[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>Maybe; but the only part of the toe that would be on the ground is phalanx
>II-2. That wouldn't provide a lot of support. It looks to me like the only
>part of the second toe that touched the ground was the "knuckle" between
>phalanges II-1 and II-2.
Are you getting that idea from Ostrom 1969, page 132, figure 74? It's quite
different from what Greg draws, and you can lower the first phalange to touch
>> And what about the animal's ability to walk, run and balance?
>And why is digit II so short and directed away from the direction of
>movement? And why are phalanges II-1 and II-2 set up to articulate at up to
>a 90-degree angle to each other?
So it can use the claw to slash.
And why are the muscle attachment sites on
>the second toe so much more prominent than on the other toes? And what about
>that enormous, nearly semicircular claw?
Because it's a big claw. And not all the Mt big claw have such a large
semicircle. See my article in the Prehistoric Times, Mar-Apr, Number 23: 28-29,
and of course Ostrom, J. H. 1976. On a new specimen of the lower Creta
ceous Theropod Dinosaur Deinonychus antirrhopus. Breviora, No. 439: 1-21.
Unless it was held up at least to
>some extent, every step would have driven it into the ground!
Not necessarily. The pad would be very large, and it would have to be, just
look at how large the puduncle on the lower end of the claw is.
>(I have copies of Ostrom's drawings of the original foot in front of me--_The
>Dinosauria_, p. 275)
How can you have Ostrom's original foot drawings if its the Dinosauria your
using? You are using Ostrom 1969.