[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Mammals are not dinosaurs
Tracy Ford writes;
>Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! The elongated frill of ceratopians are not related
>to muscel attacement. None, what so ever. And remember, Dinosaurs are
>NOT Mammals. Your argument doesn't work.
Hogwash! If what you say is true, how does one explain the chasmosaurines
tendancy for large fenestra in their frills? How else does one explain the
holes in the skull which lead from the lower jaw to the fenestra? The only
plausible explanation is that the frills are attachment sites for the jaw
muscles. Since this is the case, is it not reasonable to suggest that
those with longer frills had stronger chewing power than those with shorter
frills? The frills were most certainly related to muscle attachment.
Sure, dinosaurs are not mammals. However, we can do comparisons between
forms, to see if there are any similarities. Convergent evolution happens
all the time, and to toss this aside just because the animals in question
are not closely related seems a little short-sighted. To say that the
Ichthyosaur (not a dinosaur, I know) is not convergent with the dolphin
just because the former is not a mammal would result in our losing a great
deal of insight into the lifestyle of the Ichthyosaur.
Orphan Vertebrate Paleontologist
"If you go to Za'Ha'Dum, you will die."