[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
"Dinosaur Heresies" inconsistency?
I am new to the dinosaur list and am an amateur. I read Robert
Bakker's "Dinosaur Heresies" and am left with one major question. I sifted
through the list's WWW page looking to see if the question had already been
posed and answered but I did not find it. Please, no Bakker flame replies, I
read through enough of those already on the list's WWW page. I recognize that
he represents just one view.
Anyways, Bakker claims that Archosaurs were the group that crocodiles,
pterodactyls, and dinosaurs evolved from (page 416) and that "crimson
crocodiles" were early Archosaurs. This relationship with dinosaurs is
diagrammed on page 417. He then states that for Erythrosuchus (presumably a
"crimson crocodile") "the case for high metabolism was every bit as conclusive
as it was for the advanced protomammals" (page 422). He then uses this to
argue that if the ancestors of dinosaurs had a high metabolism, then dinosaurs
and pterodactyls must have had a high metabolism to wrest control from their
high metabolism ancestors and their high metabolism competitors, the
"proto-mammals." However, this line of thinking also would make one think that
crocodiles would also have a high metabolism. However, Bakker himself argues
that crocodiles not have a high metabolism early in the book. To confuse the
picture even more, the diagram on page 456 shows the "crimson croc" as a cousin
to the dinosaurs and pterosaurs with a single common ancestor, not as an
ancestor (or close relative to that ancestor). Am I missing something here?
Chris Dreher : "When you kill a man, you're a murderer.
2450 Overlook Road : Kill many, you're a conqueror.
Apt. #201 : Kill them all, you're a god." -- MegaDeth --
Cleveland Hts., OH 44106 :................................................
1-216-397-7991 : mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org :