[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bakker and popularizing science
> From: Ray McAllister <email@example.com>
> >I find warm blooded,
> >sexual and colorful dinos not all bad altho there is little evidence for
> >the latter. Go Bakker!
> Hmm, don't you mean "former"? It is the warm-blooded issue for
> which the evidence is equivocal. In fact there is good reason
> to conclude that dinosaurs had a physiology that doesn't fit
> well in the modern classification (neither warm-blooded nor cold).
Sorry for nitpicking, but neither 'former' nor 'latter' can be used when
there are three categories :-) However, I agree with the defense of Bob
Bakker: a field of science in which everyone agreed with everyone else
would be as boring as a football game with both teams on the same side.
Sf writer, former English teacher, legal typist, and used dinosaur
> For color, the widespread occurance of display structures:
> hadrosaur crests, ceratopsian frills (shields), theropod
> ridges and crests, and so on indicate a very visual type of
> animal. Then you add the fact that their descendents, the
> birds, are very colorful, and the sum total is fairly convincing.
> [Note, except for Triceratops, the neck frill bones of ceratopsians
> have big holes in them, making then useless as shields, which
> leaves only display].
> firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
> The peace of God be with you.