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


Darren Naish wrote:

>Nick Longrich said..
>>         Is it possible, then, that some of these things spent a lot of
>> time in water? Something like a hippo, perhaps?

>As for the ankylosaurs, Coombs has repeatedly stated that their presence in
>marine palaeoenvironments does not represent autochthonous preservation. He's
>said that (paraphrased): 'Ankylosaurs were wide ranging animals with broader
>habitat preferences that most dinosaurs'. As noted previously here on the list,
>preservation in marine strata does not by any means indicate mode of life.

This line of thinking (marine ankylosaur remains) reminds me of
something about armadillos: specifically, that their bodies have a
specific gravity of <1; that is, they are lighter than water. I'm not
suggesting that they went swimming a lot, but rather that their
bodies, with a high degree of structural integrity, would probably
survive floating downriver and out to sea far long after most dead
dinos "disarticulated".  Buoyed by decomposition gases, they might
stay afloat for some time, affording challenging chew toys for the
pliosaurs and their friends...

Seems like a good explanation for "marine ankylosaurs", I think...

Wayne Anderson