It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaurs Had Courtship Behaviour

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:13 AM
link   
This thread is right in time for Valentine's day (only three days left!), and uncovers something in my opinion quite fascinating: courtship has existed for a very long time. Very long.
As in, a hundred million years.

Evidences have been found that male theropods (a major family of dinosaur species which includes Tyrannosaurus Rex) have displayed their skills to females by digging great holes into the ground and thus show off their ability to build nests for their partner.

The evidence comes as large holes on the ground from the Cretaceous era (146 Million years ago to -65 Million years ago):


The structures, which date back to the Cretaceous, are comprised of raised earth ridges flanked by parallel troughs, and a type of dinosaur is thought to have dug them in order to catch the attention of females.



they must be signs of sexual displays. Unlike nests, which are usually similar and evenly spaced, these mounds and troughs were irregular in size and spread out in an uneven pattern. Nor was there any of the usual fossil evidence of young, such as eggshells.


read more: www.newscientist.com...

The article points out that this courtship instinct has survived in some modern birds (most direct descendants of the theropods). This means that this old courtship behaviour has survived into modern days through genetic memory.

Which makes me only wonder how much genetic memories (expressed or not) have we inherited from the prehistoric world.


edit on 11-2-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
"they must be signs of sexual displays" - well, phew. You wouldn't want something the size of a dinosaur jumping you without a bit of warning. Even if you were another dinosaur


More seriously, thanks for posting a very interesting article.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
How they obtain such knowledge by looking at some dirt is beyond me
Very bold claims of how animals lived +65 million years ago.

They must do a lot of thinking, which is the good part i guess
edit on 11-2-2016 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
That must be why they died out then, all the males eventually suffered from a reptile dysfunction.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Priceless





posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I like how scientists or whoever just make # up. In all reality they have no idea how dinosaurs acted or what they did. For all we know they could have been magicians, look how they all disappeared.
edit on 11-2-2016 by Bovah2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
From the pic of the 'impressions' it looks like something stood there in soft mud for awhile, for whatever reason.

How come theres no prints around those two impressions, did it fly away?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The things are over 65 millions old. The footprint probably just eroded away, whereas the holes (deeper than the footprints) were harder to erode.

Analogy: a pebble in a river will eventually get carried by the current, but an island will take longer (much longer) to do so.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

The (im)prints would have eroded somewhat, too. Those toe marks are crisp.

Edit: If this was 'rutting' behavior, there should be lots of prints, scuffs and dig marks around there, just two means standing behavior. See the brush marks between them, thats a birds tail feathers. Flapping its wings, preening itself, maybe sleeping there, then flying off.

A little less subjective than however they came up with their idea.

Because I'm just looking at the trail sign.
edit on 11-2-2016 by intrptr because: Edit:



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Those toe marks are crisp.

You call this imprint "crisp"?



No.

That...



...is "crisp".


edit on 11-2-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Well we know they mated and have found female skeleton fossils with repeated broken/healed tail vertebrae which is supposed proof of being mounted by the larger and more aggressive males so this find shouldn't be that surprising.

Reminds me of the lengths some modern bird species males go to to attract that special gal.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

In the photo provided in the link look close at the left impression, there are crisp toe marks at the top of it…

Your photo is one foot print of something walking. The OP article is something standing for a while. Both in soft mud, by the way.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: swanne

In the photo provided in the link look close at the left impression, there are crisp toe marks at the top of it…

Take a longer look mate:



There are multiple claw marks (partially eroded), made with efforts (and repeatedly) so to purposefully dig out dirt. Of course it'll be more visible than an imprint by the same animal simply walking.

Dogs can dig hole, that doesn't mean that their feet make holes when they walk.


edit on 11-2-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Imagine what 20+ generations of constant brainwashing and mind-limiting cultures must have done to humanity genes pool?

Habits, emotions, fears, traumas, preferences, strong emotions, addictions, false beliefs, all of them are transmitted and can and will manifest themselves in any number of ways.

Kali yuga ftw. You dont make a more ignorant population than the modern one. Science has only been rediscovering what was already known before in a more perfect and complete way, from various advanced civilizations in near or far past. But since science is but a thread held by the puppeteers, they can and did push it towards a dead end by endorsing materialism to the extreme, silencing anyone that would stumble by chance/hard work on concepts and ideas potentially destructive for the current matrix (rife, free energy, ayurveda, magnetism,..) refuting spirituality which is the key component science needs to TRULY explain everything. Science without wisdom is artificial and limited. Hence why the world is in this #ty state.

About dinosaurs, i already assumed that much. If modern animals have courtships so did others species millions years back. Dont need science for that. But many love empty efforts just to make a useless point...

edit on 11-2-2016 by _damon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

The impressions are eroded some (duh), they represent a two legged animal standing, with its belly or tail brush marks between the impressions.

Just like the twin impressions of a bird standing in one place in here (center, right)…

image



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Take a longer look mate:

You should take a course in tracking… helps to identify animals and their behavior.

Imo, thats a birds resting place. Big one, too.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Ugh, I would have never guessed that one day I'd be arguing about courtship footprints from theropod dinosaurs.


The dinosaur was not standing still, it was actively digging dirt. The multiple claw marks prove it. Your argument implies that the dinosaur had a ludicrous amount of claws on its feet. Plus, the scratches between the two feet-dug holes are not from its tail - tail mark would be located behind the feet marks, not between them. The scratches in the middle were probably made with its front legs' claws (its "hands"). They were less powerful than its feet though, and this explains why the scratches at the center are less deep than the feet-dug holes.




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne


Ugh, I would have never guessed that one day I'd be arguing about courtship footprints from theropod dinosaurs.

Thats a given. All critters court.


Whats not given is what this photo represents. You're arguing from their conclusion its 'courting behavior'.

How is that determined again?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I wouldn't like to have a pair of love Dino's next door...they'd wreck the fecking place, you know the type!

edit on 11-2-2016 by smurfy because: Text.




top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join