[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bone heads
> This has been a nicely thought-out piece of logic! And, in fact,
>if we were limited to the bony domes atop the noggins o' pachys, it would
>probably be the most parsimonious explanation. However, the bony domes
>aren't the only evidence to support the "ramming" reason for their
>existence. The entire vertebral column of pachys (such as they are
>known...) is set up to brace for impact -- the neck and the back verts are
>especially well-suited for this. They are, quite simply, shock absorbers.
>For the shock to travel all the way down like that, impacts would have to
>be close to head-on...not by swinging the head from side-to-side (as I
>understand it). I'd be happy to try and dig up some references on this for
>you if you like...but my library is still in boxes in a warehouse
>somewhere! Can someone else help for the nonce? Thanks! 8-)
I had heard of the vertebral arguement and, although I haven't gone back to
the original articles, the popular accounts that I have read smack of a
post hoc argument: "I think that their heads were used as battering rams
and therefore they must have shock absorbers in their skeleton and, year,
ok, look at this bump here, I think that fits, yup, all convinced, lets
publish". I realise this is probably an improper parody on my part and I
would like to know how good the literature and data really is on this
issue. I have seen skeletons of pachys on display in various museums around
the would and, while I haven't got in there and measured anything, no
characters jump out at me and say "look at how hypertrophied I am to
withstand these callossal forces."
So, what is the data presented on the postcranials in support of the
battering ram hypothesis and how conclusive is it?
Rally against the resumption of French nuclear testing in the South
Pacific: boycott French products NOW!!!