Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

General discussion about everything and anything about Prehistoric Kingdom

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby ProjectMammoth » Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:23 pm

I don't know what's going on here, but here's mine. I would try and simulate Pleistocene Australia (I didn't include a specific formation or time in the Pleistocene because I'm to lazy to look).

Herbivores
Diprotodon optatum
Zygomaturus trilobus
Palorchestes azael
Procoptodon goliah
Phascolonus gigas
Meiolania brevicollis
Simosthenurus occidentalis
Phascolarctos stirtoni
Simosthenurus pales
Carnivores
Dromornis stirtoni
Thylacinus cynocephalus
Thylacoleo carnifex
Varanus priscus

I'm guessing some of these aren't planned, but hey, that's what mods are for.
User avatar
ProjectMammoth
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 7:24 pm
Location: Some where in Russia, migrating with my family.

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby velocichap » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:19 pm

sorry but the only ones we have out of that are all the carnivores and only diprotodon and procoptodon
Hello, I'm Velocichap writer of the upcoming web book The Darwin Menagerie, a zoo for both extinct and endangered animals. message me if you want a link to my Discord server to find out more :) https://discord.gg/6NrgEZw
User avatar
velocichap
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:27 am
Location: Ireland writing books and slaying haters

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby ProjectMammoth » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:30 pm

velocichap wrote:sorry but the only ones we have out of that are all the carnivores and only diprotodon and procoptodon


And that's why we will have mod compatibility.
User avatar
ProjectMammoth
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 7:24 pm
Location: Some where in Russia, migrating with my family.

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby velocichap » Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:20 am

Satan said he does not include mods on his list
Hello, I'm Velocichap writer of the upcoming web book The Darwin Menagerie, a zoo for both extinct and endangered animals. message me if you want a link to my Discord server to find out more :) https://discord.gg/6NrgEZw
User avatar
velocichap
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:27 am
Location: Ireland writing books and slaying haters

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby ProjectMammoth » Thu Jul 14, 2016 10:31 am

but this is my list, not his, and i didn't really read the other posts on the way in........
User avatar
ProjectMammoth
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 7:24 pm
Location: Some where in Russia, migrating with my family.

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby velocichap » Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:42 am

yes but I meant the rules say no mods not his list :oops:
Hello, I'm Velocichap writer of the upcoming web book The Darwin Menagerie, a zoo for both extinct and endangered animals. message me if you want a link to my Discord server to find out more :) https://discord.gg/6NrgEZw
User avatar
velocichap
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:27 am
Location: Ireland writing books and slaying haters

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby Monolophosaurus » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:40 am

Satan wrote:
Unkown Amniote wrote:
Satan wrote:Updated the species list to be more accurate, such as removing Torosaurus from Hell Creek because it didn't live with Triceratops or probably many of the other species. Also renamed Edmontosaurus annectens Anatosaurus, I hope PK does the same. And finally, I split Dinosaur Park in to two parts, upper and lower. The two are pretty different and it would be wrong to say Centrosaurus and Styracosaurus lived together or Lambeosaurus and Parasaurolophus.

Torosaurus was still found in Hell Creek, it's just that it didn't live in the middle or upper parts of the formation and only lived alongside Triceratops horridus, aka the only confirmed species of Triceratops in PK (although the devs have said before that they would like T. prorsus since it's so easy to make). And most researchers say Anatosaurus is just a seperate species of Edmontosaurus. "Anatosaurus" and Edmontosaurus are identical besides the fact the "Anatosaurus" is larger and has a longer snout. But that's just species variation. There's far more differences in the various species of Palaeoloxodon but I don't see anyone talking about that. Just because one small team of paleo enthusiasts (and a few scientists) say Anatosaurus is it's own genus, doesn't mean that we should all conform to them. Everyone has their own opinions, and at the end of the day, over splitting genera isn't important since it doesn't actually contibute anything besides confusion to some people. That's like other games making Gorgosaurus=Albertosaurus simply because PK does. There are actual, legitament reasons why Gorgo should/could equal Alberto, but that's beside the point.

Saurian has found that Torosaurus lived in a "basal" Hell Creek, and came before both Triceratops species. Thus it would not be included because it does not fit the time period or other fauna (Dakotaraptor is 66 million years ago, so Toro and Dakota didn't live with eachother either).
Anatosaurus is a personal preference that I hope PK addopts but I'll and it for now it's not the popular opinion. And I believe, like Brontosaurus, Anatosaurus will come to be commonly excepted again. I've seen even huge lumpers, both professional and not, consider or except it. But that hasn't happened yet, so it doesn't mean anything. And there are more differences that maximum size and snout shape; the differences in scale texture, the lack of a known skin crest in Anato, and the millions of years where neither of them are present.


Ugh, you two :P . Weird that Satan, Amniote, and I are the ones that get in these taxonomic debates on a constant basis. If I know anything about you two, it is that Amniote is too much of a lumper and Satan is too much of a splitter. And personally I agree with their two largest held opinions; Satan's Anatosaurus=/=Edmontosaurus (though I am very on the fence with that one) and Amniote's Gorgosaurus=Albertosaurus. What I also know is both of you like to look at things at face value and just arbitrarily decide these synonymies or lack of synonymies without looking at the anatomy too deeply (I also do that quite often but in my not-very-humble-and-pretty-arrogant opinion it is more prominent with you two).

Regardless, I'm sick of Saurian being treated as if they are magical gods. Everyone just accepts what they say as fact and then acts like they just know anything and everything. Personally I don't 100% trust them, and anytime someone contradicts something they say, the comeback appears to be "but they did RESEARCH" as if other people haven't. Saurian did NOTHING to discover that Torosaurus didn't live with Triceratops prorsus. That's just a fact that we have known about for basically forever. In fact, the species of Triceratops that Torosaurus lived with is T. horridus, the only one confirmed for Prehistoric Kingdom! That means you should either remove both Triceratops horridus and Torosaurus, or remove Dakotaraptor and friends. Your choice. I almost never refer to genera with more than one known species by their generic names as you have done because it causes stupid useless confusion like this. Just put Torosaurus back and call it a day. The label on the list is "Hell Creek Formation" for crying out loud, not "Very Specific Time Frame of The Hell Creek Within Its Last Few Thousand Years of Existence." If you really want to pedantic, you can create a lower and upper Hell Creek like you did with Dinosaur Park (which was also quite pointless).

Then we have Anatosaurus, and Amniote the differences between Edmontosaurus and Anatosaurus are far more different than "size and beak." Of course Satan's reasons why it is different are very weak and sometimes downright wrong (time difference? we have been over why that makes no sense SEVERAL TIMES, quit it) You are also being hypocritical by saying that oversplitting genera is confusing. In what way? The confusion comes when you lump genera, which may be ironic/hypocritical coming from me because I lump several genera (Gorgosaurus=Albertosaurus; Machairoceratops=Diabloceratops [okay someone has to follow that one, it is legitimately ridiculous that those two are considered separate genera]; Coronosaurus and Spinops=Centrosaurus; Saurophaganax=Allosaurus; Megapnosaurus=Coelophysis ["Syntarsus" kayentakatae is separate however]; etc. etc. etc.). OH and there are differences between Palaeoloxodon species (however pretty minor, they are almost certainly all one genus), but the reason nobody talks about that is because that is completely irrelevant to the conversation right now. What does that have anything to do with Anatosaurus or dinosaurs in general? Is Saurian going to randomly pop out in the middle of making their HELL CREEK game and then just randomly say their thoughts on the taxonomical consensus of Palaeoloxodon? Looking at the skulls here: http://saurian.maxmediacorp.com/wp-cont ... ummary.jpg (haha thanks Saurian) the differences are apparent. The skulls of Anatosaurus are far more flat than that of E. regalis and are of course longer. E. regalis is overall far more robust in several areas but Anatosaurus is more robust at other parts of the body can be an absolute giant, rivalling several mid-sized sauropods in size at the 50-60 foot range (however the average Anatosaurus is maybe a bit over half that size). That is an odd combination of traits there. I want to go in depth on why they might be separate but for now I don't feel like it because honestly it is a bit of a waste of time :P (though I have done it before with Lambeosaurus and friends). I will concede that I find it very possible they are the same, but I'm just not quite convinced. After all, Greg Paul considers it a subgenus, and typically those are separate from their parent genus :P (Giraffatitan definitely, probably Brontosaurus, and arguably Tarbosaurus and Lambeosaurus, but I'm on the fence about the latter two).
Officially my avatar:
Image

An underrated theropod that deserves fame.
Monolophosaurus
Velociraptor
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:27 pm

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby Satan » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:54 pm

^ I'm not going to quote that, I don't want more wall text, but I am responding to it.

1. Yep, I guess it always is us arguing this stuff...
2. My Hell Creek is the Upper most, I might make that more clear.
3. Yeah, I do need to add full taxonomic names, I just haven't got to it yet. As for T. horridus, I generally ignore exact species due to the limited species in PK (unless there's major physical differences), so it is being treated as T. prorsus here.
4. Splitting seems useless for Hell Creek, they're so similar.
5. Why is splitting Dinosaur Park pointless?
6. My further reasons for Anato=/=Edmonto were pretty weak, sorry.

And just some general lumping things. Apprently, aleast at one point, Gregory S. Paul thought Centrosaurus=Pachyrhinosaurus! Also, I think Rubeosaurus is the same as Styracosaurus, it's quite obivous to me.
Prehistoric Kingdom has too many Non-Avian Dinosaurs, meaning many bird and mammal species are left out. Help support adding more birds and mammals to hinder the monopoly of dinosaurs:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5438
User avatar
Satan
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:36 pm
Location: Hell

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby Monolophosaurus » Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:40 pm

Satan wrote:^ I'm not going to quote that, I don't want more wall text, but I am responding to it.

1. Yep, I guess it always is us arguing this stuff...
2. My Hell Creek is the Upper most, I might make that more clear.
3. Yeah, I do need to add full taxonomic names, I just haven't got to it yet. As for T. horridus, I generally ignore exact species due to the limited species in PK (unless there's major physical differences), so it is being treated as T. prorsus here.
4. Splitting seems useless for Hell Creek, they're so similar.
5. Why is splitting Dinosaur Park pointless?
6. My further reasons for Anato=/=Edmonto were pretty weak, sorry.

And just some general lumping things. Apprently, aleast at one point, Gregory S. Paul thought Centrosaurus=Pachyrhinosaurus! Also, I think Rubeosaurus is the same as Styracosaurus, it's quite obivous to me.


Yes, I think Paul still believes that, actually. We will have to see when the new edition of The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs comes out in October.

Otherwise I'll just say okay, youu haven't really said anything that I think is worthy of discussing, mostly I agree with that.

Though I don't know why I said Dinosaur Park splitting was pointless. Maybe just to prove some point but in hindsight it really is a pretty good Idea. Keep it, of course.
Officially my avatar:
Image

An underrated theropod that deserves fame.
Monolophosaurus
Velociraptor
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:27 pm

Re: Simulating Prehistroic Ecosytems

Postby Satan » Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:31 pm

I've revamped what this entire thread is about, in a way. Instead of focusing on mainly accuracy, I've taken a new route of using other species that are similar to non-existent species to fill their vacant niche. This means that ecosystems will work much better, as (usually) all roles can be filled in, even if they're not actually from that time or place.
I've also made it so the list will only include current ingame species (with a slight exception of it including all confirmed Tech Demo species now, as it will come out soon). This means the list will progressively get better as time goes on, and a player can look and use it at any time, not just wait around for all the species listed to be added.
I find this a refreshing change personally, if you want the accurate-styled list, my PK Formations list basically trumped the old list anyway, so go there.
Prehistoric Kingdom has too many Non-Avian Dinosaurs, meaning many bird and mammal species are left out. Help support adding more birds and mammals to hinder the monopoly of dinosaurs:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5438
User avatar
Satan
Ankylosaurus
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:36 pm
Location: Hell

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest