They are both from the Sauropod group of dinosaurs. They both have long necks and long tails. Apatosaraus as it is now refered to used to be called Brontosaurus.
125400
Apatosaurus is known as the largest land animal (measuring 80ft long and 15ft tall), whereas Diplodocus is known as the longest land animal (measuring 90ft long). Apatosaurus is also suspected of having been a more solitary animal than Diplodocus. Other than that, they are very similar dinosaurs - both lived in the same era (Jurassic era), both were sauropods, like you said, both had long necks and large body.
450408
Confusing question.\n\nThere ARE transitional fossils, but you won't find creatures with the head of a cat and the body of a lion because the two animals do not represent different events in an evolutionary chain.\n\nTake a look at this\nhttp://www.exn.ca/dinosaurs/story.asp?id=1997052102&name=archives\n\nCreatures like archeoptryx are the "in-between" creatures you are looking for.
7808
Believe it or not, the hippopotamus's closest living relatives on Earth are the whales. \n\nThe exact evolutionary path isn't known, but the ancestor of both whales and hippopotami was definitely a land animal, might have been comfortable in water, and was probably quite a bit more similar to a modern hippo than to a modern whale.\n\nI'll go beyond the scientific evidence for a moment to say that it's not that hard to imagine...  Think of a hippo-like species (already partly aquatic, with  only nostrils and eyes above the water most of the time) evolving to spend more and more time in the water.  Eventually there's no more need for land at all, but there's still a need for air...
672768
isn't it obvious? the triceratops of course!\n\nhere's a site to prove it...
294095
Forelimb (arm) length being longer than the hindlimbs (legs) is a trait common to all of the apes.  It is most notable in gibbons, but is also a trait seen in orangutans and chimpanzees, in addition to gorillas.\n\nIt is a remnant of the adaptations in early apes for a brachiating style of locomotion (swinging from tree to tree by their arms, as seen in modern gibbons).\n\nOne of the characteristics of the hominid lineage (which includes humans) is the development of bipedal locomotion using the legs as the primary walking appendages, and part of those adaptations is the development of legs that are longer than the arms.\n\nWe are the only living ape descendants that have legs longer than our arms.
44172
Um. . . .they both have wings and they can fly. :)
145179
There are two theories to explain how the Platypus has evolved into what it is today. The first (theory B) shows that relatives of monotremes formed their own evolutionary branch that was completely different from development of both marsupials and placentals. This change is thought to have occurred 135 million years go, the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The marsupials and the placentals divided at some point 135-65 million years ago.\n\nThe Second (theory A) was proposed by Gregory (1947) and was not popular until the 1970s. He said that between 135-65 million years ago, the placentals and marsupials separated to their own way then later the monotremes and the marsupials went their own way.\n\nEvidence for this theory is that the reproductive systems of monotremes and marsupials are extremely similar. The embryos of both have some stage of encased shells in the gestation period. The only difference is that monotremes have the encased shells throughout the entire gestation period, whereas marsupials only have the encased shells for about two thirds of the gestation period.\n\nAre you denying that evolution exists at all?
392622
The scientific name is <i>Pygoscelis antarctica</i>, so you could google on both common and latin name.\nSome sites I found:\nhttp://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/wildlife/penguins/chinstrap.shtml\nhttp://www.greglasley.net/chinstra.html\nhttp://www.nzbirds.com/birds/chinstrappenguin.html\nhttp://www.penguinworld.com/types/chinstrap.html\nhttp://www.tuxxie.org//species/chinstrap.html
517559
Science explains more. No where in the bible does it mention dinosaurs. Or ape like people
281578
The Potto (Perodicticus potto) is a strepsirrhine primate from the Lorisidae family. It is the only species in genus Perodicticus. The name "Potto" possibly comes from the African word "pata", which means tailless ape. The Potto is also known as Bosman's Potto, after its supposed discoverer, and in some English-speaking parts of Africa it is called a Softly-softly.\n\nhttp://www.primates.com/potto.htm\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potto
258021
There are two issues here. \nFirst, these terms refer to different logical classes. \nThe classification system that we use is based on inclusive (nested) categories and in that sense, the logical class "ape" includes the logical class "gorilla".\nBut there's another aspect to this.\nThe term gorilla refers to the animals belonging to one species, Gorilla gorilla (with different subspecies). In this case, the common word has a taxonomic equivalent.\n\nOn the contrary, "ape" does not have an exact equivalent in terms of systematic groupings or clades. In a general sense, "apes" are understood as Old World monkeys that lack a tail. They would include the families Pongidae (orangutan), Hominidae (chimpanzee, gorilla, man) and Hylobatidae (gibbons). However, for other people, the gibbons are "lesser apes" and the Pongidae are "higher apes". Many would also exclude man from the apes. Thus, for the authors of "Planet of the Apes", only the "higher apes" were included in the definition! \nIn consequence, there is no taxonomical equivalent for the common term "ape". A similar thing happens with "monkeys", that is, other Primates that have a long tail, are generally medium-sized and arboreal (including macaques, baboons, guenons, capuchins, marmosets, etc). This is another term that does not correspond to the systematic arrangement but rather includes several taxons.
229952
ask a christian or a muslim then you would know that no dinosaur was more than 6000 years old :D\nother than that i don't really know :-<
560357
Actually there are technically 3.\nThe platypus, the short beaked echidna and the long beaked echidna (although I suppose the last two could be grouped together).  =0)\nthey are monotremes\nhttp://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=32104
91731
Both were Greek city-states.  They fought wars against each other in the old Greek epics and histories.  Go to history.com and research it if you want more specifics.
457817
I would look here for your answer and/or a link that could get you your answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate\n\nGood Luck!!!
94458
Whether or not T-Rex evolved into a bird is still being debated among scientists.\n\nEarlier this year it was announced that the "Father" of T-Rex had been found. Some scientist think this particular animal might have had feathers.\n\nHowever, it is generally believed that T-Rex had a respiratory system similar to modern birds, e.g. the sparrow. \n\nOn July 13, 2005 CNN published an online article on this subject: "Study: T.rex had bird-like respiratory system." \n\nHope this helps.
403892
I think one potential source of your confusion is the fact that there was in fact more than one mammoth species.\n\nThe most famous mammoth is the so called woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), but there were others such as the Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), Jefferson's mammoth (Mammuthus jeffersoni), Channel Island dwarf mammoth (Mammuthus exilis), southern mammoth (Mammuthus meridionalis), steppe mammoth (Mammuthus trogontherii), and the Imperial mammoth (Mammuthus imperator).  And those are just the North American varieties.  There were more in Asia and Europe.\n\nThe woolly mammoth was actually slightly smaller than the Asian elephant (which is actually more closely related to the mammoths than the African elephants are).\n\nHowever other species, like the Columbian mammoth, were much larger.  The largest specimen of the Columbian mammoth from the La Brea tar pits was 12 feet tall at the shoulder and weighed about 10 tons - much larger than the largest African elephants today.\n\nSome species were much, much smaller, especially those that inhabited isolated islands.  The Channel Islands dwarf mammoth  was only four to eight feet tall.  \n\nHopefully this helps to clear up some of the confusion.\n\nUPDATE:\n\nYes, the male African elephant does average about 12 feet at the shoulder.  This is one of the problems with taking just one measuer to determine "size".  The proportions of mammoths and African elephants are slightly different, and the way they hold their heads are different, so a simple shoulder measure, or measure to the top of the head doesn't tell the whole story.  There are also differences in the length of the legs that make a considerable difference when comparing height and weight.  Mammoths tend to have relatively stubby legs, while the African elephants are longer limbed, almost rangy in comparison.\n\nFor a really big elephant, there is also the extinct Miocene proboscideans the Deinotheres, which may have been 15 to 18 feet at the shoulder.