[attachmentid=6215] I was just surfing the net when I came across this animal. It is the largest land mammal to ever live! Can you just imagine coming face to face with one of these things? info here at http://www.expage.com/btherium .

Does anyone know anything else bout these things?

no i dont but it is huge

its not that big your a fool if you think it was bigger then the bigest dinosaur

Blazer....you are aware of the difference between a mammal and a reptile, right?



Are you also aware it's very rude to call someone a fool at the same time you're demonstrating your own ignorance and lack of understanding of the animal kingdom


And on a sidenote, yes, they were the largest land mammal that ever lived (so far as we know). They were so big, in fact, that after childhood they had no natural predators. They were simply so big that no animal on the planet could touch them

1. It's the ancestor for the rhinos

2. He said LAND MAMMAL. It's still a debate if dinosaurs were mammals or reptiles.

3. They're extinct.

4. I had mentioned this guy for a possibility as the "behemoth" in the bible.

were they around during the wild west, or is the cowboy just there to compare the size?...and thats a big, odd looking animal...

No, they weren't....they just added that into the movies so Clint Eastwood wasn't making everyone else on screen look like a midgit.




....

....I can do better than that, could you ask the question again?

were they around during the wild west, or is the cowboy just there to compare the size?...

there you go.....

*tries to somehow link the thing to the wild west, but somehow can't get the idea out of her head that this thing is probably Steve Irwin's wet dream*

"Geez mates, e's a beaut! Now, I'm about to get real close to this thing, and grab its tail..."

see that was much better, plus it made me laugh more, although i can't compliment you on the austrailian accent, as its just in text, although i'm sure the accent is flawless



although it had no link to cowboys like you said....

Nah, but I do very well mimmick Steve Irwin's version which, quite frankly, I'm pretty sure is fake

In fact, I do a very good imitation of his "Now, jus' rememba, I am in no, real, danga."

*said shortly before being scraped from the underside of the creature's foot with a spatula*

i must admit i do enjoy it when he gets bitten or nearly gets attacked, i've seen it happen on a few of his programs...he'll get it real bad sooner or later, lets just hope hes not holding his child at the time...

anyway whats the topic of this thread?...erm..er..oh yeah BALUCHITHERIUM

Walking with Beasts did an episode on this.

get real. theres never been anybody that thought dinosaurs were mammals. warmblooded, yes, but thats along way from being mammalian.

Dinosaurs were a family group of the Reptile Group, not mammals, never mammals. Mammals evolved from Reptiles during the same period, but from a different Reptile family, not the Dinosaurs.

Many non-mammals are warm blooded, such as certain fish, like the Great White, all birds, and Dinosaurs.

well, sometimes theyre placed in a separate group all thier own. but never with mammals. and nobody knows for sure whether dinosaurs were warm blooded. its just a theory.

Wow. There were a lot of fascinating mammals that lived after the death of the dinosaurs.

Given the speed some of them moved at, even in cold climates, they'd have to be... in theory

the speed can be calculated from tracks any way the calculator wants. various dinosaurs have been estimated from 70 to 5 miles and hour.

Which would imply they'd have to be warm blooded, or cold blooded but living in a really hot environment. But since fast dinos lived in temperate areas, its most likely they were warm blooded, or at least a number of them were

But this is for the scientists to figure out then tell us.

Oh geez...

It's true, and it is a mammal, and it is on Walking with Beasts.

That's big. It makes the horse look puney.

Oh my goodness...

[EDIT:fixed quote]

Oh, so thats wats been beating down the walls of our house.......................Anywa, thats huge.

Crikey! Steve Irwin does a great job of making the rest of us Aussies look like idiots, heres hoping he gets bitten by something really big!

i think i did that right..........its another pic of it sorry if someone else posted this i couldnt read it all

evolution spawned some of the most amazing creatures, I'm fasinated with animals like those like Megalodon or Manta ray, blows my mine that those things where moving and living in the "same" environnement as us.

this brings me to the question, are animals in general shrinking?...are we heading to an unavoidable "pokemon" era?

In comparesent the biggest current land mammal, the african elephant, looks ackwardly dwarft.

Regarding warm-blooded creatures, there is one species of reptiles in existance which is endotherm (has "warm blood"). This is the European Leatherback Sea Turtle, which has a constant body temp. of 25c degrees (not as high as marine mammals, which are 38c, or birds, which is 40c, but still, much warmer than the sorounding sea, and remains in constant temp, which is the basic principle of being warm-blooded).

Just a small bit of interesting info.

Nice giant horsey.

Wouldn't wanna hand feed it.

Also, although it might come as a shock to you all, there is A COLD BLOODED (ectotherm) MAMMAL. Yep. And no, I am not talking about those laying-eggs mammals in Australia, like the Platypus.
The mammal I'm talking about is the naked mole-rat, which doesn't have warm blood. It's tempratures can drop from 38c to 12c.
Also, this mammal doesn't feel any pain whatsoever - if you cut, burn or injure in any way this mammal, it won't feel any pain.

Cool. It looks bouncy, anyone up for a game of ectotherm tennis?

Looks like the tax man to me.. he has no known preditors and everyone tries to keep out of his way .

bump

Ok, here is truth, when this animal was first found they thought that it weighed 30 tons average, but then they realized that there were 7 skeletons there, then they estimated it at 10 tons or 11 tons, they have estimated largest at 20 tons, well, largest mammoth could weigh the same, I mean Steppe mammoth of course, who was almost 5 meters high and more massive than hornless rhino, but to now it is considered the largest land mammal to ever live, though it was nowhere most powerful, I'm pretty sure that Steppe mammoth could easily kill it (5 meters tusks), or North American Megatherium they have recently discovered (it weighed more than 5 tons and was VERY powerful with 50 cm claws).


It is called the king of land mammals, but lion is called the king of animals too, although brown bear kicks his ass effortlessly, I don't think it was that much "king", just HUGE horse, only a bit more massive.

there were even estimations that largest could weigh 50 tons, but then they realized there were 7 skeleton, they lowered estimation to 20 tons (largest mammoth weighed 18 tons or more).

It is impressive, but not that impressive.

I want one. I'd name it Stampy!

guys, search out the thread "warm blooded dinosaurs" or something like this, everything is explained there, but most convincing evidence is the following:

Argentinosaurus and other big dinos, to keep themselves warm should have been eating 50% of their body mass DAILY!!!, which is 50 tons!!!! of vegetation, which is ridiculous and NOT possible physically, so, if you want more proof, go to this thread, it's name involves cold-blooded or warm-blooded, you will easily find it.
Dinosaurs, at least those big ones were COLD-BLOODED undoubtly.

But small ones could be warm-blooded, though it is not prooved and only speculation.

And once again, Talon, DINOSAURS WERE COLD-BLOODED.

Hmm....Have there been any remains dug up of that thing? This is the first time I've ever heard of it.

Yep, although I'm not sure if they've ever found a complete skeleton. It's a gigantic prehistoric rhino.

And, on another note, Paulwhale, it's a generally accepted among paleontologists nowadays that dinosaurs were most likely warm-blooded. They use elephants as a probable model for the behavior of the larger ones.

An almost complete skeleton

"Many of us may not be aware of the fact that Pakistan was recently the region for the discovery of one of the most exciting fossil finds of recent times. A team of French paleontologists, led by Professor Jean-Loup Welcomme of the Natural History Museum in Paris discovered the most complete skeleton of the largest land mammal that ever lived - the Baluchitherium. The fossil was discovered in the remote region of the Dera Bugti Hills in Balochistan and is the fruit of 5 years of hard graft on the part of Professor Jean-Loup and his team. "


link- http://www.thehotspotonline.com/blahblah/a...es/fossilpk.htm

I did a post on giant critters. They were on there, I think.

i saw a show about those on discovery one day, those things were massive, and ya thier the ancester of rhinos

Holy heck, thats huge!

Edit: Did a Google search of this creature, I guess its now called Indricotherium.

My uncle was like that.

In this book I got It says it's actually related to rhinos! crazy eh!

wow you learn about something new each day it is very interesting to think about what it would be like to see such an animal alive today
crickee wud ya have a go at that........im gonna sneek up and stick my finger up its bumhole.that should reallllllllllly piss it off.

ANd, snuffypuffer, it is NOT most widely accepted that dinos were warm-blooded, it is widely accepted among DINO FANS that they were warm-blooded, but there is NO evidence on that, plus, let's talk about biggest, argentinosaurus, scientists calculated that it would have to eat 50% of his bodyweight DAILY to sustain his body warm, to sustain endothermic process, AND, he would not be able to supply his body with enouh oxygen, AND there are more and more ands here, man, so, trust me, look up this site about this subject, we have KILLED this discussion pretty much here, argentinosaurus and other big dinos were COLD-BLOODED, LIGHTS OUT, HANDS DOWN.

sauropod dinosaurs actually got this big because they were cold-blooded.

though it is possible that smallest dinosaurus have been warm-bloode, and that they found heart that supports this theory, I can pretty much agree that those smallest were warm-blooded, but not largest ones, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to have been warm-blooded, go here, we KILLED discussion:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...m-blooded&st=15


there is NO evidence on warm-blooded sauropods WHATSOEVER, no matter what dino fans say about this, you can't argue with that, you have no proof on anything, you have no evidence, only speculations that are beegging question, no deductive arguments (philosophy stuff).

Contrary to a previous post, dinosaurs are definately NOT mammals, and this has nothing to do with with a warm or cold-blooded physiology. One could also make the argument that dinosaurs are not actually "reptiles" either. They fall into a seperate class known as the Archosauria which includes both warm blooded animals (birds) and cold blooded animals (crocodilians). Yes, a crocodile is more closely related to a parakeet than a komodo dragon, but even "science" has succumbed to human emotion, and does not classify birds, crocs and dinos together. They have given birds their own class, and put their closer relatives the crocs, in with the more primitive "reptiles". There are even top paleontologist who can make a good argument that birds may have evolved from a triassic aboreal crocodile. There were no bird-like "raptors" during that period, but by the time the "raptors" came into existence, there were already plenty of very modern birds in the world.

The whole "dinosaurs must be warm blooded" myth is based far more on human emotion than scientific evidence, and the paleontologists that are pushing these theories to sell books to the "popular" market seem to be borderline charlatans and hustlers. It is extremely stupid to believe that if an animal is "cold blooded" is must be extremely slow moving and dull witted, which seems to be the rather infantile logic that the whole warm blood theory is based. Jaques Cousteau proved that Sharks were at least as intelligent as rats in controlled tests, and even though only a primitive mollusc, the octopus is remarkably bright. As for speed, for their size, many lizards are among the fastest creatures in the animal kingdom, as probably some dinosaurs wer as well, irregardless of their physiology. And with the exceptions of onl the smallest species of insectivores, many predatory reptiles of today prey almost exclusively on supposedly "more advanced and intelligent" mammals and birds.

I never said dinosaurs were mammals. I just stated the elephants were used as a model since they're the only animals we know of now that have the same size and structure of the large sauropod guys. Nobody really knows, since we don't exactly have any live ones kicking around. Just about everything we know about dinosaurs is speculation and educated guesses.

And since dinos are more closely related to birds than anything else, and birds are warm blooded, well, you just assume things. Doesn't mean I'm totally right, but I like to hear myself talk.

Snuffy, I wasn't referring to your post, but an earlier what that actually said "dinosaurs were Mammals.

As for dinosaurs being most closely related to birds, what you should say is "other archosaurs". Because some dinosaurs are birdlike, this is called connvergent evolution, just like the similarities between an icthyosaurus and a dolphin. Raptors seem birdlike, but they didn't even exist when the first birds appeared. There is no doubt however that crocs, dinos, and birds all shared a common ancestor, and are not closely related to the more primitive reptiles (snakdes, lizards turtles).

In fact, because birds have evolved so differently than the more reptile like dinos, paleotologists usually study crocs, and have learned to determine dinosaur sexes by the structures of croc bones.