This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Just throwing it out there that Amaura

#31Tatakai-No-KamiPosted 9/17/2013 12:34:33 AM
omega bahumat posted...
Gimpi13 posted...
I thought it was a brachy?

Brachiosaurus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiosaurus

no? I don't think it looks like an amargasaurus, but it's a total possibility.


The wing things look like the neck components (beginning of) for an Amargasaurus.

It's definitely not a diplodicus or a apata/bronto or Brachi.

Brachi's have a more pronounced head.


serebii is the dino noob he called it a diplodocus
---
the official BAT DRAGON of the pokemon X/Y boards
#32anapple77Posted 9/17/2013 12:35:57 AM
It's a temnodontosaurus
#33Twilight_SonataPosted 9/17/2013 1:02:58 AM(edited)
omega bahumat posted...
So you said precisely what I just said only were way more detailed and pretentious about it, thus proving my point.
Gotcha.
Why didn't you just agree with me from the start instead of being an ass about it?

I wasn't being an ass about it. I disagreed with your uninformed and/or misleading generalization and then you decided to be an ass about it by calling people pretentious.

omega bahumat posted...
It is an acceptable synonym.

No, it's an "acceptable" synonym. It's like trying to use "he" as gender-neutral, saying "ATM machine", or dropping the serial comma. It's common enough that most people pretty much just roll with it, but that's about it.

sabeta_sama posted...
Brontosaurus is a real dino, it's the equivalent of saying PIN Number.

Which is wrong.
#34MegaZangoosePosted 9/17/2013 1:00:16 AM
Hmmm, doesn't look like an Amargasaurus to me... The wing-looking things above its eyes don't really look spikey enough to be that, and the fact that the "wings" don't go down the back of its neck like the spikes on an Amargasaurus.

It also isn't similar enough to a Diplodocus, Brontosaurus, or Brachiosaurus, because none of those really have protusions on their heads either.

That being said, out of the 4 long-neck dinosaurs it COULD be, Amaura DOES look most similar to the Amargasaurus, and only because of the "wings" could potentially become a line of neck spikes when it evolves.
#35Tatakai-No-KamiPosted 9/17/2013 3:21:04 AM
its a pokemon guys, its not supposed to look like any animal 100%

pikachu is a mouse. does pikachu even look anything like a mouse?
---
the official BAT DRAGON of the pokemon X/Y boards
#36VaironGodPosted 9/17/2013 3:28:02 AM
Tatakai-No-Kami posted...
its a pokemon guys, its not supposed to look like any animal 100%

pikachu is a mouse. does pikachu even look anything like a mouse?


This, god people are annoying.

Amaura was probably based on many types of Sauropods.

Why are you guys trying to put one species of animal into a Pokemon?
---
FC: 2552-0423-5883
#37Tatakai-No-KamiPosted 9/17/2013 3:29:25 AM
VaironGod posted...
Tatakai-No-Kami posted...
its a pokemon guys, its not supposed to look like any animal 100%

pikachu is a mouse. does pikachu even look anything like a mouse?


This, god people are annoying.

Amaura was probably based on many types of Sauropods.

Why are you guys trying to put one species of animal into a Pokemon?


cause the TC is pretentious
---
the official BAT DRAGON of the pokemon X/Y boards
#38Twilight_SonataPosted 9/17/2013 3:32:11 AM
VaironGod posted...
Why are you guys trying to put one species of animal into a Pokemon?

Actually, a lot of these classifications aren't species but rather genus.

Amaura was probably based on many types of Sauropods.

Agreed. I don't see any reason to get any more specific than Sauropod.
#39Grammar_manPosted 9/17/2013 4:20:46 AM
Twilight_Sonata posted...
omega bahumat posted...
So you said precisely what I just said only were way more detailed and pretentious about it, thus proving my point.
Gotcha.
Why didn't you just agree with me from the start instead of being an ass about it?

I wasn't being an ass about it. I disagreed with your uninformed and/or misleading generalization and then you decided to be an ass about it by calling people pretentious.

omega bahumat posted...
It is an acceptable synonym.

No, it's an "acceptable" synonym. It's like trying to use "he" as gender-neutral, saying "ATM machine", or dropping the serial comma. It's common enough that most people pretty much just roll with it, but that's about it.

sabeta_sama posted...
Brontosaurus is a real dino, it's the equivalent of saying PIN Number.

Which is wrong.


Junior Synonyms are a thing, you know.

It's alright to call an apatosaurus a brontosaurus as long as you are not trying to do so in an actual science paper.


You know, like a ton of other synonyms(that aren't really "juniors"). Gråben(Grey-leg) is a synonym for varg(wolf) in Sweden. Is the term gråben actually incorrect? No. Would you use it in a science paper? No.

Ulv is actually the original, and still very valid name for the wolf in Sweden, because Varg was originally itself a "gråben" term that replaced the original as the main term.


Brontosaurus is one name for the Apatosaurus, but not it's scientifically accepted one, but a synonym.
#40radred2004Posted 9/17/2013 4:25:37 AM
Essentially, "Brontosaurus" is like the slang way of saying "Apatosaurus."
---
White: Daisy 1550 0892 3564 Gold: Gold 3268 1023 8138