[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Tracy Ford writes;
>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.
Who me??? Give up on an argument before I'm convinced? You know me better
than that. ;^)
>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.
I don't see the problem in this. I envision the jaw muscle being similar
to the strap on my backpack: Long but thin, with the long muscle fibers
oriented with the long axis of the muscle. In this senario, the muscle
bulges through the fenestra as the animal chews. This is not an outlandish
assertian, the earliest mammals had a single, small fenestra located at the
temples. In modern mammals, this fenestra has opened considerably,
allowing the muscle to bulge unhindered by the bone as the animal chews. I
see ceratopians in the same light, where the jaw muscle was able to bulge
out of both sides of the frill. The frill simply held the perimeter of the
muscle, and helped to anchor it, as well as to keep it sturdy.
>IF they had their jaw muscles attached to the back of the frill, that
>would be a very vulnerable, and an easy target to attack.
I wouldn't call it all that easy. For Rex and Co. to get a good bite, it
would have to come in from the front: well in range of the horns. Any
theropod that tried this manuver would find itself with a mild case of
Orphan Vertebrate Paleontologist
"He has opened an unexpected door."
-K.2 (not to be mistaken for the mountain)