, or tries to remove a type of food that won't give it a nasty electric shock. It is not nearly as advanced as the strategic goal-planning that humans and other African apes are capable of. For a wolf, a technique arises out of necessity and may take as long as a few generations to change. Apes can change strategies and acquire new ones on the spot. Passing it on is a different story but I assume we are talking about individual intelligence here. The thing is, apes (including humans) always want more than what they already have. Even if they have a technique for acquiring food that is currently successful, if they can analyze their technique and find a way to get more than what they are already getting, they'll do it. No necessity required. It is still operant conditioning - the ape is using trial and error to get what it wants - but it is more analytical and more ambitious than what wolves do. |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jun 19 2010, 03:58 AM Post #163 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
Yes. Good points there.
Wolf hybrids have gone for their owner's throat after the owner has been seen limping. |
![]() |
|
| Ammonite | Jun 21 2010, 06:56 PM Post #164 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which begs the question: why the heck would someone even have a wolf or wolf hybrid as a pet? .....nevermind, I forgot the aesthetic factor BTW that thread I mentioned in my last post can be found here. Same forum/site, different subforum. |
![]() |
|
| Holben | Jun 22 2010, 12:07 PM Post #165 |
![]()
Rumbo a la Victoria
![]()
|
Well wolf hybrids are far more aggresive than pure wolves. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternative Evolution · Next Topic » |














1:53 PM Jul 11