WI: No K-T extinction

I think that mammals and birds (or bird-formed dinosaurs, if you will) will edge out dinosaurs eventually, but this will be over a period of many millions of years (and possibly would not be complete by our time). However, every major catastrophe and extinction that destroyed dominant mammal species in OTL will instead destroy major dinosaur and reptilian species, opening up their niches for exploitation by lesser dinosaur, avian, and mammal species. Pterosaurs will be edged out by birds, while Mosasaurs and other marine reptiles will be edged out by mammals, birds, and/or dinosaurs as the oceans cool. Even if Mosasaurs survive in warm areas, marine mammals and birds will be able to survive and even thrive in both cold and warm areas, a flexibility that guarantees their eventual inheritance of the oceans.

On land, you might get something like the following: Sauropods go extinct, and are replaced by hadrosaurs who develop body shapes very similar to that of the previous sauropods. Eventually, the long-necked hadrosaurs will go extinct in turn, and their position as the dominant herbivores will be usurped by mammals or whatever new groups of herbivorous mammals have evolved.
 
I'm kinda skimming the conversation lately so maybe I'm coming out of left field with a topic, because I'm going to talk about the evolution of a non-human species to a civilized standing.

I think a problem with the idea of Dinosaurs or some other species evolving a human-allegory is the idea of what is necessary for their environment. As some scientist once said, he could play the piano well, and people would say that makes him smart, but what would that matter in the jungle, where animals we would say are not smart like us live, but who can survive and adapt. Mankind evolved tools and all those things that would give us civilization because we needed them to survive. If we wanna see a species attain similar standing of civilization, they would need the initial features for civilization to survive, and then expand on them through development like we did. Otherwise, why does a Raptor need to evolve thumbs and invent fire?

What species would be most likely to evolve to be the civilization building human-stand in, though?
 
Pterosaurs will be edged out by birds, while Mosasaurs and other marine reptiles will be edged out by mammals, birds, and/or dinosaurs as the oceans cool. Even if Mosasaurs survive in warm areas, marine mammals and birds will be able to survive and even thrive in both cold and warm areas, a flexibility that guarantees their eventual inheritance of the oceans.

Mosasaurs and crocodiles will prevent the wide proliferation of marine mammals and birds. Though in (ecologically) weird places like Australia and New Zealand you might have marine mammals.

What species would be most likely to evolve to be the civilization building human-stand in, though?

Cuttlefish-like-cephalopods, probably.
 
(note: this was not actually written by me; a friend of mine on another board wrote the original version of this. it was for the same basic concept, though)

(btw, i AM actually working on this project myself, though very gradually)

Paleocene & Eocene Epochs (61.7 – 33.9 million years ago)

Because there was no asteroid collision with the Earth at in the Maastrichtian stage, the Cretaceous period continued for another 3.8 million years. The Cenozoic Era is instead marked at the beginning of the Selandian stage, and the Paleocene epoch began. Tetrapod fauna remained mostly unchanged during this Paleocene, since there were no major events for another 6 million years or so.

The end of the Paleocene and the first major event of the Cenozoic began approximately 55.8 million years ago, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. During this period of about twenty thousand years, global temperatures rose dramatically, thus producing a tropical climate all over the world. As rainforests expanded, dinosaurs were forced to adapt to the new conditions, couple with the collision of India with Asia, causing a faunal interchange.

Consequently, some clades suffered while others died out. Pachycephalosaurs and stegosaurs are unknown in the fossil record any younger than the Paleocene. Sauropods, despite being browsers, were somehow unable to adapt well to rainforest habitats due to their toeless feet, and as a result were restricted to polar forests in the Eocene. Ceratopsids were thrown into decline and would eventually die out in the Oligocene, though the hornless ceratopsians became more diverse. The only large herbivores to experience total success were the hadrosaurs, which were present on every continent except for Africa. Hypsilophodonts seem to have been more common in the southern continents, while thescelosaurs expanded shortly into Asia. Ankylosaurs were hardly affected by the thermal maximum.

The collision of Europe with Asia allowed the large descendants of Pyroraptor to invade the other northern landmasses. This, coupled with the invasion of abelisaurs from India, cast the dominant tyrannosaurs, which were less adapted to rainforests than their competitors, into decline. Only smaller, Dilong-like tyrannosaurs survived. Africa came to be dominated by noasaurs, while Australia was inhabited by late living allosaurs. Ornithomimids, troodonts, and alvarezsaurs diversified while therizinosaurs came to be restricted to somewhat small tropical forms and huge polar ones. Aside from the larger dromaeosaurs, there were also smaller ones descended from Rahonavis that diversified as tree climbers. Birds initially suffered from the thermal maximum, but recovered in massive amounts of enantiornithes, apsaraviformes, paleognaths, and fowl. Ichthyornithes and pseudodontorns diversified following the extinction of pteranodonts, while hesperornithes were reduced to smaller freshwater forms, with many still capable of flight.

Aside from the aforementioned extinct pteranodonts, the larger azhdarchids were restricted to polar forests and coastal zones as a result of the grasslands they needed to take off being replaced by dense forests. In these regions, they produced a new lineage of pterosaurs, whose ancestor was Eunemicolopterus, a surprisingly small animal. Anurognathids and ctenochasmatoids also reappeared in the fossil record.

Mammals didn’t change much, aside from the appearance of primates, cimolestans, mesonychians, and hyaenodonts. Volaticotheres reappeared in the fossil record as bat-like flying mammals, while the first members of Archaeoceti appeared in Asia. Champsosaurs remained common in America, though they were reduced to small, lizard-like forms in Eurasia. Crocodiles were common all over the world in both salt and freshwater forms. Mosasaurs were common in all oceans while plesiosaurs were restricted to a few marine forms and many freshwater ones.

Oligocene Epoch (33.9 – 23.03 million years ago)

Following the climatic chaos at the end of the Eocene, the global rainforests began to evacuate into the tropics, though the climate was still fairly warmer than it would be in the present day and grasslands had yet to significantly expand. Temperate and mixed forests dominated the landscape in lieu of the rainforests. The climate of the Oligocene most closely resembled that of the Cretaceous.

With the end of the rainforests came the return of sauropods and therizinosaurs to their role as dominant herbivores in the northern continents. Hadrosaurs remained reasonably common, with lambeosaurines dominating in Asia while hadrosaurines ruled in the Americas. Hadrosaurs of uncertain origin appeared in South America and Australia. Protoceratopsids began to produce large forms as the ceratopsids died out completely, though they rarely reached the same scale as their horned cousins. Hypsilophodonts experienced a downfall as competition with ornithomimids, avimimids, protoceratopsids, and even mammals strained their presence in the north and even wiped them out in Laurasia, and only continued their existence in the south of the planet. As during the thermal maximum, ankylosaurs were barely affected. In Africa, a lineage of ornithischians descended from heterodontosaurs and destined for greatness achieved dominance.

The Eurasian abelisaurs began to lose their dominance to dromaeosaurs and tyrannosaurs, with the latter regaining their large sizes as the rainforests that they couldn’t adapt to disappeared. Oviraptorosaurs as a whole remained mostly unchanged since the Cretaceous, though they reached Africa, Australia, and South America by swimming due to semi-aquatic forms that fed on mollusks evolving. Troodontids remained mostly unchanged. In South America, the fauna became fairly strange: because of a brief land bridge in the Cretaceous, troodonts, dromaeosaurs, microraptors, and oviraptorosaurs of North American stock were all present on the island continent, much to the dismay of the native abelisaurs and unenlagiines. Africa had its own native populations of unenlagiines and noasaurs.

The dawn of the Oligocene marked the return of the azhdarchids to success. In Africa, flightless forms evolved and took over niches that were occupied by small theropods elsewhere in the world. Smaller pterosaurs, including the eunemilopterids, continued to rule the skies, doing nothing new.

Afrothere mammals experienced a radiation of new forms, ranging from the small tenrecs to large, capybara-like mammals, and cat-sized hyaenodont predators appeared in Eurasia and Africa. Multituberculates occurred in beaver-like forms, and mesonychians became fox-like opportunists. Metatherians took on mustelid- and opossum-like forms practically everywhere, while cimolestan diversity diminished somewhat. Volaticotheres stayed virtually the same, and aquatic mammals, better known as whales, occurred in marine habitats for the first time.

The plesiosaurs return to prominence while the mosasaurs fall into decline. Hesperornithes experience a magnificent comeback, while auk- and loon-like penguins have the southern hermisphere as their stronghold. Dyrosaurid crocodiles die out, but champsosaurs come to the sea for the first time, and have potential to evolve into filter feeding animals in the future. Sphenodonts are a prominent group of reptiles, present in both Australia and in South America.

Miocene Epoch (23.03 – 5.332 million years ago)

When Africa collided with Eurasia, total chaos ensued. The last of the hadrosaurs and many ceratopsians in Eurasia were replaced by the African heterodontosaurs. Therizinosaurs and sauroods moved into Africa while flightless pterosaurs invaded Eurasia, taking on the niches of ornithomimids and large troodontids, which by now are all but gone from the continent. However, some smaller troodonts remained while others lost their niches to unenlagiines. Abelisaurs came to be represented by one or two gigantic genera, with their smaller niches having gone to dromaeosaurs, noasaurs, and tyrannosaurs. The large protoceratopsids produced a lineage of grazing herbivores, a remarkable development because of their browsing ancestry. Ankylosaurs came to be restricted to a single genus in Eurasia.

However, hadrosaurs still dominated South America and Australia, which by now have become vast grassland. The last abelisaurs died out in South America, allowing unenlagiines, dromaeosaurines, and oviraptorosaurs to become the dominant predators while troodontids diversified over omnivore niches. Microraptorines thrived in North American forests, but succumbed to competition from arboreal mammals elsewhere in the world. Meridiungulates took over the ecological roles of small ornithischians, and sauropods died out in South America. Australia hardly changed during this time period.

Pliocene Epoch (5.332 million years ago to present day)

As the global climate got colder, Antarctica froze over for the first time and tundras appeared in the Arctic, severely affecting the fauna of Eurasia: choristoderes, monitor lizards, several bird clades, small pterosaurs, sauropods, ankylosaurs, and primates vanished from Europe. In contrast, eastern Asia wasn’t as affected, and many of those kinds of animals continued to exist in such regions. Metatherian mammals occurred in shrew- and mustelid-like forms while cimolestans came to be represented by treeshew-like analogues to squirrels. Primates all over the world are lemur-like, except, surprisingly, in Madagascar, which is instead home to diverse plesiadaptiformes. Hyaenodonts and mesonychians became the foxes, cats, and civets of the world.

The last abelisaurs finally died out around this time, unable to adapt to the changing climate, while noasaurs became restricted to the tropics and a few exceptionally large genera in Central Asia. Dromaeosaurs and tyrannosaurs reigned supreme in colder regions, and continue to do so, while some of them ventured into Africa as the equivalents of jackal- or hyena-like generalists and a leopard-like form. Sauropods and ceratopsians exist mostly in Africa and southern Eurasia, though the occasional dryings of the Mediterranean Sea caused some of these animals to become stranded on small islands, thus producing dwarf forms of them. Heterodontosaurs, however, have been able to establish themselves in the colder zones. Avimimids completely took over the omnivorous niches previously occupied by ornithomimids and flightless pterosaurs over the older oviraptorosaurs.

The flying pterosaurs, when not gigantic azhdarchids soaring over all other landmasses, are smaller eunemicolopterids occuring in the world's rainforests as small frugivores/omnivores (perhaps some ground hornbill like form as well?) or even smaller anurognathids flying around at dusk or dawn as our world's nightjars do (should ctenochasmatoids survive the world's cooling or not?).

The seas see the demise of mosasaurs, now restricted to the tropics, gharials and choristoderes (the later two reduced to freshwater forms in Asia and America respectively), while sea birds and polycotylids managed to adapt just fine to colder waters; so did aquatic mammals, now bigger than ever. South America is hitten by an asteroid, as its fauna was still recovering when the Isthmus of Panama was formed. Some clades like troodontids and meridiungulates not only survive but achieve success (partially due to the cold climate, at least the later have less competion on the colder zones of Laurasia), but others decline; native dromeosaurs and hadrosaurs are examples of that, both reduced so smaller species or to large elephantine ones respectively. In Australia fauna hasn't changed as much except for the extinction of its native top predator (some sort of allosaurid theropod), which was replaced by unenlagiines and crocodilians. Hadrosaurs, basal ceratopsians and large mammals (not to mention flightless birds) are among its denizens.
 
I find some of the theories posted here very strange. They seem to be based on some assumption that evolution is somehow obligated to produce an intelligent human-analog in the same time period that it produced us.

It's not! No way!
 
I find some of the theories posted here very strange. They seem to be based on some assumption that evolution is somehow obligated to produce an intelligent human-analog in the same time period that it produced us.

It's not! No way!

The ol' "evolution as progress towards an ideal" myth.
 
it was a friend of mine, actually; i just recorded it and have been working on it piece by piece. mostly trying to figure out what would still be alive when and in what forms

tbph, most dinosaurs would be more or less the same as previous forms. i see no reason whatsoever for tyrannosaurs and other dinosaurs to change their shapes as radically as in, say, Dougal Dixon's The New Dinosaurs, which posited that tyrannosaurs would eventually evolve into something that looks like a literally two-legged crocodile that swallows its prey whole or that flightless pterosaurs would look like giraffes

ill admit, i DO really like the idea of sentient dinosaurs, and my friends and i even came up with some ideas for tribal dinosaurs. the idea is that there would be two separate lineages: a lineage of troodonts originating in north america and then spreading to south america as well, and a lineage of unenlagiines originating in africa and later spreading to eurasia (and possibly australasia depending on if they develop ship-building). during the last pleistocene ice age, the bering land bridge would allow them to mingle, but not interbreed (theyre too far unrelated for such a thing to be possible), but they would be more or less the same, except maybe for their size. they would also have alot of feathers, fundamentally resemble their ancestral forms, and wouldnt have thumbs, instead holding most objects with their mouths

but the ATL itself can go along fine without dinosauroids (that being more or less the official term for sentient dinosaurs). human-like sentient dinosaurs is anthrocentricism and its wrong. theres no reason a sentient animal would NEED to have an upright posture like we do, especially when their forms are already perfect for the environments they live in.

as for language, i would imagine dinosauroids would have mostly body language, classic sounds (perhaps very birdlike), and (possibly) a kind of sign language, assuming they dont evolve a larynx and tongue that allows them to form speech like we humans do (which i find rather unlikely, looking at it realistically)
 
I can't approach the detail of oshron's reference, but I do have some basic thoughts.

Regardless of the K-T Event, Australia and Antarctica will still eventually separate. This will create the Roaring Forties, plunging ocean water temperatures globally and ushering in the era of glacial expansion and retreat.

Many exotherms will disappear from the seas as a result, including giant sharks and probably the entirety of the Cretaceous menagerie. Only smaller and possibly fresh-water species will survive in tropical areas - leaving the "modern" era with a disappointing fare of sea turtles and (what amounts to) alligators with flippers. In their place, mammals and birds will still likely move in, but there's a real chance of dinosaurian colonization of the oceans as well.

On land, most birds will be largely unchanged from OTL. They'll never go through the giant predator phase, and instead will likely colonize the poles where the dinosaurs leave niches.

The latter will do quite well. The ice ages are going to start a general trend where the theropods outcompete all other forms across North America and Eurasia, where their feathered coats will be decisive. In the extreme north, I'd expect similar niches being filled by very different creatures. Mammal, bird, or dinosaur "seals and penguins" and ornithomimosaur "reindeer" will be preyed on by tyrannosaur "bears" and dromaeosaur "wolves."

In general, the ice ages encouraged large body sizes for heat retention, but also entailed massive and regular climate shifts. The latter will act as a counter to the former, meaning anything larger that species larger than an African elephant will be extremely scarce (and not much bigger).
 
it was a friend of mine, actually; i just recorded it and have been working on it piece by piece. mostly trying to figure out what would still be alive when and in what forms

tbph, most dinosaurs would be more or less the same as previous forms. i see no reason whatsoever for tyrannosaurs and other dinosaurs to change their shapes as radically as in, say, Dougal Dixon's The New Dinosaurs, which posited that tyrannosaurs would eventually evolve into something that looks like a literally two-legged crocodile that swallows its prey whole or that flightless pterosaurs would look like giraffes

While I agree when it comes to some suggested extremes, I must disagree with the concept of form stability as a general rule. The species of the Jurassic and Cretaceous, for example, accumulated tremendous differences between them. While the form was broadly similar in some cases - Allosaurs and Tyrannosaurs, for example - in many other innovation was the rule. Stegosaurs, ankylosaurs, sauropods, pachycephalosaurs, ceratopsians, hadrosaurs.... they're all unique occurrences, and not obscure niche ones either. Part of the issue is that the largest species are the most stable, but are also the most vulnerable to extinction events. It's their smaller relatives that will tend to retake niches, and they will tend to do so in different forms.

I'm curious: What was the rationale for the extinction of the pachycephalosaurs and decline of the ceratopsians? I suppose the latter was fallout of the lack of grasslands?

ill admit, i DO really like the idea of sentient dinosaurs, and my friends and i even came up with some ideas for tribal dinosaurs. the idea is that there would be two separate lineages: a lineage of troodonts originating in north america and then spreading to south america as well, and a lineage of unenlagiines originating in africa and later spreading to eurasia (and possibly australasia depending on if they develop ship-building). during the last pleistocene ice age, the bering land bridge would allow them to mingle, but not interbreed (theyre too far unrelated for such a thing to be possible), but they would be more or less the same, except maybe for their size. they would also have alot of feathers, fundamentally resemble their ancestral forms, and wouldnt have thumbs, instead holding most objects with their mouths

but the ATL itself can go along fine without dinosauroids (that being more or less the official term for sentient dinosaurs). human-like sentient dinosaurs is anthrocentricism and its wrong. theres no reason a sentient animal would NEED to have an upright posture like we do, especially when their forms are already perfect for the environments they live in.

as for language, i would imagine dinosauroids would have mostly body language, classic sounds (perhaps very birdlike), and (possibly) a kind of sign language, assuming they dont evolve a larynx and tongue that allows them to form speech like we humans do (which i find rather unlikely, looking at it realistically)

I think, even in the event of dinosaurian survival, mammals remain the best bet for developing sentience. The dinosaurs had mostly evolved past smaller, more flexible forms, and into complex niche-fillers. The trouble with these is that they tended to have too many competing evolutionary pressures - there's more value for a tree rat to get smart than their is for something that eats tree rats. There were small, hot-bodied, feathered dinosaurs up to the end, but I would argue that their extinction in the K-T suggests they were more delicate than mammalian counterparts.
 
Incidentally, what happens if an intelligent race does appear in this world?

Dinosaurs surviving scenarios tend to posit gigantic Cretaceous-style behemoths surviving to be ridden in the near-modern era, but unfortunately that just isn't how it works.

Megafauna are highly vulnerable to ecological catastrophe, and the rise of humans is one of the largest of the last few million years. In OTL North Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas, the arrival of humans led to the extinction of reduction of most large and medium-sized species. Only a few of the latter have any hope of survival by domestication.

A North America or Western Europe colonized by sentient, speaking tool-makers of roughly our level, might be depressingly similar to OTL. Most forest would still be second-growth following old cuttings, and would be familiar looking species. A typical walk through one would probably reveal no more than small birds and tree-climbing mammals. Deer sized ornithomimosaurs camouflaged in brown feathers would sneak from wooded patches at night to raid gardens in suburbs, multiplying with few checks. Their natural predators - topping out about the size of a Kodiak - would be extinct or on wildlife preserves hundreds of miles to the north. The American West and European East would have some larger herbivores, but nothing terribly awe-inspiring. In fact, unless ornithomimosaurs or birds manage to sieze the cold-plains-herbivore niche, you may find something a mammal remarkably similar to bison as the largest animals in the regions.

It's a hard knock life.
 
While I agree when it comes to some suggested extremes, I must disagree with the concept of form stability as a general rule. The species of the Jurassic and Cretaceous, for example, accumulated tremendous differences between them. While the form was broadly similar in some cases - Allosaurs and Tyrannosaurs, for example - in many other innovation was the rule. Stegosaurs, ankylosaurs, sauropods, pachycephalosaurs, ceratopsians, hadrosaurs.... they're all unique occurrences, and not obscure niche ones either. Part of the issue is that the largest species are the most stable, but are also the most vulnerable to extinction events. It's their smaller relatives that will tend to retake niches, and they will tend to do so in different forms.
diversity is certainly plausible. what i had more meant is that we shouldnt expect such IMplausible creatures as in Dixon's book. http://www.sivatherium.narod.ru/library/Dixon_2/00_en.htm

I'm curious: What was the rationale for the extinction of the pachycephalosaurs and decline of the ceratopsians? I suppose the latter was fallout of the lack of grasslands?
not quite sure, actually. again, i didnt write it originally

I think, even in the event of dinosaurian survival, mammals remain the best bet for developing sentience. The dinosaurs had mostly evolved past smaller, more flexible forms, and into complex niche-fillers. The trouble with these is that they tended to have too many competing evolutionary pressures - there's more value for a tree rat to get smart than their is for something that eats tree rats. There were small, hot-bodied, feathered dinosaurs up to the end, but I would argue that their extinction in the K-T suggests they were more delicate than mammalian counterparts.
if there WERE sentient mammals, they wouldnt be humans, or maybe not even anything that stands upright. one reasoning for this is that, if there's such predators as giant theropods dominating the grasslands were animals like australopithecus lived OTL, they may not NEED to evolve bipedalism since they can already detect approaching predators like that

keep in mind,though, that thats a rather old idea from months or maybe even a year or two ago, so i cant really vouch for that much validity anymore
A North America or Western Europe colonized by sentient, speaking tool-makers of roughly our level, might be depressingly similar to OTL. Most forest would still be second-growth following old cuttings, and would be familiar looking species. A typical walk through one would probably reveal no more than small birds and tree-climbing mammals. Deer sized ornithomimosaurs camouflaged in brown feathers would sneak from wooded patches at night to raid gardens in suburbs, multiplying with few checks. Their natural predators - topping out about the size of a Kodiak - would be extinct or on wildlife preserves hundreds of miles to the north. The American West and European East would have some larger herbivores, but nothing terribly awe-inspiring. In fact, unless ornithomimosaurs or birds manage to sieze the cold-plains-herbivore niche, you may find something a mammal remarkably similar to bison as the largest animals in the regions.

It's a hard knock life.
that depends on what the dinosauroids themselves are capable of. would they even be able to cut down trees if they didnt have hands like ours? i imagine them being nomads instead; with their feathers, they probably wouldnt need clothing.

and yes, large and diverse mammals are a definite possibility.

as for the ATL with my proposed changes, i'd make it go up only to the initial appearance of dinosauroids; after that, theres too many possibilities to plausibly predict what will happen
 

whitecrow

Banned
Cuttlefish-like-cephalopods, probably.
One problem: cuttlefish, though fairly intelligent, are marine animals. That means no fire and no globe-spanning octopi civilization :(

human-like sentient dinosaurs is anthrocentricism and its wrong. theres no reason a sentient animal would NEED to have an upright posture like we do, especially when their forms are already perfect for the environments they live in.

as for language, i would imagine dinosauroids would have mostly body language, classic sounds (perhaps very birdlike), and (possibly) a kind of sign language, assuming they dont evolve a larynx and tongue that allows them to form speech like we humans do (which i find rather unlikely, looking at it realistically)
There are some things that may develop through convergent evolution simply because they would be just as useful to ALT-sentient species as they are to us. Use of complex language is one of such things because it allows for greater cooperation within a group. And the complex language would most certainly be vocal because unlike body language, you don’t need to be in the line of sight with another individual to see what he/she is trying to tell you. After all, our ancestors used body language and yet we have developed vocal speech, so it must be advantageous. But I agree that due to their different vocal apparatus a “dinasorian” language wouldn’t probably sound anything like human languages.

Similarly, intelligent dinosaurs may have featherless, hairless bodies, just like us. I read that it’s speculated that our ancestors lost their body hair to be better able to cool themselves and their larger brains (which, being bigger, generate more waste heat). Dinosauroids may face the same problem and come up with the same solution.

I’m curious whether or not any theoretical dinosauroids could evolve to use their hands to manipulate objects? I know it’s theorized that bipedal dinosaurs most likely used their mouths rather than their forelimbs to pick things up and their hypothetical descendants would probably continue to do so, but I can’t imagine mouths developing into anything as dexterous as the human hands. And without the ability to manipulate objects in a meaningful way one has to question how far any intelligence would evolve.
 
have you ever seen some of the art of nemo ramjet? he made some awesome dinosauroid art and even designed several ideas for sentient dinosaurs

as i understand it, feathers are a very beneficial evolutionary trait; if an animal evolves them, they likely wont UN-evolve them. im pretty sure feathers do as much a job keeping an animal cool as they do keeping them warm. im not sure on the specifics, though.

about how large do you suppose dinosauroids would be, assuming they maintained their more standard theropod shape?
 
One problem: cuttlefish, though fairly intelligent, are marine animals. That means no fire and no globe-spanning octopi civilization :(

if you want something terrestrial, some species of parrots are considered to be the most intelligent animal other than humans (hate to burst the dolphin/chimp lover bubble).

however, with dinos surviving, parrots probably won't show up.

it does however, mean that the possibility for an animal with at least the intelligence of a human 8 year old can evolve, cuz that's what we have right now descended from the same line.
 
i dont see any reason for parrots to not appear. as far as i know, their ecological niche isnt exploited by anything

what's your opinion on the appearance of moas in new zealand?
 
i dont see any reason for parrots to not appear. as far as i know, their ecological niche isnt exploited by anything

what's your opinion on the appearance of moas in new zealand?

Highly likely. IIRC, they split from the southern continent before it omnivorous feathered theropods appeared on the scene. Assuming that's the case, dropping temperatures and the limited size of ecological zones will give birds a decided advantage in competing for the role of dominant ground herbivore. It's easier to come up in size than go down. Miniaturized species tend to have the size of small or medium animals with the life cycle of large ones and stand little chance against the equivalent of unusually large rats and crows.
 
Maybe the really tiny feathered-but-not-bird dinosaurs could evolve into sentient beings by '2011'.

Possible, but there are suggestions about that some mammals already had superior brain power ounce-per-ounce. Plus there's the issue that these tiny, apparently flexible, warm-blooded, and insulated creatures died out in the K-T, while mammals did not. There has to be a reason for it.

What I suspect is that it's the egg-laying issue. Live birth is more flexible and (usually) allows a faster birthrate. That is a powerful feature, evolutionarily speaking.
 
Top