[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Dinosaurs are not mammals (last time for me)
Rob Meyerson wrote:
>> The [Ceratopian] fenestra have NOTHING to do with jaw muscles. If
>> the frill had anything to do with the jaw muscles they would have
>> broken their frills because they are so lightly built.
>I disagree with this claim, for two reasons: First, muscle load would
>be transmitted along the entire edge of the fenestra (lengthening the
>perimeter while keeping the same load).
Oh, why am I even bothering. I've talked to actual, real life,
paleontologist about this. I've told you what is the right way, but you
continue to believe the opposite.
Muscles need area's to attach to, right? IF the jaw muscles attached to
the frill like you say, on the frill, around the fenestra, there is a
BIG problem. The middle of the muscle has to attach to something but
there is a hole, there is NOTHING there to attach to. It wouldn't work.
IF they had their jaw muscles attached to the back of the frill, that
would be a very volnerable, and an easy target to attack.
>Secondly, it would seem that the load generated by chewing shouldn't
>be all that massive. Even for the toughest vegetation, a
>slow/rhythmic motion of the jaw wouldn't produce critical stresses.
>> Did you know that the top of the braincase isn't the top of the
>> skull? [ extra quoted text deleted. -- MR ]
>I'm not sure how this relates, but it is interesting. Is this simply
>a way to lighten the skull, or did something fill the space.
It means I've done my homework and know a lot about Ceratopians.
PS. If you contiune to believe what you do and will not listen to
reason, then, whatever.