It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Ancient crocodile chewed like a mammal

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:06 AM
05 August 2010
Crocodiles weren't always so snappy. A new fossil shows that their ancient relatives chewed their food, rather than swallowing great chunks of it.
The diminutive fossil belongs to a previously unknown species of crocodile-like reptile from the Cretaceous called Pakasuchus kapilami – after the Swahili word for cat, paka, and the Greek word for crocodile, souchos. It has surprised palaeontologists with its sophisticated mammal-like teeth.
Pakasuchus lived between 65 and 144 million years ago in what is now southern Tanzania. It was just 55 centimetres long, had long legs, and belonged to the notosuchians – a group of reptiles that are distant relatives of modern crocodiles and alligators.

Video Croc

Pakasuchus was a fast-moving, almost dog-like creature (Image: Mark Witton, University of Portsmouth)

Convergent evolution
This suggests that jaws carrying a smaller number of specialised teeth evolved at least twice: in one group of ancient reptiles, and in early mammals
Palaeobiologist David Norman of the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the study, says this has not been seen before in crocodiles or their ancestors. Their long legs are consistent with other evidence that crocodilians were not originally aquatic animals

What is interesting is that crocodiles may have evolved from mammals into reptiles, stands to reason as they could very well be in the Dinosaur family.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:59 AM
Yet another reason I feel that we may very well have a lot of those dinosaur species depicted all wrong.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:22 PM

Originally posted by CheapShotArtist
Yet another reason I feel that we may very well have a lot of those dinosaur species depicted all wrong.

The problem is they find unrelated fragments that may be from totally different eras and put them into the same pot, dating them isn't an exact science and now finding out that carbon dating for instance is flawed.

Thank you for posting.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Aquarius1


Yeah, this subject always fascinates me. Ive always been curious just how exact we have each creature from the prehistoric period depicted.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:25 AM
That is very interesting i must say. To see how they evolved. But my question has always been this. When evolution comes into play are some of the past creatures better then the ones now? Like if this thing was running around would it be more of a threat or less of a threat then corcs now? But back on subject. Do i think that they could be a part of the dinosaur family. I feel that it could be.

top topics

log in