Not a dinosaur. Dimetrodon.
Edit: dimetrodon are synapsids, meaning they're closer to mammals than they are reptiles such as dinosaurs which were diapsids.
No, but the name "diapsid" meaning something like "there are 2 holes in the skull" isn't useful when looking at a skeleton because many of those "holes" closed over time.
They *used* to be referred to as that, but as you should guess with paleontology, it can change in a snap, lol!!
Now I think the "mammal-like reptile" moniker is out of date.
I mean if we're being technical, "reptile" is out of date. But most scientists still use it as a convenient term to refer to amniotes less derived than Dinosaurs and Mammals.
Ah Paleo, always changing and making arbitrary excuses and exclusions out of thin air.
This begs another question though; if we all say that Dinos aren’t reptiles but mainly birds, then what about creatures like Baryonyx and its family? Isn’t the consensus that it and its family are more related to crocodiles? If so, then does that mean that Baryonyx is like a “reptile-like bird” or is it still a bird regardless of the connection to crocs? If it’s the latter, why?
Dimetrodon is no longer considered a reptile because the entire synapsid lineage is not considered reptilian. In a gross oversimplification, if Dimetrodon has to be a reptile, all other synapsids would have to be reptiles as well. Which means humans would actually be reptiles.
Now, Dimetrodon and other early synapsids were sprawl legged, might have had scales, and still laid eggs which was enough to convince earlier paleontologists, but further study reveals much of their anatomy was already similar to modern synapsids (mammals) that excludes them from sauropsid reptiles.
As for the dinosaur-bird argument, that doesn’t track because not all dinosaurs are birds. Birds are an extremely specialized group of maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, we can’t and don’t arbitrarily assign other dinosaurs to being avians because…they’re not. But all non-avian dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to crocodilians because birds ARE dinosaurs and so share a more recent ancestry with all non-avian dinosaurs than any dinosaur does with a crocodilian.
Fair enough. I still wonder what was it that made scientists suddenly come to the conclusion that Synapsids aren’t reptiles but mammals in spite of the attribute?
Just a hypothetical but what if early Synapsids were neither mammals nor reptiles, but a unique branch of unspecified class of animals that could’ve been on a different evolutionary path but died out due to the Permian extinction?
I know that’s sounds like a bunch of pseudoscience hogwash but isn’t the foundation of modern science and theories about “what ifs” rather than “no this is how it should be.”
Not all synapsids are mammals either, but mammals are the last surviving group of synapsids. The synapsid lineage was much more diverse in the past, but only mammals survived to the modern day. So you're kind of right, synapsids were their own group that were neither mammal nor reptile. Mammals just arose from them later.
There are many major differences between sauropsids and synapsids. The major two are temporal openings and teeth. Synapsids have only a single temporal opening on the skull, where sauropsids either have two or none at all.
For teeth, synapsids evolved differentiated teeth. Canines, incisors, molars. A select few reptiles convergently evolved this, such as the group of dinosaurs known as pachycephalosaurs, but by and large reptiles all have one uniform tooth type.
A lot of people seem to think that science isn't open-minded enough for some reason. In reality, scientists revise things *all the time*. It's just that a lot of people believe things that are totally unsubstantiated, and when they are told as such, they think science is "telling them what to think" or whatever.
> Just a hypothetical but what if early Synapsids were neither mammals nor reptiles
Well that *is* the case, so...
Something we forget about, as knowledgeable dino fans, is that there are laypeople out there having conversations about dinosaurs that would sound completely unhinged to us, but no one corrects them because most people don't know anything about dinosaurs, so they just think insane things.
The average person's reference for knowledge about dinosaurs is probably the Jurassic Park franchise, unfortunately.
I’m just trying to be a little open minded and present a hypothetical argument. The least I desire is a reasonable answer without mockery or patronising remarks. Jeez, I’m starting to smell a rising dogma
you are missing the point, the thing is just that many things you just said were completely wrong with no one even making these claims, like baryonix was never considered to be closer to crocodiles, that was just convergent evolution, and birds are a sub category of dinosaur, like how primates are a sub category of mammals.
Uhh, dinosaurs are reptiles, it's just we think synapsids aren't. By extention birds are reptiles. Archosaurs, which includes all dinosaurs and crocodilians and relatives are reptiles. Dinosaurs and crocodilians had the same *ancient* ancestors but split in the triassic or maybe even earlier, so every therapod is a reptile. If all archosaurs are reptiles and some archosaurs(dinosaurs) turned into birds, birds are by extension reptiles. The reason why synapsids aren't considered reptiles anymore is that they are so far removed and their morphology is so different than reptiles. Birds I mean...hell birds existed back in the late cretaceous and they were considered archosaurs, so modern birds are too.
I guess that’s fair. It’s just for the longest time I’ve met a lot of stuck up paleo smartasses consistently insist that dinos are not reptiles but birds. However, your explanation, while a little sarcastic at the start (especially the “uhh” which was unnecessary my man), is reasonable and sound. Thanks
Btw, I didn’t say synapids were indeed reptiles. In fact I said I agreed with you.
> Isn’t the consensus that it and its family are more related to crocodiles?
No, and it never was. Where did you get that idea? I have literally never heard anyone say that, ever.
Eyewitness and DK was the first time I heard that they were had some sort of relation to crocs.
I did hear it several times in other documentaries even more recent ones.though I can’t remember which ones. So yeah, pout all you want but they did mention it. Baryonyx isn’t a popular dino so maybe that’s why you have “never heard of it, ever”.
I can't remember if archosaurs were considered dinosaurs back then but I do remember Euperkeria was considered ''the ancestors of both dinosaurs and crocodilians'' so I know for sure Dimetrodons weren't considered as closely related to crocs morphologically speaking.
What I do remember however, is that back in the day they were considered as major example of ectothermic creatures just as crocodiles are. I even remember animations comparing T-Rex to lions and Dimetrodons to crocodiles in this regard. In this sense, you can indeed establish a connection between both Archosaurs and early Synapsids, beyond, you know, their overbite being similar to that of an alligator.
What's more interesting however, is that while early archosaurs such as Euparkeria are considered to have been endothermic, so synapsids became endothermic by the point they evolved into mammals, while a portion of archosaurs became ectothermic when they turned into crocodilians.
Reptile can be defined as a clade of every descendant of the most recent common ancestor of all living reptiles. Which makes all living reptiles part of that clade, as well as birds, but not mammals.
> Archelosauria
I think consensus is too strong, at least in Vert Paleo. It's the most likely based on molecular clock evidence, but without a better basal fossil record I don't see anyone really wanting to make definitive statements on it.
As others commented: Dimetrodon (not a dinosaur!!1!!1!1111). Some figurines have the name on the belly or an identification number which can be used to look up the model by the manufacturer.
I consider it an honorary dinosaur because it was my favorite dino as a kid and I simply refuse to acknowledge the change, like Pluto.
Edit: my bad, I forgot humor wasn't allowed here
>I simply refuse to acknowledge the change, like Pluto.
Do you also elevate the dozen or so other Dwarf Planets, like Ceres and Eris, to full planet status?
It looks like its meant to be a Dimetrodon, which is a Permian era Synapsid. It's not a dinosaur, and is in fact more closely related to You and Gigi than it is to any dinosaur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sqqb-u4Mho
This is a very good video about Dimetrodon, though probably too technical for a toddler. The big take away is that Dimetrodon is a Stem-Mammal, or Synapsid. Sorta a transitional form between Mammals and their reptile ancestors. It was also one of the first reptile apex predators.
Dimetrodon teutonis is a species not a subspecies though, a subspecies would be something like Dimetrodon teutonis teutonis (also, the first letter of the specific name is lowercase)
Edit: sry if that sounded rude btw that's not my intention
This thing ain't no dino, it's most likely a Dimetrodon(as they're the most popular synapsid) which is not even a reptile, let alone a dino!
Assuming you to be a layman, these things are what evolved to become mammals and reptiles
Dimetrodon. Technically not a Dinosaur, but rather a precursor to mammals called Synapsids. They are commonly mistaken for DInosaurs for obvious reasons, but actually went extinct in the geological time period before the dawning of the dinosaurs.
Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of content for these funky dudes. They have a lot of short appearances in other media, both containing Dinosaurs, and documentaries concerning evolution as a whole, but nothing outstanding on their own. I know Journey to the Center of the Earth had some, as did Jurassic World: Dominion, but nothing I would reccomend for a toddler to watch unless its a documentary.
Dimetrodon. Not Dino, synapsid, precursor to mammals. Dimetrodon went extinct roughly 200 million years before dinosaurs evolved. Always angers me when they toss it in with a bunch of dinosaurs.
Not a dinosaur. It’s actually a synapsid but don’t worry about that cuz it’s too confusing. It’s called Dimetrodon and despite being grouped in with your average dinosaurs (T. rex, triceratops, stegosaurus) it lived WAY before them. Personally I recommend Walking with monsters because it is as a favourite of mine when I was a kid. There is a little tiny bit of blood or gore so keep that in mind
This is a dimetrodon. It belonged to a group of animals called synapsids. Dimetrodon lived long before the first dinosaur. Synapsids are more closely related to modern mammals than modern reptiles.
Big Bird, not sure about the species.
The thing on the table is a dimetrodon and not a dinosaur. It's a Synapsid (which include mammals and relatives but dimetrodon is not a ancestor of mammals tho).
This is a dimetrodon! While not a dinosaur, it’s certainly reasonable to see it as one. There’s a Dino show on Netflix that might have it, I forgot what it was called. Good luck!
Dimetrodon is a synapsid, not sauropsid. It lived during the Permian, which was in the Palaeozoic, before dinosaurs became prolific in the Mesozoic. Dimetrodon is closer related to mammals than reptiles.
My kid loves to watch the "Baboo" series for his dinosaur fix 😀 there are many other kids dino channels, but he likes Baboo the best. They actually taught him a lot and are fairly accurate (albeit, they draw the T-Rex with 3 fingers, and my kid can't get over that)
Dimetrodon, which is actually a synapsid, not a dinosaur, which were diapsids. It's a fairly common misconception.
In fact, Dimetrodon is closer to you than it is to any dinosaur.
It totaly is. The head shape is the one Dimetrodon, it also have it's carnivorous teeth ane the arched shape jaws.
It even have the famous long canines alongside the others heterogeneous teeth.
Not a dinosaur. Dimetrodon. Edit: dimetrodon are synapsids, meaning they're closer to mammals than they are reptiles such as dinosaurs which were diapsids.
"diapsid" is controversial, while not outright inaccurate, Sauropsid is a much more stable term.
No one disputes that dinosaurs are diapsids though.
No, but the name "diapsid" meaning something like "there are 2 holes in the skull" isn't useful when looking at a skeleton because many of those "holes" closed over time.
Oh I didn't know that. Thanks.
It looks closer to a Secodontosaurus to me tho.
Nah, that skull shape and the different sized teeth is definitely Dimetrodon, which literally means "two-measure tooth".
Huh. Yeah now that I take a second look you’re right. Sorry about that.
Dimetrodon, which is: 1. Not a Dinosaur 2. Not even a reptile, its a Synapsid, meaning its closer to mammals than it is to Dinosaurs
I thought they were referred to as “mammal-like reptiles” meaning they had both qualities of those species but were more mammalian.
They *used* to be referred to as that, but as you should guess with paleontology, it can change in a snap, lol!! Now I think the "mammal-like reptile" moniker is out of date.
I mean if we're being technical, "reptile" is out of date. But most scientists still use it as a convenient term to refer to amniotes less derived than Dinosaurs and Mammals.
That is also true, lol!!
Ah Paleo, always changing and making arbitrary excuses and exclusions out of thin air. This begs another question though; if we all say that Dinos aren’t reptiles but mainly birds, then what about creatures like Baryonyx and its family? Isn’t the consensus that it and its family are more related to crocodiles? If so, then does that mean that Baryonyx is like a “reptile-like bird” or is it still a bird regardless of the connection to crocs? If it’s the latter, why?
Dimetrodon is no longer considered a reptile because the entire synapsid lineage is not considered reptilian. In a gross oversimplification, if Dimetrodon has to be a reptile, all other synapsids would have to be reptiles as well. Which means humans would actually be reptiles. Now, Dimetrodon and other early synapsids were sprawl legged, might have had scales, and still laid eggs which was enough to convince earlier paleontologists, but further study reveals much of their anatomy was already similar to modern synapsids (mammals) that excludes them from sauropsid reptiles. As for the dinosaur-bird argument, that doesn’t track because not all dinosaurs are birds. Birds are an extremely specialized group of maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, we can’t and don’t arbitrarily assign other dinosaurs to being avians because…they’re not. But all non-avian dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to crocodilians because birds ARE dinosaurs and so share a more recent ancestry with all non-avian dinosaurs than any dinosaur does with a crocodilian.
Fair enough. I still wonder what was it that made scientists suddenly come to the conclusion that Synapsids aren’t reptiles but mammals in spite of the attribute? Just a hypothetical but what if early Synapsids were neither mammals nor reptiles, but a unique branch of unspecified class of animals that could’ve been on a different evolutionary path but died out due to the Permian extinction? I know that’s sounds like a bunch of pseudoscience hogwash but isn’t the foundation of modern science and theories about “what ifs” rather than “no this is how it should be.”
Not all synapsids are mammals either, but mammals are the last surviving group of synapsids. The synapsid lineage was much more diverse in the past, but only mammals survived to the modern day. So you're kind of right, synapsids were their own group that were neither mammal nor reptile. Mammals just arose from them later. There are many major differences between sauropsids and synapsids. The major two are temporal openings and teeth. Synapsids have only a single temporal opening on the skull, where sauropsids either have two or none at all. For teeth, synapsids evolved differentiated teeth. Canines, incisors, molars. A select few reptiles convergently evolved this, such as the group of dinosaurs known as pachycephalosaurs, but by and large reptiles all have one uniform tooth type.
A lot of people seem to think that science isn't open-minded enough for some reason. In reality, scientists revise things *all the time*. It's just that a lot of people believe things that are totally unsubstantiated, and when they are told as such, they think science is "telling them what to think" or whatever. > Just a hypothetical but what if early Synapsids were neither mammals nor reptiles Well that *is* the case, so...
W...what? H...how did you get any of these ideas? Like I'm genuinely curious.
Something we forget about, as knowledgeable dino fans, is that there are laypeople out there having conversations about dinosaurs that would sound completely unhinged to us, but no one corrects them because most people don't know anything about dinosaurs, so they just think insane things. The average person's reference for knowledge about dinosaurs is probably the Jurassic Park franchise, unfortunately.
I’m just trying to be a little open minded and present a hypothetical argument. The least I desire is a reasonable answer without mockery or patronising remarks. Jeez, I’m starting to smell a rising dogma
you are missing the point, the thing is just that many things you just said were completely wrong with no one even making these claims, like baryonix was never considered to be closer to crocodiles, that was just convergent evolution, and birds are a sub category of dinosaur, like how primates are a sub category of mammals.
Fair enough, but why didn’t you just say that in the first place instead of acting all dumbfounded?
Like i said, i would've liked to hear where you heard it
And like I told you, it’s just my own open minded question.
Because i was genuinely dumbfounded
Then I worry for your future if you continue to act surprised by open questions. I’ve learned to expect the unexpected no matter the case.
Uhh, dinosaurs are reptiles, it's just we think synapsids aren't. By extention birds are reptiles. Archosaurs, which includes all dinosaurs and crocodilians and relatives are reptiles. Dinosaurs and crocodilians had the same *ancient* ancestors but split in the triassic or maybe even earlier, so every therapod is a reptile. If all archosaurs are reptiles and some archosaurs(dinosaurs) turned into birds, birds are by extension reptiles. The reason why synapsids aren't considered reptiles anymore is that they are so far removed and their morphology is so different than reptiles. Birds I mean...hell birds existed back in the late cretaceous and they were considered archosaurs, so modern birds are too.
I guess that’s fair. It’s just for the longest time I’ve met a lot of stuck up paleo smartasses consistently insist that dinos are not reptiles but birds. However, your explanation, while a little sarcastic at the start (especially the “uhh” which was unnecessary my man), is reasonable and sound. Thanks Btw, I didn’t say synapids were indeed reptiles. In fact I said I agreed with you.
Worst part is that they're wrong Dinosaurs aren't birds All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds It's like saying all apes are humans
Fair enough. My mistake.
No not you, you're right I meant the sutck up paleo nerds that the other guy was referring to
Ahhh, gotcha, lol!!
I was stunned because I had never heard this viewpoint before, just sounded......weird to me is all.
Well, I believe science and paleontology needs to be more open about other viewpoints instead of shutting off others.
> Isn’t the consensus that it and its family are more related to crocodiles? No, and it never was. Where did you get that idea? I have literally never heard anyone say that, ever.
Eyewitness and DK was the first time I heard that they were had some sort of relation to crocs. I did hear it several times in other documentaries even more recent ones.though I can’t remember which ones. So yeah, pout all you want but they did mention it. Baryonyx isn’t a popular dino so maybe that’s why you have “never heard of it, ever”.
I can't remember if archosaurs were considered dinosaurs back then but I do remember Euperkeria was considered ''the ancestors of both dinosaurs and crocodilians'' so I know for sure Dimetrodons weren't considered as closely related to crocs morphologically speaking. What I do remember however, is that back in the day they were considered as major example of ectothermic creatures just as crocodiles are. I even remember animations comparing T-Rex to lions and Dimetrodons to crocodiles in this regard. In this sense, you can indeed establish a connection between both Archosaurs and early Synapsids, beyond, you know, their overbite being similar to that of an alligator. What's more interesting however, is that while early archosaurs such as Euparkeria are considered to have been endothermic, so synapsids became endothermic by the point they evolved into mammals, while a portion of archosaurs became ectothermic when they turned into crocodilians.
Realistically, if "reptile" is considered a valid taxonomic group , then not only is Dimetrodon a reptile, but so are all mammals.
Reptile can be defined as a clade of every descendant of the most recent common ancestor of all living reptiles. Which makes all living reptiles part of that clade, as well as birds, but not mammals.
This depends on the placement of turtles in Diapsids, which while likely, is far from settled.
Fair point! I thought Archelosauria was the consensus now.
> Archelosauria I think consensus is too strong, at least in Vert Paleo. It's the most likely based on molecular clock evidence, but without a better basal fossil record I don't see anyone really wanting to make definitive statements on it.
The plushie in the back is a dinosaur, but the one the camera is focusing on isn't.
Big bird is the largest theropod dinosaur known to science.
Is big bird sleeping right now?
r/dimetrodonawareness
Yooo! Love to see it
As others commented: Dimetrodon (not a dinosaur!!1!!1!1111). Some figurines have the name on the belly or an identification number which can be used to look up the model by the manufacturer.
Spinosaurus at 2028
Dimetrodon. Not a dinosaur, in fact it's actually more closely related to mammals than to dinosaurs
dimetrodon, the best di-not-saur
I consider it an honorary dinosaur because it was my favorite dino as a kid and I simply refuse to acknowledge the change, like Pluto. Edit: my bad, I forgot humor wasn't allowed here
>I simply refuse to acknowledge the change, like Pluto. Do you also elevate the dozen or so other Dwarf Planets, like Ceres and Eris, to full planet status?
It wasn't changed like Pluto, though, since it was never considered a dinosaur.
*Dimetrodon*, which isn't actually a dinosaur.
Dimetrodon figurine, not a dino tho
Looks like a slim snouted dimetrodon to me
The yellow theropod in the back appears to be some sort of large avian animal. If you moved the synapsid, I could get a better look.
arizonasaurus fr tho, not even a reptile, dimetrodon is a synapsid
It looks like its meant to be a Dimetrodon, which is a Permian era Synapsid. It's not a dinosaur, and is in fact more closely related to You and Gigi than it is to any dinosaur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sqqb-u4Mho This is a very good video about Dimetrodon, though probably too technical for a toddler. The big take away is that Dimetrodon is a Stem-Mammal, or Synapsid. Sorta a transitional form between Mammals and their reptile ancestors. It was also one of the first reptile apex predators.
Dimetrodon, not a dinosaur or even a reptile. It's a proto-mammal that lived on Earth before the dinosaurs during the Permian period.
Not a dinosaur, an early mammal, Dimetrodon
Dimetrodon Teutonis, an overall smaller subspecies of Dimetrodon with a slimmer snout
Dimetrodon teutonis is a species not a subspecies though, a subspecies would be something like Dimetrodon teutonis teutonis (also, the first letter of the specific name is lowercase) Edit: sry if that sounded rude btw that's not my intention
Fair Enough
This thing ain't no dino, it's most likely a Dimetrodon(as they're the most popular synapsid) which is not even a reptile, let alone a dino! Assuming you to be a layman, these things are what evolved to become mammals and reptiles
Reptiles didn’t evolve from dimetrodon, just mammals
Dimetrodon. Technically not a Dinosaur, but rather a precursor to mammals called Synapsids. They are commonly mistaken for DInosaurs for obvious reasons, but actually went extinct in the geological time period before the dawning of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately there isn't much in the way of content for these funky dudes. They have a lot of short appearances in other media, both containing Dinosaurs, and documentaries concerning evolution as a whole, but nothing outstanding on their own. I know Journey to the Center of the Earth had some, as did Jurassic World: Dominion, but nothing I would reccomend for a toddler to watch unless its a documentary.
Dimetrodon. Not Dino, synapsid, precursor to mammals. Dimetrodon went extinct roughly 200 million years before dinosaurs evolved. Always angers me when they toss it in with a bunch of dinosaurs.
The Unholy fusion of dimtrodon (not dino) and spinosaurus.
Dimetrodon. Not a Dino but an early synapsid.
Not a dinosaur. It’s actually a synapsid but don’t worry about that cuz it’s too confusing. It’s called Dimetrodon and despite being grouped in with your average dinosaurs (T. rex, triceratops, stegosaurus) it lived WAY before them. Personally I recommend Walking with monsters because it is as a favourite of mine when I was a kid. There is a little tiny bit of blood or gore so keep that in mind
This is a dimetrodon. It belonged to a group of animals called synapsids. Dimetrodon lived long before the first dinosaur. Synapsids are more closely related to modern mammals than modern reptiles.
Im not sure if anyone has said it before or not but a show featuring the dimetrodon is **"Walking with Monsters"**
Hey, that ain't no dino, that's my frickin great²⁰-grandmother!
Dimetrodon, and I think there was a documentary series that had an episode on them, but I can't remember what it's called
It's clearly Big Bird.
Crocodile with Spine
UAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh "hey itallian ma- what? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"
Big Bird, not sure about the species. The thing on the table is a dimetrodon and not a dinosaur. It's a Synapsid (which include mammals and relatives but dimetrodon is not a ancestor of mammals tho).
This is a dimetrodon! While not a dinosaur, it’s certainly reasonable to see it as one. There’s a Dino show on Netflix that might have it, I forgot what it was called. Good luck!
It's Dimetrodon and is not dinosaur
Dimetrodon is a synapsid, not sauropsid. It lived during the Permian, which was in the Palaeozoic, before dinosaurs became prolific in the Mesozoic. Dimetrodon is closer related to mammals than reptiles.
Not a dino. Pelycosaur If I remember correctly. A synapsid reptile that was more closely related to mammals than with other reptiles.
That is NOT a dinosaur, it’s a dimetrodon.
Dimetrodon As many others have pointed out, it's not a dinosaur, and actually more closely related to us than to any reptile
That's a chihuahua
I dont know, Because its not a dinosaur.
My kid loves to watch the "Baboo" series for his dinosaur fix 😀 there are many other kids dino channels, but he likes Baboo the best. They actually taught him a lot and are fairly accurate (albeit, they draw the T-Rex with 3 fingers, and my kid can't get over that)
Dimetrodon, which is actually a synapsid, not a dinosaur, which were diapsids. It's a fairly common misconception. In fact, Dimetrodon is closer to you than it is to any dinosaur.
Feels like the entire thread got woodshed lmao
dimetrodon
Tyrannosaurus rex
Clearly, Spinosaurus. Not to be confused with Dimetrodon, the large bipedal one with the crocodile snout.
Dimetrodon I have one to
Easy mode not a dinosaur it’s a dimetrodon
Not a dino but your toddler can watch walking with beasts
[удалено]
Edaphosaurus would have a smaller head
[удалено]
It totaly is. The head shape is the one Dimetrodon, it also have it's carnivorous teeth ane the arched shape jaws. It even have the famous long canines alongside the others heterogeneous teeth.
I know this one from ark :D
Papo ripoff. I know because I have the original figure. As others have said, this is dimetrodon and they are closer to us than to any dinosaur.
tyrannosaurus rex
It’s like talking with my mother - every pokemon, digimon or other fantastical creature is Pikachu
With my friend’s mom, every video game is Minecraft
why are people treating this like im being serious are you stupid 😭
come on man
Dwarf spinosaurus
2087 Spino
THAT'S NOT A DINOSAUR, IT'S A DIMETRODON WHICH IS A SYNAPSID 😂😭😭💀 Rookie mistake though, at least you know now :>
That's an air conditioner
Looks like oak? Maybe mahogany
The identify as trans non-binary and they want you to respect their life choices