[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


GSP1954@aol.com wrote:

> Including the article in the latest EARTH, there has been a lot lately about
> the possibility of NONparenting in dinosaurs such as Maiasaura. 

> 1 - Tooth wear: That the teeth of baby hadrosaurs are worn never had any
> meaning, becasue they had to chew their food whether they got it on their
> own, or were fed by their parents.


> 7 - The most logical reason for hadrosaur chicks to remain near the nest
> would be because that was where they received food from their parents. This
> system would have been a way for giant adults to take care of tiny offspring
> in a safe nest where they would not be trampled. This system would be highly
> advantageous for the chicks, because it would mean that at no expense to
> themselves they would receive large amounts of food, boosting growth rates.
> Ostrich chicks reach 20 kg in three months, and hadrosaurs may have grown
> even faster.


Just two questions:

1- Small chicks would not each much but how efficient would a
hadrosaur be as a food carrier? (and since the babys teeth were worn
does that mean the parents didn't simply regurgitate food?)

2- Is there any skeletal evidence of crushed chicks? if so, how big
were they?  (from a previous post on tail injuries in hadrosaurs I
believe they weren't particularly cautious...)

Dalmiro Maia