Before The Dinosaurs This Terrifying Predator Ruled The World 

It was so awesome!

@Ewan Callister Inostrancevia is the species name, so Gorgonopsid is still correct, it just refers to other species too

Well we dunno exactly what they looked like. Except for their skeleton I think

@@marcopohl4875 Maybe they are a fan of all or most Gorgonopsids, the way many people will say they're a fan of dolphins or sauropods.

@@marcopohl4875 Just because we are apes does not mean we are named "apes" for that speech. It just makes the species's identity inconspicuously confusing

Same here ma

I love learning about the animals that lived prior to the archosaurs. I also love the pterosaurs, they are such a trip!

Lol I forgot about primeval and looked it up. Did not age well but I used to love that show as a kid.

I love that it has hair in your picture.....just wish it had ears. Like a rabbit.

@@nathaniellawson963Everyone forgot that show. It was amazing.

Anything with teeth like that are just as evil as any other carnivore…so maybe not evil but you are still dinner.

Roger Rabbit reference.

Nah, their all secretly dragons, they just don't want you to think that! XD

Reason?

You have an opinion that I support. Stem-mammals are great.

What do you mean “stem-mammal”?

​​​@@Saber23he/she means synapsids, a group of animals that separated from reptiles at one point in their evolution. They are mammals' ancestors even tho they look like reptiles, the research shows they are more closely related to mammals than reptiles.

probably because you wouldn't expect typically a mammal to exist before the cretaceous period.

@@alieoftruth1130 They weren't mammals. Just more closely related to mammals than reptiles, as they were synapsids.

@@DJFracus Synapsids include mammals AND animals more closely related to mammals than to reptiles. Edit for clarification: All Synapsids from before the dinosaurs are considered stem mammals, but mammals nowadays are still considered synapsids in a sense since they are part of the same lineage.

@@yancgc5098 I know, that was the point of my comment

@@alieoftruth1130 To be more precise, you wouldn't expect something with a typically mammalian head to exist before the cretaceous period.

I'd love to see an Inostranscevia fighting a Utahraptor.

Feel Like a Monster! Is a Gorgonopsid tribute.

I reckon that if you talk to young paleontologists whose professional focus is on eras either before or after the time of the dinosaurs you’ll likely find that Primeval was a positive influence on their future careers.

I agree. One of my favorite aspects of the Triassic is that you have a certain point where crocodile and bird line archosaurus all start to converge on the "dinosaur" form. So you have a moment in time when it was really hard to tell the earliest dinosaurs from their crocodilian-line cousins. Really fascinating stuff.

The Triassic was like college. Everyone as trying on the craziest look they could some up with….

They do look very similar.

I remember the mutant bat looking things lol

@Ewan Callister still, it was such a terrifying creature

I may be late, but I did watch that series.

You’re not the only one, mate! 🙂

As regards the title; gorgonopsians were NEITHER reptile nor mammal.

Dose she know that there are Dinosaurs, all over Earth, most Dinosaurs died, one branch didn't 🐓🐔🐦🐧.

I saw a poor raccoon with mange walking across the road once and I thought something weird escaped from a zoo or something. It was skinny, very little hair, and lo g skinny tail...it looked nothing like a raccoon. Poor thing. I called animal control / hamane society but they surely had to euthanize it :(

Also not every non avian dinosaur had feathers, some of them were completely covered in scutes, like Trex all along, after finding both skin impressions & well preserve skin samples that confirmed this. Also this doesn't mean that all dinosaurs did not had feathers either, velociraptor being an example of a feathered dinosaur.

But it still mostly does it’s job. It’s easier for most to think in either a or b. Not as a spectrum.

@SmashBrosInitiativeSome therapsids definitely had hair or fur of some kind. It’s hard to say how common this was and how much they had.

Dimetrodon was cold blooded, it absolutely would have not had fur, for the same reasons that lizards & other pre-dinosaur reptiles don't, & didn't have feathers, because filament based skin coverings that are ment to provide insulation for a vertebrate, would not have any benefit to it if it's an ectothermic creature, as they don't produce their own body heat to be insulated. Also I advise against seeing most Paleoart as an accurate depiction of reality, or how those creatures actually looked, as a lot of that stuff is more creative licence than scientific accuracy, often at the expense of scientific accuracy, just pure fantasy in other words.

​​@@grahamstrouse1165 only cynodonts had fur as far as we are concerned, the much earlier ones very likely did not. Do not keep you're hopes too high.

You definitely don't care about scientific accuracy at all, just aesthetics.

It's flawed.

As I explained in detail in my own comment; gorgonopsians were NEITHER reptile nor mammal. And not dinosaur either.

@@Dr.IanPlect OKAY!!! Sorry if I have offended you with my philistine thinking. I am an average person who is very curious about everything and I found the fact that a mammal was discovered in an era of early dinosaurs very fascinating. Unsure as to what category this animal belongs so have placed it where I understand it to be. Are you able to correctly categorize it for me instead?

​@@evelynharber6077 One could call it a ''stem mammal'' or a ''therapsid.'' Basal (by which I mean primitive) amniotes evolved into two distinct lineages: Synapsids and Sauropsida. Synapsids are split into two with the more basal forms being called Pelycosaurs and the more advanced and derived forms (including this guy) falling under the title of Therapsids. Therapsids include the ancestor to ''True Mammals'' but weren't truly Mammals themselves. Sauropsids on the other hand include the ancestors to true reptiles, dinosaurs and birds.

@@evelynharber6077 Evelyn, I think you over-reacted a bit there! Here's my own comment ------- "Gorgonopsians Were Half Mammal, Half Reptile" Title is nonsense. They were NEITHER! - Gorgonopsians are non-mammalian therapsids - Therapsids (in regard to one lineage) are the ancestors of mammals but Gorgonopsians were non-mammalian therapsids not mammals themselves (nor ancestral to mammals) - Synapsids are the 'mammal line', one of 2 major clades that evolved from an amniote ancestor, from whose lineage mammals eventually evolved via ancestral groups known as stem mammals, therapsids being the immediate ancestral group to mammals. - The other clade is the 'reptile line', the sauropsids, from whose lineage the reptiles eventually evolved ------ So, the ancestral chain on the mammal line had NO reptiles WHATSOEVER. And gorgonopsians were a diverged, non-mammalian lineage of therapsid. Both mammals and reptiles took millions of years to appear on their lineages (synapsid and sauropsid respectfully). ----------------- I will say; likely what the thinking was is the fact that until somewhat recently, the conventional thinking was that mammals did evolve from a reptile lineage. This is where the (now obsolete) term 'reptile-like mammals' originates; that reptile lineage once thought to have diverged and evolved into mammals. As you see I use it above, 'stem mammal' has taken the place of 'reptile-like mammal' to accurately reflect current understanding.

@@georgebennett715 That's not bad, but there's a few quibbles in there, let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

Except the entire premise is wrong; they were not mammals nor reptiles.

a nice "Elvisaurus" on ice for the show.

It's flawed.

@@Dr.IanPlect I don't get it.

@@gequitz The title is nonsense, they were not mammals or reptiles. I'll explain if you're interested.