← Home ← Back to /an/

Thread 5034141

132 posts 66 images /an/
Anonymous No.5034141 >>5034143 >>5034176 >>5034406 >>5034558 >>5039152 >>5044750
Trilobites
They existed from the early Cambrian until the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event, about 300 million years.
What made them so resiliant that they survived several mass extinction events? And why they couldn't survive the Great Dying?
Anonymous No.5034143 >>5034156
>>5034141 (OP)
That particular extinction was the hardest on marine life because the oceans acidfied.
Anonymous No.5034156 >>5034259
>>5034143
it's weird, how diverse trilobites were, at a few points at least, but still there's no evidence of them going on land or even freshwater.
Thye would've probably survived if they had expanded beyond the sea.
Anonymous No.5034176
>>5034141 (OP)
In fairness, the several mass extinctions before the Great Dying also whittled their numbers down.
By the time the Carboniferous and Permian actually started, there was only one order of them left, the Proetida.
Anonymous No.5034259 >>5034339 >>5038978
>>5034156
Horseshoe crabs are probably the descendants of Trilobites but that's forbidden knowledge.
Anonymous No.5034267 >>5034331 >>5034433 >>5034558 >>5037346
little reddit arthropods just didn't have the juice
Anonymous No.5034331 >>5034546 >>5034558 >>5039204
>>5034267
I mean, ammonites were cooler than nautiluses in every way, and they still could make past the Cretaceousโ€“Paleogene extinction event, makes you wonder how the fuck they survived the Great Dying.
Anonymous No.5034339 >>5034497 >>5035469 >>5038978
>>5034259
Last I checked, they're pretty solidly placed as chelicerates?
>6 legs
>2 chelicerates
>2 pedipalps
Crabanon No.5034406 >>5034407 >>5034470 >>5034547
>>5034141 (OP)
Well, maybe it was too hard for them to adapt to land. Too much competition or something and they stayed down in the waters... poor things, they truly were cute.
Now isopods are the "new trilobites" I have this pic of a convergent isopod that looks like a trilobite
Crabanon No.5034407
>>5034406
I forgot to name the image but they are Serolid(family) isopods!
Anonymous No.5034433
>>5034267
How big is that thing, would it fit in a deep fryer basket?
Anonymous No.5034470 >>5034489
>>5034406
>crusteceans mimicking the animals they supplanted
Talk about adding insult to injury.
Anonymous No.5034489 >>5034903 >>5035691
>>5034470
crustaceans are real bastards, they even do this to animals they parasitize
Anonymous No.5034497
>>5034339
What part of "forbidden knowledge" did you miss?
Anonymous No.5034546 >>5034917
>>5034331
ammonites getting wiped out was some demiurgical shit most likely, for some reason nautiluses keep persisting despite the demiurge's best efforts though (most recently the creation of le epic heckin chonky chungus bois), it's hard to say why, but I'm inclined to believe that it's just because they're THAT based
Anonymous No.5034547
>>5034406
isopods are alright, especially for crustaceans, but this wretched little creature sucks dick
Anonymous No.5034558 >>5034563 >>5034642 >>5034909 >>5034933 >>5034937 >>5041168
>>5034141 (OP)
>>5034267
>>5034331

Different Anon just entering the thread:
Trilobites and Ammonites were both insanely innocuous, common, widespread, organisms that completely saturated the planet in their diversity and population - until they didn't anymore. Are there any other historical examples of an insanely successful species getting completely bodied? Cycads maybe? Horsetails?
Anonymous No.5034563 >>5034569
>>5034558
dinosaurs
Anonymous No.5034569 >>5034830
>>5034563
there's more dinosaurs alive right now than humans
Anonymous No.5034642 >>5035807 >>5040713
>>5034558
Lystrosaurus made up 95% of all terrestrial vertebrates right after the great Dying, only to get extinct almost immediately once sauropsids started diversifying.
Anonymous No.5034830 >>5035006 >>5035951
>>5034569
Birds aren't dinosaurs. You know to which site you must return.
Anonymous No.5034903
>>5034489
it's less jarring when you know they are more closely related to barnacles instead of crabs and other crusteceans.
it's a barnacle that instead of becoming a filter feeding nub in a rock, becomes a parasite in a starfish.
Anonymous No.5034909 >>5034915 >>5035807
>>5034558
Brachiopods
Tropical reef building bivalves that predated reef building corals
Sea pens
Crinoids
Stromatolites
Arguably sponges
Leatherback turtles
Gharials
Bony tongues
Lungfish
Coelocanths
Chimaeras
Anonymous No.5034915
>>5034909
>Sea pens
they are unfathomably based, further proof that the demiurge is real and an evil redditor that they fell from grace
Anonymous No.5034917
>>5034546
That was painful to read
Anonymous No.5034933 >>5035807 >>5035952
>>5034558
Conodonts showed up in the late cambrian and went extinct a bit after the Great Dying, they were pretty diverse too.
They lasted about the same as the trilobites.
I wonder why they died while the hagfishes continued.
Anonymous No.5034937 >>5035807 >>5036025 >>5036201
>>5034558
Ginkgophytes also had a pretty good run, from the Permian until the late Triassic.
Kinda sad that there's only one species left, and that green fags and hippies act like it's a magic oriental super medicinal plant.
Anonymous No.5035006 >>5035011
>>5034830
>Birds aren't dinosaurs.
your tears of rage bring me joy
like a bratty toddler screaming in the grocery store right before mommy smacks him
birds are and always were dinosaurs. Nothing you can say will ever change that fact.
Anonymous No.5035011 >>5035015
>>5035006
Nobody is crying but you about losing your 30 year grift. Sorry, honey, the dinosaur dark ages were wrong and now they're done.
Anonymous No.5035015 >>5035017
>>5035011
Birds are still dinosaurs
All maniraptorans still have feathers
If anything changes even more dinosaurs will get them
Anonymous No.5035017 >>5035020 >>5035475
>>5035015
Okay, just like "It's the 'consensus' that feathers are the basal Dinosaur condition"? Nobody is listening to you anymore. You've done everything in your power to spread disinformation for 30 years and now everyone's aware of it.
Anonymous No.5035020
>>5035017
Are you off your meds, schizo? Feathered dinosaurs are a fact, dude.

Chinese and jews being smarter and harder working than you doesnโ€™t change that.
Anonymous No.5035469
>>5034339
How close are they to sea scorpions?
Anonymous No.5035475 >>5035603
>>5035017
Feathered dinosaurs are fossilized facts. Museums are progressively replacing exhibits with feathered models.

You are totally powerless to stop the slow march of the scientific method no matter how much you cry about da jooz on 4chan
>ITS DONE ITS OVER IT ENDS TODAY EVERYONE IS-
>*crickets*
Anonymous No.5035603 >>5035611 >>5035969 >>5036105 >>5036299
>>5035475
Real question is, when did the theropsids get fur?
We know Cynodonts had it, but what about Gorgonopsids and Therocephalians?
Anonymous No.5035611 >>5036796
>>5035603
>Fur
You mean failed feathers?
Anonymous No.5035682
Aaaaand a Trilobite thread is now ruined by the usual feather skizo
Anonymous No.5035691
>>5034489
Is that the famous mimetaster?
Anonymous No.5035807 >>5035878 >>5035892 >>5035974
>>5034642
>Lystrosaurus

A fan, and personal, favorite.
The most interesting thing I know about Lystrosaurus is they managed to spread all over Pangaea and speciated into like a dozen different forms in a (geological) period of basically no time. I think the original form was like a marmot or a gopher(?) but the biggest was as large as a hippo.

>>5034909
>Arguably sponges
>Brachiopods
>Tropical reef building bivalves that predated reef building corals

For some reason I became weirdly fascinated by the idea that the Triassic and Cretaceous (rudists?) had completely different reef building organisms than our own time period and brightly coloured coral reefs are a relatively modern species.
I heard coral had to evolve twice? And that our modern corals aren't related to ancient corals, but something that independently evolved twice? Has anybody else heard that?

>>5034933
>Conodonts

I hate this thing, thanks.


>>5034937
>Kinda sad that there's only one species left, and that green fags and hippies act like it's a magic oriental super medicinal plant.

The only thing I know about Ginkgos is that fox from Animal Crossing has one of their leaves as a logo on his apron/store and it's an oddly kino design. It's simple, auspicious, it's a deliberate contrast to the 'normal leaf' the raccoon guy uses.
Anonymous No.5035878 >>5036105
>>5035807
>I hate this thing, thanks.
Those aren't even the most fucked up ones, most conodonts had scrapping "teeth" like hagfishes have, but way sharper, but predatory species like the Panderodus had crazy mouths for a jawless animal.
Crabanon No.5035892 >>5036105
>>5035807
>but something that independently evolved twice? Has anybody else heard that?
Yeah! That's convergent evolution anon.
But I'm amazed too! I didnt knew about those reef builders before modern corals. I never did research on cnidarians and expected them to be since the main reef builders, being so old and that. Guess we need a cnidarianon to help us out
Anonymous No.5035951
>>5034830
Yet their legs have scales, they have atavistic features like claws and teeth on occasion, and even have similar skeletal structures.

How long have you been sucking off BBC? Your brain is crack and meth addled.
Anonymous No.5035952
>>5034933
My sperm looks just like that.
Anonymous No.5035969 >>5035970 >>5035979 >>5036299
>>5035603
Spinolestes is apparently the earliest known case of hair in the fossil record and it's Early Cretaceous (125mya). But mammals almost certainly had hair long before this. I could swear I remember hearing about a case of hair from the Triassic or Jurassic, but I can't find any reference to it now. There's a well-preserved mummified skin from Lystrosaurus and it clearly doesn't have fur.
Anonymous No.5035970 >>5035971 >>5039355
>>5035969
Btw the Lystrosaurus skin is paywalled. Be sure to thank indians for killing Sci-Hub when you have a chance. Is there nothing good they can't destroy?
Anonymous No.5035971 >>5035975
>>5035970
>is there nothing
They can't destroy pussy.
Anonymous No.5035974 >>5036105
>>5035807
Sponges were actually the first reef-building animals. Then Rugose Corals took over. During the Permian Extinction, Rugose Corals nearly went extinct (I suspect they simply changed and we don't recognize them as Rugosa anymore - a similar thing happened with the Archaeocyatha, the reef-building sponges). After the Permian, corals vanish from the fossil record for a while, then when they recover it's the Scleractinian Corals that take over and it's been that way ever since.
Anonymous No.5035975
>>5035971
I don't know, they fuck up lizard, child and dog pussy all the time.
Anonymous No.5035979 >>5036107
>>5035969
Apparently there's also Haramiyidans & Castorocauda both from the Mid-Jurassic, but these are both from China so take that with about a pound of salt.
Anonymous No.5036025 >>5036027
>>5034937
Asians call them sacred and landscape/ commercially farm nuts with them. Could be way worse honestly. Like they stink and they still love them.
Anonymous No.5036027
>>5036025
I think the stink claim is overblown. These are planted in the northern US states all the time and they don't even smell that bad, even with female trees shedding all over the place. I don't know, maybe if you have a bowl of them and shove them in your face or something.
Anonymous No.5036105 >>5036116
>>5035603
>Real question is, when did the theropsids get fur?

Dunno, but it makes them look a million times more charming. Very cute. Very debonair. Good "pick up and put in my lap" texture. It's just infinitely better character design, so I'm gonna assume it's true.

>>5035892
>>5035974

My only contribution is I know that glass sponges used to be huge reef building organisms during the Triassic, but then went extinct (possibly due to changing availability of silicas/some mineral or element?) and replaced by rudists/bivalves/something.
However, as recently as 2018 it was revealed they not only weren't extinct, but they were existing in 'refugia' as reef builders in the bottom of the coasts of the pacific northwest. All the way up and down the Strait of Georgia, as far north as Alaska and as far south as Washington. A veritable "coelacanth" moment.

>>5035878
>but predatory species like the Panderodus had crazy mouths for a jawless animal.
>It's literally just enormous, spiky, American-horror-movie-monster-design teeth sticking out.

Marvelous. I'm glad it's dead.
Anonymous No.5036107 >>5036114
>>5035979
>the Chinese are putting fur on my stem mammals just like they put feathers on stem birds
>I canโ€™t believe theyโ€™d try make me trans like this how outrageous
Anonymous No.5036114
>>5036107
After Covid and them being caught trying to smuggle grain blights into the country there is no outrage I wouldn't believe the chinx capable of, tbqh
Anonymous No.5036116
>>5036105
I think you're confused. Archaeocyatha are a different group of sponges. And they were dominant during the Cambrian. I don't believe Hexactinellida were ever dominant or reefbuilders.
Anonymous No.5036201 >>5036340 >>5040013
>>5034937
>Ginkgophytes also had a pretty good run, from the Permian until the late Triassic.

We've been talking a lot about reefs, but what did forests & jungles look like during dinosaur times? I keep hearing rainforests weren't invented until *after* dinosaurs, but that doesn't sound like it can't be true.
Anonymous No.5036299 >>5036312 >>5036318
>>5035603
>>5035969
I remember a while ago reading something about a Permian era coprolite having possible hair filaments inside it but I can't find it again.
Anonymous No.5036312 >>5036363
>>5036299
Yeah, but that's not very good evidence. Likely just hallucination. It's also full bullshit tier, because that's LONG before even hypothetical feathers would have appeared and we know all synapsids had scales that far back because we have the impressions.
Anonymous No.5036318 >>5036322
>>5036299
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/let.12156

It's probably legit, though this is more of second-hand evidence that hair was evolved by some therapsid by that point. Until then we do not know where the hair came from.
Anonymous No.5036322 >>5036323
>>5036318
Except it wasn't and that's far too early.
Anonymous No.5036323 >>5036327 >>5036329
>>5036322
>Except it wasn't and that's far too early.
lol
the schizo doesn't deal well with new information
Anonymous No.5036327
>>5036323
Oh boy here we go again with the jewbot spammer.
Anonymous No.5036329 >>5036332
>>5036323
You keep this shit up and I'm going to just doxx you because I've had enough. Say "schizo" one more fucking time, bot.
Anonymous No.5036332 >>5036333
>>5036329
doxx me schizo
Anonymous No.5036333 >>5036334
>>5036332
My pleasure.
Anonymous No.5036334 >>5040015
>>5036333
>crickets
Anonymous No.5036340 >>5036409 >>5040022
>>5036201
The Daintree has been around since the Jurassic so theyโ€™re were definitely rainforests
Anonymous No.5036363
>>5036312
Impressions of synapsid skin we have shows they were not scaly though.
>Mummified specimens recovered from the Karoo Basin and described in 2022 revealed that Lystrosaurus had dimpled, leathery, and hairless skin.
I believe hairless synapsids had skin more similar to what we find on rhinos and elephants.
Anonymous No.5036409 >>5036414 >>5039861
>>5036340
there were rainforests in the carboniferous, it's just that they weren't anything like mdoern rainforests.
Anonymous No.5036414 >>5040028
>>5036409
Well seeing as that specific rainforest has been around for 170 million years it seems pretty likely that rainforests from 170 million years ago would be broadly similar to modern ones
Anonymous No.5036796
>>5035611
You say that, but try to imagine having feathers on you balls.
Anonymous No.5037346 >>5037349
>>5034267
Why did they never evolve lenses in their eyes?
Most cephalopds are know for they great eyesight.
Anonymous No.5037349 >>5037791
>>5037346
Not an expert but maybe they went to the deeper waters too early in their evolution
Anonymous No.5037791 >>5037853
>>5037349
They werenโ€™t deep sea creatures for the most part back then
Anonymous No.5037853 >>5038974
>>5037791
NTA but how much of that is genuine distribution evidence and how much of it is needing several planets and stars alinging together to find deep sea fossils?
Anonymous No.5038969 >>5038986 >>5040024
Were Rangeomorphs actually animals, or some kind of pre-animal fungi thing?
Anonymous No.5038974
>>5037853
Itโ€™s not that there werenโ€™t deep sea species, there were probably plenty. Itโ€™s just that there werenโ€™t any predators at the surface that would almost wipe them out like seals today
Anonymous No.5038978 >>5038980 >>5038991 >>5039512 >>5039587 >>5039602
>>5034259
>>5034339

Personally, I'm 100% certain that Horseshoe crabs ARE surviving trilobites.

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2022/03/14/some-trilobites-are-not-extinct/

You should read this. it's an excellent overview.
Anonymous No.5038980 >>5038981
>>5038978
>pterosaurheresies
Oh no no no
Anonymous No.5038981 >>5038982
>>5038980
?
Anonymous No.5038982 >>5038983
>>5038981
Thatโ€™s David Petersโ€™ site
Anonymous No.5038983 >>5039130
>>5038982
And Isaac Newton spent most of his life trying to turn lead into Gold.
We don't ignore his correct ideas because he had many bad ideas.
Anonymous No.5038986 >>5040024
>>5038969
Most of them were probably animals with perhaps some being giant protists like Foraminifera.

I'm certain that Dickinsonia was some kind of ancient mushroom/plate coral. A type of coral that is actively mobile.
Anonymous No.5038988
A low ground view of Mushroom coral to show how flat it can be. Just like Dickinsonia.
Anonymous No.5038991
>>5038978
I'm convinced.
Anonymous No.5039130 >>5039178
>>5038983
Cool. Heโ€™s incorrect
Dave No.5039152
>>5034141 (OP)
I would fucking hate them. I hate their modern counterparts so much.
Anonymous No.5039178 >>5039179
>>5039130
How is he incorrect?
Anonymous No.5039179
>>5039178
I don't know if he's correct about trilobites, but I do think his idea of pterosaur evolution makes sense, even if the idea of lizards with backleg wings developing frontleg wings is kinda funny.
Anonymous No.5039204
>>5034331
most nautilus are found below 300 meters depth and have been found at 700 meters depth.
So, their deep sea lifestyle probably saved them.
Same with the vampire squid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus#Range_and_habitat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampyronassa
Anonymous No.5039355
>>5035970
Anonymous No.5039498 >>5039584 >>5039739 >>5044885
What the fuck is up with these shits? Are they real or just some pseudo-fossils?
>Multicellular land organism from 2.8 billion years ago
I have doubts.
Anonymous No.5039512 >>5039739 >>5040030
>>5038978
David Peters is a moron, either you're actually him and self-shilling on /an/, or even worse, actually believe the dogshit he puts out.
Anonymous No.5039584
>>5039498
Probably real, complex life probably formed way further back than we think, it just didn't leave many fossils, since the further back you go, the less complete the fossil record is.
Anonymous No.5039587 >>5039739
>>5038978
David Peters the best paleontologist ever is based and will be remembered as a visionary after we invent time travel and find out he was 100% right (note: david peters will NOT be banned from using time travel because he is an honest and trustworthy scientist)
Anonymous No.5039602 >>5039739
>>5038978
>https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com/2022/03/14/some-trilobites-are-not-extinct/

I can tell this guy has schizophrenia just from the format of his blog and how he writes. That's my taxonomic assessment.
Anonymous No.5039739 >>5040130
>>5039512
>David Peters is a moron
You don't like his Pterosaur stuff?
Cool. I don't care about that either. I only linked his trilobite page.
>>5039587
>David Peters the best paleontologist ever is based and will be remembered as a visionary after we invent time travel and find out he was 100% right
umm... He isn't a paleontologist.
>>5039602
>I can tell this guy has schizophrenia just from the format of his blog and how he writes
Seriously, what is schizophrenic about the writing on that page?
I can't see any impossible vague associations akin to -
"insects are Satan because 6 legs is 666 the mark of the beast!"

Or grandiose delusions such as -
"God has given me the power to cure cancer and set the record straight on trilobites and pterosaurs!"

>>5039498
Stromatolites are older and appear to be multicellular organisms even though they are just layered microbial mats. Could be something like that or maybe Thuchomyces is a fungi fruiting body?
Anonymous No.5039861 >>5039874
>>5036409
Why did giant clubmosses and giant horsetails went extinct, while tree ferns and cycads still exist?
Anonymous No.5039874
>>5039861
One guess is that Clubmosses and giant horsetails were dependent on carbon-rich soils for proper growth.
Since wood degrading bacteria only evolved 300 million years ago and Lepidodendron thrived during the carboniferous only to die out around 250 million years ago.
Anonymous No.5040013
>>5036201
It varied by location and place. Broadly speaking during the Triassic Glossopterids dominated (Seed Ferns with paddle-shaped leaves), during the Jurassic conifers dominated and during most of the Cretaceous Angiosperms took over.

>I keep hearing rainforests weren't invented until *after* dinosaurs
You may be thinking of grasslands. Grasslands didn't really exist until about halfway through the Cenozoic (the age of mammals). During most of the Phanerozoic Earth was covered in forest with a few patches of open savannah and desert (still with no grasslands btw). And no, fern prairies were never a thing and still aren't. No, patches of bracken are not fern prairies.
Anonymous No.5040015
>>5036334
We'll have a slow roll out. There's a lot going on in the world right now.
Anonymous No.5040022
>>5036340
>The Daintree has been around since the Jurassic
I don't know where the hell this idea came from, but it's not correct. All modern rainforests, with very few exceptions are dominated by Angiosperms and have only existed since about the latter half of the Cretaceous at the oldest. The rainforests of the Pacific Coast of North or South America or New Zealand are likely to be much older and are still conifer-dominated. Now whether or not a particular area of the world has continuously had rainforest is another question, but the composition today would be totally different than during the Jurassic and frankly, it's highly unlikely we would have any evidence for this in a place with as poorly studied of a paleoflora as Australia.
Anonymous No.5040024
>>5038969
They appear to occur somewhere near the base of the split between corals and sponges and are likely most closely related to corals imo. There is simply too much overlap in morphology for this not to be the case I think.

>>5038986
As seen here. Or in Sea Pens.
Anonymous No.5040028 >>5040111
>>5036414
Again, this claim of "170-180" mya seems like something someone made up. And the composition would be totally different. Licuala, for example is a common genus in Daintree, but palms didn't exist until the Cretaceous. Southern Cassowaries are largely reliant on fruit, but again, all of these plants are from the Cretaceous at the earliest, most likely Cenozoic.
Anonymous No.5040030
>>5039512
It's ironic that people hate David Peters for his hallucinations about integument when featherfags are literally the retards that taught him to do this. They see "feathers" all the time where there are none.
Anonymous No.5040111 >>5040115
>>5040028
Nobody is saying that new species havenโ€™t evolved since then. Fan palms and cassowaries have nothing to do with it. It also has a bunch of Gondwanan groups like Araucarians and Microhylids if you want to look at it like that
Anonymous No.5040115
>>5040111
Those are not comprising the Daintree though. And you still have to provide some evidence other than a shitty documentary narration that there's any evidence for continuous forest inhabitation in that location for 180mya.

>Fan palms and cassowaries have nothing to do with it.
They have plenty to do with it. You're just being willfully ignorant right now. And even in the Mesozoia, Araucaria was a mostly upland genus.
Anonymous No.5040130 >>5040133 >>5040143 >>5040146
>>5039739
>his pterosaur stuff??
He's said Homotherium is a canid, Andrewsarchus is a giant tenrec, basking sharks are actually paddlefish, etc.
He's a pure crank and effectively IRL paleoschizo, and I'm not sure if he still does it, but he often went after other people simply for also publishing their own research on something that he shares an interest with.
Anonymous No.5040133
>>5040130
Jewbot here is under the eternal delusion that science is a religious cult where everyone must agree with doctrine. It's not.
Anonymous No.5040143
>>5040130
>effectively IRL paleoschizo
We need more of those, can we get someone with a name to say Charnia swan like fishes?
Anonymous No.5040146 >>5040165
>>5040130
IRL paleoschizo would think anything but jurassic park is le jews

PS: I am a jew and despite my people inventing animal cruelty laws I am coming for your pet deer this christmas
Anonymous No.5040165 >>5040616
>>5040146
>despite my people inventing animal cruelty laws
So a german jew.
Anonymous No.5040434 >>5040498
Why didn't sauropsids ever develop differentiated teeth?
The most succesful living sauropsids don't even have teeth anymore.
Anonymous No.5040498 >>5040607
>>5040434
They did. Multiple times.
Anonymous No.5040607 >>5040615
>>5040498
Proofs?
Anonymous No.5040615 >>5040618
>>5040607
Pterosaurs, crocodilians, it's not exactly a short list. The name "Heterodontosaurus" literally means "different teeth".
Anonymous No.5040616 >>5040617
>>5040165
thats a very funny way to say hindu, my sir!
Anonymous No.5040617
>>5040616
Well yeah, I mean the ancient world definitely has animal protection laws, but the term "animal cruelty laws" seems to imply the modern conventions.
Anonymous No.5040618
>>5040615
Well, "different teeth lizard", but yeah anyway.
Anonymous No.5040713 >>5040728
>>5034642
>Lystrosaurus are so abundant that all you need to evolve is a mouth big enough to kill and eat them
Evolution get's weird after mass extinctions
Anonymous No.5040728
>>5040713

I love its' stupid little body and its' plump little legs. I was wondering how much of the animal they had, but they've supposedly got a few complete skeletons and it truly is just a T-Rex/Theropod skull growing out of a chubby little lizard body.

This fucker was big too. What the fuck. I thought it would be the size of a large dog.
Anonymous No.5041168 >>5041613 >>5041830 >>5045110
>>5034558
Rhynchocephalians are the opposite of that, never dominated, outclassed by fucking everything, yet still hanging on, somehow.
Anonymous No.5041613 >>5041830
>>5041168
Same with lungfish. Lungfish nearly identical to the Australian Lungfish were found in almost every dinosaur-bearing formation known, still kicking. Always in the background just hanging out.
Anonymous No.5041830 >>5041983 >>5042396
>>5041168
>>5041613
Interesting how they are both very long-lived animals too.
Henry the Tuatara is probably around 120 years old now.
Methuselah the Lungfish is in its 90's.
>never dominated, outclassed by fucking everything, yet still hanging on, somehow.
I wonder if the parietal eye on tuataras helps young tuataras avoid predation by birds.
Anonymous No.5041983 >>5041987
>>5041830
You don't have to be the star of the show to just exist.
Anonymous No.5041987
>>5041983
Chris-Chan should have made that his life motto.
Anonymous No.5042396 >>5045110
>>5041830
>I wonder if the parietal eye on tuataras helps young tuataras avoid predation by birds.
Probably, considering that NZ is bird central and used to have more species of predatory birds in the past.
Too bad those third eyes won't help them against cats, poor bastards.
Anonymous No.5042966
Spriggina, weird flat anelid or weird legless proto-arthropod?
Anonymous No.5044750
>>5034141 (OP)
Sexy.
Anonymous No.5044885
>>5039498
>see thumbnail
>why is that fucker posting the Un'Goro Crater?
Anonymous No.5045110 >>5045124
>>5042396
>>5041168
with cats and rats now endemic to NZ, doesn't that mean that after all this time they're going to go extinct?
Anonymous No.5045124
>>5045110
Probably, but only in nature, they are small, so are easy enough to preserve in zoos and shit.