Archosaurs of The Triassic Period | Dinosaur Documentary

[@sheilastodola1082]

I love your channel. My son and grands follow your channel as well. We are very interested in Dinosaurs and have learned a lot from this channel. Jurassic Park is our favorite movie lol ❤️🦖🦕💙. Every time you post a new video we stop what we are doing and watch it 😍😎. Thank you and we are looking forward to the next one. God bless and have a wonderfully blessed weekend

[@dinosaurdiscovery]

Thank you Sheila, that is wonderful that you all watch the channel. Have a lovely weekend.

[@SquirrelGamez]

A soothing voice and prehistoric creatures... what more could I ask for?

[@daxxonjabiru428]

IDK, Correct pronunciations?

[@nonye0]

what

[@brianhammer5107]

more accurate science? - there are assumptions in this video that are wildly speculative

[@davidsheckler4450]

You could ask for the ability to realize none of this ever happened 👍

[@Lmwpitt]

Really? this voice sounds AI generated and speech is so slow and deep that it's boring to listen to. Even though the information is interesting.

[@daniell1483]

I love learning about archosaurs, their extreme diversity and long lineages make them such charismatic creatures in any age. The animal I learned about the most is the tachinosukis. I hadn't ever heard about it before. Its more gracile morphology seems very uncommon for these ancient reptiles. The description given for them being like a reptilian lion is very evocative.

[@LloydEWatson1983]

A new video from Dinosaur Discovery! *Insert Doctor Zoidberg whooping sound here to indicate excitement* 🦀

[@dinosaurdiscovery]

Enjoy Lloyd!

[@prometheushavockmaster5640]

'Trust me I'm a doctor"

[@PokémBroidery]

I forgot the channel name after watching one of ur vids, and got sad I couldn't remember, glad I found it again!!

[@jeffagain7516]

Thanks very much good Sir! I feel the Triassic doesn't get as much love as its two more famous Periods of of the Mesozoic, the Jurassic and Cretaceous, so I appreciate the coverage . It certainly spurred me to subscribe. :) If I could possibly make a request, I'd very much enjoy seeing a vid on the lifeforms that populated the Permian Period of the Paleozoic, which kicked off the earliest large critters of the Earth. Thanks again !

[@Jakspetter]

Next time, it would be nice if you could do your own subtitles, cuz Google does not make good subtitles. For ex. when you say Desmatosuchus, it says something like "Semateo suekiz" which is not really what you said. I want to know what the name of this animals is: 27:19 I tried to search the word that the subtitle said, which was "Mawambakarali" but when I Googled it, there where no results, I can't hear nothing else so please help me to find it! Anyways, awesome video! I love the Triassic and it's even nicer when I can learn more about the fauna of the period!

[@00pium99]

Subscribed. I enjoy your channel a lot, keep up the good work 👍

[@daxxonjabiru428]

This is a reasonably good robot narrator.

[@nickopeters]

I thought they were a live narrator. But okay.

[@ineedc3477]

*AI narrator

[@canis2020]

Please make playlists

[@Pwnzistor]

Always fascinating to me how they can get the story of an individual dinosaur that lived so many millions of years ago. I wonder how they do it.

[@lb8141]

What a great channel 😁

[@jarodjohnson6630]

As a former Chicago resident more than 10 years ago this guy describes Chicago to a tee. Since I've lived Georgia it has made me see Chicago for what it is. Chicago will always be in my heart but my heart will never again be in Chicago

[@benthescientist]

4:57 I coulda sworn I had a puzzle or a book with those two drawings

[@heleng8545]

I love your voice!

[@Titus-as-the-Roman]

The Triassic, Planet Earth's Amazing Acid Trip, there was "No Skull Too Weird" If you could find some footage of a Cuban Crocodile running would be an excellent demonstration what a Archosaur Run might be like (Cuban Croc's are the most terrestrial of all the modern day Crocodilians

[@vassa1972]

Good stuff

[@Titus-as-the-Roman]

Erythrosuchus (*) Shall Be My Mount into Battle, Tanystropheus will be another to decorate the Eternal Garden (*), I really go for all the Big Head Fred's when I choose my creatures, Erythrosuchus had Head that was simply Glorious

[@badartgallery9322]

Subscribed!

[@Eshkanama]

11:41 CARNIFEX!! 🤘🏼✊🏼

[@UntimelyRelease]

I love seeing Path of Titans in these videos now. 👍 I'm sure if u were to pay a mod maker they could get u some crazy graphics cheap.

[@huntermiller537]

i dozed off watching something and just woke up to dinos

[@nickopeters]

Amazing.

[@almightyone1181]

Those Archosaurus are terrifying lol

[@user_b_ware5720]

10:34- 1040 to ward off prey? I think you mean predators my guy. Lol

[@ardellolnes5663]

lol BANANASAURS!? jk that is what I thought i heard for a second! could you imagine, bananas decended from bananasaurus

[@jasondashney]

A 7 minute intro is perhaps overkill?

[@KristianGibbs-k3d]

Feeling so shocked

[@badartgallery9322]

Love the voice.

[@coraltown1]

Would love an explanation of exactly what makes a dinosaur a dinosaur, as compared to something else.

[@needfoolthings]

Start with Wikipedia.

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

All dinosaurs, bipedal and quad, have a simple hinge ankle. They can't twist their feet or rotate hands. Crocodiles and their direct ancestors can hinge their limbs.

[@dinosdude1355]

@@needfoolthings Wikipedia is soo inaccurate! University and palaeontology papers are better options

[@needfoolthings]

@@dinosdude1355 I said, "start".

[@nickopeters]

The crurotarsal joint, and the acetabulum, are the two points I most frequently hear mentioned. The crurotarsal joint changes to create an increased, spring, action in running. The late, basal archosaurs that gave rise to the first dinosaurs already recently had become digitigrade; however this was a very late change for them, and most of them can be readily distinguished by their plantigrade hind feet. In basal archosaurs, the acetabulum or hip-joint socket, was "non-perforated--;" and the articulation of the femur to the acetabulum tended to be steeply-upward, so that the femoral swing-arc was less--. When the neck of the femur came to be at an angle inward toward the hip, that let the top of the shaft of the femur swing free of the edges of the acetabulum, enabling a longer stride and faster speed. These changes then promoted other changes to the dinosaurs physiques, including usually longer legs, more efficient design for faster speed, and further refinements that further supported their improved hunting or defense and escaping, such as less bulk and lighter bones--; that would have been meaningless for the plodding, lumbering looking, basal archosaurs.

[@danielfox9461]

Saurosuccus? Saurosuccus? You mean to tell me at some horrifying point in the past an honest to God 40ft crocodile with a T-REX head terrorizing anything that strayed into his swamp?

[@calebsmith2362]

You make it sound like all these animals lived at the same time. The African archosauriform reptiles you mention, for example, lived at the very dawn of the Triassic. Tens of millions of years before the true archosaurs you mentioned living during the Middle to Late Triassic.

[@-JA-]

❤️🙂

[@sethchuter1774]

Would you consider posting these without the background sound track, for people like me with audio processing struggles it’s hard to separate the background tune out from speech even with auto caption. Dinosaurs are my biggest interest and these videos are probably the most interesting ones I’ve found for a long time but it’s a struggle to take in due to music.

[@houseguest4534]

I know this will sound incredibly childish to some people but I'd love to go back in time to when dinosaurs ruled the planet and spend even just a year to watch them and see how they really lived and hunted and also just to listen to how things really sounded way back then.

[@chrisdonish]

We all would...

[@davidsheckler4450]

It's childish to think any of this ever happened

[@houseguest4534]

@@davidsheckler4450 the question I have for you is why watch something if you have such a negative outlook on it?

[@davidsheckler4450]

@@houseguest4534 Who said I watched this nonsense 😅😂🤣 I outgrew CGI cartoons years ago. Someone has to be the voice of reason since ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can verify that any of this ever happened or these fake-a-saurses ever existed

[@houseguest4534]

@@davidsheckler4450 then why click on it in the first place in fact why watch anything to do with dinosaurs ever as no one can prove anything so on that note just stay off this channel entirely so those with some kind of imagination can enjoy the channel plus the programmes without having to read anything from someone like yourself who has no imagination

[@kavishkagamage5351]

28:07 direct "ancestors" of the pterosaurs "not descendents"

[@pelewads]

I really do love your videos. One correction though. Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

"I really do love your videos. One correction though. Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs." So, the comment was therefore 'birds are relatives of dinosaurs'. 1. your comment wasn't a correction, because the statement is correct already 2. rather, your comment 'Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs' is wrong, they are 3. it's irrelevant that birds _are_ dinosaurs, that doesn't preclude birds are relatives of dinosaurs 4. being a member of a larger group doesn't prevent you from stating members of a smaller group within it are related to that larger group ----------- Another example. video; 'felids are relatives of mammals' you; 'felids are not relatives of mammals. They are mammals.' I hope you see your flaw; not only does 'felids are not relatives of mammals' make you wrong, it's of no relevance to simply mentioning a subgroup is in fact relatives of a larger group even when they themselves are members of the larger group.

[@pelewads]

@@Dr.IanPlect The two statements: "Birds are related to dinosaurs." and "Birds are dinosaurs." Are not equivalent statements. Are they both technically correct? Yes. However, the latter statement is far more precise than the former. As this is a science communication channel I would think that precision would be important here. Obviously I was mistaken in that assumption. There are a number of "facts" that many of us have been taught in grade school, that are in fact inaccurate. Ex "Homo sapiens didn't arrive in North America. Until after the ice sheet corridor opened up." "Pluto is a planet." "The dinosaurs all went extinct 66 million years ago." As time goes by, and we learn more, there comes a time to update the lexicon. Homo sapiens arrived in North America long before the ice corridor opened up. Pluto is not a planet. But rather a dwarf planet. And all of the dinosaurs did not go extinct. Birds are dinosaurs. Every single bird on the planet is a dinosaur. I believe that it is the responsibility of scientific communicators to clearly elucidate these changes in our knowledge. And the resulting changes in the lexicon. The appropriate thing to say is that the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. Now, let us evaluate your clumsy attempt at justifying the imprecise usage of the paleontological lexicon. 1. My comment is a correction. I'm sorry if your delicate sensibilities have difficulty accepting this. But birds ARE dinosaurs. Period, end of story, bye-bye see you later. 2. "Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs." When you take my statement out of context. Then yes. You are correct. That statement, on its own, is wrong. However, I think if you put it back in context, most people would understand it to make sense. 3. "it's irrelevant that birds are dinosaurs." No, that is the entire premise of my original statement. It is very relevant that birds are dinosaurs. And you can dance around that issue all you want. But that does not change the fact. Birds are dinosaurs. 4. "Being a member of a larger group doesn't prevent you from stating members of a smaller group within it are related to that larger group." And then you give the example, 'felids are relatives of mammals.' however, this example would not be analogous to my original thesis. A more appropriate example would be, 'felids are relatives of cats.' now that would be analogous to saying that birds are relatives of dinosaurs. Now, is it incorrect to say that felids are relatives of cats? No it is not. Is there a much more precise way to say that? i.e 'felids are cats' Yes, obviously the latter is more precise than the former. Of course one would only be concerned with such pedantry if one were trying to be precise. Say in the setting of science communication, for example. I don't know, again, my assumption was that precision would be something that would be important to this channel. It was certainly not my intent to damage the delicate egos of those who choose to be looser with their usage of the lexicon. I shall endeavor to keep such expectations to myself, in the future.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

@@pelewads THIS REPLY WILL BE 2 PARTS AS IT'S GETTING TOO LONG -------------- PART 1 "The two statements: "Birds are related to dinosaurs." and "Birds are dinosaurs." Are not equivalent statements." - indeed, I agree "Are they both technically correct? Yes." - indeed, I agree. And your statement (by adding 'not') denies this! "However, the latter statement is far more precise than the former." - it adds more detail and clarification "As this is a science communication channel I would think that precision would be important here." - I too would prefer a more scientific slant in such a channel, just saying 'birds are related to dinosaurs' isn't adequate "1. My comment is a correction." - for it to be a correction, the statement has to be incorrect. I need only restate YOUR comment in this very reply that not only concurs it is correct, but explicitly contradicts and refutes THIS comment itself! *"The two statements: "Birds are related to dinosaurs." and "Birds are dinosaurs." Are not equivalent statements. Are they both technically correct? Yes.* ! "I'm sorry if your delicate sensibilities have difficulty accepting this. But birds ARE dinosaurs. Period, end of story, bye-bye see you later." - why did you feel a need to state _this_ ? Nothing I've said goes against this and my comments implicitly allow for me agreeing on this point. But, I'll make it explicit; I'm a PhD zoologist, I _know_ birds are dinosaurs. This comment is both bizarre and unwarranted "2. "Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs." When you take my statement out of context. Then yes. You are correct. That statement, on its own, is wrong. However, I think if you put it back in context, most people would understand it to make sense." - this isn't about what's intended, it's about what the words, as written, can be _interpreted_ as conferring. Even placing the 2 bits back together "Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs." - the former still contradicts the latter! - so, the point (the ONLY point!) I'm making is; it doesn't _matter_ that birds _are_ dinosaurs. It does not preclude stating "birds are relatives of dinosaurs'. Wherein 'preclude' means; 'remove the possibility of; rule out; prevent or exclude; to make impossible'.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

@@pelewads PART 2 ---------------- "3. "it's irrelevant that birds are dinosaurs." No, that is the entire premise of my original statement. It is very relevant that birds are dinosaurs. And you can dance around that issue all you want. But that does not change the fact. Birds are dinosaurs." - again, this is jumping on a perception I don't hold! My comment, in full; "it's irrelevant that birds are dinosaurs, that doesn't preclude birds are relatives of dinosaurs" - so, the point (the ONLY point!) I'm making is; it doesn't _matter_ that birds _are_ dinosaurs. It does not preclude stating "birds are relatives of dinosaurs'. Wherein 'preclude' means; 'remove the possibility of; rule out; prevent or exclude; to make impossible'. "4. "Being a member of a larger group doesn't prevent you from stating members of a smaller group within it are related to that larger group." And then you give the example, 'felids are relatives of mammals.' however, this example would not be analogous to my original thesis. A more appropriate example would be, 'felids are relatives of cats.' now that would be analogous to saying that birds are relatives of dinosaurs." - no, my example IS analogous as felids are WITHIN mammals, just as birds are WITHIN dinosaurs. The 2 are examples of what I stated "Being a member of a larger group (dino/mammal) doesn't prevent you from stating members of a smaller group (felid/bird) within it (dino/mammal) are related to that larger group (dino/mammal)"! - now, I'm omitting a response entirely to your introduction of 'felids are relatives of cats'. Not only have I just pointed out why my felid/mammal analogy is perfectly valid, rendering your 'example of correct analogy' as moot, the terms felid and cat to me are; a) synonyms in the context of colloquial usage, wherein 'cat' is used as a reference to any member of the 'cat' family ('cat family' itself being a colloquial term). So, when using 'cat' in this sense, that is exactly what a felid _is_ , any member of Felidae! b) even interpreting 'cat' in scientific terms, where it specifically refers to the taxon; domesticated cats, _still_ makes your example 'felids are relatives of cats' a species-level comparison (because domestic cat is a species and felid means a species of Felidae), and not a smaller group within larger group analogy, which felid/mammal is! ------------------ Look, the point remains, adding a SINGLE word to your point would keep it accurate, compare; 1. "One correction though. Birds are not relatives of dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs." 2. "One correction though. Birds are not JUST relatives of dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs. 1. is flawed, 2. is a point I, as a zoologist, would fire out in an instant.

[@goonerali3547]

05th September 2022.

[@ELOrocks189]

Is there a version of this video that doesn't use the metric system?

[@MajinObama]

pfft

[@oheron]

The music is annoying

[@MajinObama]

And the seducing tone of the voice or whatever that is

[@jurawild]

Coelophysis, Parasaurolophus, Herrerasaurus, Plateosaurus, Eoraptor, Allosaurus...whats more

[@MajinObama]

Watch the other 99% of the video that doesn’t talk about dinosaurs for the millionth time… -_- I love them don’t get me wrong but it’s so haaaard to find someone talking about prehistoric times that has nothing to do with dinosaurs! Enjoy the video and pay attention. The past was a lot more interesting than mainstream media makes it out to be. It wasn’t just „big“, it was also diverse and loooong spanning…

[@TontonMacoute]

Re. Comment below. Primates evolved 55 million years ago. Hominoids (inc. apes) 7 million years ago. Hominids 5 million years ago. Homo 2 million years ago, and Homo sapiens half a million year ago. Not crazy.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

- Hominoidea evolved much further back than 7my, 3 or 4 times that - Hominids more than 3 times 5my

[@Huy-G-Le]

I find it's surprising at how much people still shock about the sheer numbers of fossils Archeologist can find in North America, Canada and USA. It is an entire continents, of course it would have a large deposits of fossil. YET it is blasphemies, for people to stops thinking when they heard North America. Unlike Europe which are broken into countries, which are smalls cities state, republics and kingdoms unified into forming countries. In North America, settler from Europe just wipes out the hundreds to thousands of native population through direct slaughtering, causing the Native American country/tribes to become deceased until around 10 still remains today.

[@boxjellyfish9819]

I disagree with how long ago it was

[@charlesbragdon5200]

Archosaurs first evolved in the triassic this is accurate time placement

[@josericardoperezballestero7375]

Please let me try, all these prehistoric creatures live 6000 years ago right?

[@boxjellyfish9819]

@@josericardoperezballestero7375 I just think when they say 500 million years ago it to long

[@charlesbragdon5200]

@@boxjellyfish9819 😬 do you disagree that the earth is roughly 4 billion years old?

[@boxjellyfish9819]

@@charlesbragdon5200 nope we wasn't back then we don't know

[@denisbeaucage6094]

The humain apear short time comparatively then this annimals

[@brooketyler6740]

Alexander

[@chkmtn]

I find the narrator's voice incredibly slow-paced and boring.

[@MajinObama]

And off-putting

[@MajinObama]

Not a bad video at all! But why the tone of voice that makes one think you’re trying to seduce the viewer? … ugh, off-putting.

[@alienpov]

I love this but that music is awful. Why bother with that at all ?

[@lougomes2912]

All was going well until you stated that "birds are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs". Wrong. Birds are dinosaurs and were here before T-Rex, Spinosaurus and Argentinosaurus, yet no one classes them as "closest relatives of dinosaurs". Please, don´t make that mistake again since it´s pretty basic for a serious documentary. You will lose a lot of views due to that. Apart from that, I enjoyed the documentary so far.

[@michaelbalsai5795]

Don't forget the display of a living iguana when discussing archosaurs. Iguanas are lepidosaurs not archosaurs. I have frequently noticed inappropriate images presented in this series which otherwise flaws what could be a truly great series. Try to be more careful about the images used as they could be sending the wrong message.

[@lougomes2912]

@@davidcganhao. Based on the level of your approach I don´t expect you to understand. Nonetheless, most paleontologists would agree with me.

[@lougomes2912]

@@davidcganhao. For amateurs like you it may appear over the top, whereas I wanted to alert the creator of the video that those basic mistakes may cause the video not to be very appealing for people who seek accuracy. In the end I even stated I enjoyed it besides that error so I truly don´t understand what you´re implying. Secondly, this is not facebook or instagram for people like you to step in with completely random comments. Thirdly, as you most certainly noticed, another user shares my opinion so it´s you and your tiny brain who didn´t get my constructive intention. Au revoir!

[@james.carty.9043]

I can see they. have made other mistakes in describing fish eating species as ambush predators.

[@MajinObama]

Maybe he meant it the same way as mammals are related to reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc., since we descended from them. Worded poorly of course possibly but yeah, not impossible I guess.

[@Jman21UK]

Isnt it crazy how these creatures lived for millions and millions of years yet never evolved further than primitive animals, Yet humans have been around about 200 thousand.

[@vanenmar7491]

Yeah and we're primitive too!

[@Jman21UK]

@@vanenmar7491 maybe compared to a highly advanced alien species yes, but did the dinosaurs put a dinosaur on the moon? Nope

[@vanenmar7491]

@@Jman21UK Can you hold your breath for hours? Run over 60mph? Have the strength of 10 men? Have the ability to regrow missing limbs? Have binocular vision? Without our technology we're nothing special

[@lougomes2912]

We are primitive too. Regardless of our intellect we are the only animals that destroy their environment for something we created (money). Furthermore, whales are possibly more advanced than we are. Based on our limited knowledge of their communication patterns we are far behind we just can´t understand them, therefore asserting their exact intelligent level proves to be quite hard.

[@Jman21UK]

@@lougomes2912 depends how you define primitive? Can chimpanzees perform complex brain surgery on other chimpanzees?

[@Markt.400]

Hello can you help me spread the Holy word of God's word as it is our duty children of God so more people know God's Holy word and the Gospel So share this or copy and paste this! God Bless you and have a Blessed day!

[@gordonsmith5589]

Weak

[@davidsheckler4450]

Prehistoric nonsense

[@brianhammer5107]

No evidence whatsoever that Coelophysis had proto-feathers. This is too early in dino evolution.