Walking with Dinosaurs: New Blood
Walking with Dinosaurs New Blood
Description
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN2_rkpyC3g&list=PLXZZmeeofofQ1i6vF225FyjYObwAp4Kr5
Using the link above please watch all 7 parts of Walking with Dinosaurs: Episode 1 New Blood. If you open on YouTube you can find all 7 parts on the right-hand side of the image screen if it doesn’t automatically advance to the next part.
Then answer the following questions modified from t holtz:
Part I: New Blood
The dawn of the Age of Dinosaurs in the video begins in the Late Triassic Period featuring Arizona, and in particular the rocks and fossils of the Chinle Formation. (The Chinle is most famous for the Petrified Forest).
The key players involved:
The giant predatory pseudosuchian archosaur Postosuchus
Two different synapsids, improperly called “reptiles” here even though they aren’t reptiles under the phylogenetic meaning of that term. They are known as mammal like reptiles:
O The bulky ox-sized dicynodont Placerias
- O An unnamed cynodont species
- The early carnivorous dinosaur Coelophysis (One of the first dinosaurs in North America)
The early pterosaur (winged reptile) Peteinosaurus
The plant-eating prosauropod dinosaur Plateosaurus
Coelophysis were among the earliest successful groups of dinosaurs in a world dominated by pseudosuchians like Postosuchus and herbivorous synapsids like Placerias. Dinosaurs differed from other Triassic creatures in a number of ways. Indicate below whether the statements are true or false, based on First Blood worth 1pt each. More recent evidence about Coelophysis has disproved some of what was shown about the dinosaur group in the video:
- 1.) Coelophysis was larger than Postosuchus and Placerias:
- 2.) Coelophysis operated in groups, whereas both Postosuchus and Placerias only lived alone:
- 3.) Coelophysis was a biped; Postosuchus and Placerias were both quadrupedal while walking:
4.) Coelophysis was rather fast; both Postosuchus and Placerias were slower:
5.) Coelophysis could kill its own food; Postosuchus was a strict scavenger:
6.) This episode shows two examples of cannibalism. The first case shows the cynodonts eating their young. Why do they do this, according to the video? 2pts
7) The second case of cannibalism shows Coelophysis eating their own babies during the drought. This latter event was based on a misunderstanding of a site in which Coelophysis specimens which died from drought at a watering hole were found with what were thought to be baby Coelophysis bones in their bellies. (It turned out, as shown a study first published in 2006, that these were really bones of the fast running crocodile-relative Hesperosuchus). What evidence WOULD have been needed to show that Coelophysis engaged in cannibalism in these situations?
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||