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

Fwd: Just this n that



In a message dated 97-03-18 04:45:58 EST, roger@arkansas.net (Roger A.
Stphenson) writes:

<< I would like to comment on the National Geographic TV segment dealing with
 fossil thefts and sales. While I'm quite sure there are some bad boys out
 there, as the egg salesman was indeed, but was it just me or was the whole
 show very slanted? I suppose I should just expect this of the media. I
 don't want to reopen a can of worms, but is a fair representation possible
 in the current atmosphere of confrontation? I say someone should speak up
 for tolerance.
  >>

I guess I missed two key points in that segment, other than it was very
biased.  

First, since no American laws were being broken by the egg dealer and no
Federal or State property was even potentially involved, why did the officer
spend taxpayer's money to visit the operation in California? At most a call
to Interpol may have been a professional courtesy. That could have been done
without visiting California. 

Second, how did the police identify the sting ray as coming from a state
quarry. There are plenty of legal sting rays out there that come from the
leased quarries. The segment made it appear as if the ray stood out like a
sore thumb. 

---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   roger@arkansas.net (Roger A. Stphenson)
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
Reply-to:       roger@arkansas.net
To:     dinosaur@usc.edu
Date: 97-03-18 04:45:58 EST

Hello all,

I would like to comment on the National Geographic TV segment dealing with
fossil thefts and sales. While I'm quite sure there are some bad boys out
there, as the egg salesman was indeed, but was it just me or was the whole
show very slanted? I suppose I should just expect this of the media. I
don't want to reopen a can of worms, but is a fair representation possible
in the current atmosphere of confrontation? I say someone should speak up
for tolerance.

---------------------------------------------

Isn't it entirely possible that feathers evolved in arboreal creatures, not
for flight first, but rather for the insulating factor? (My tree sitting
experience and the wind chill factor). If you can't stay warm up a tree you
sure aren't going to stay up there long enough to evolve flight
capabilities. If the origins of flight resulted from creatures consistantly
arboreal, cold wet weather would have to be addressed. Even in a much
warmer climate where quick temperature changes are rare, such protection
would have been handy.

---------------------------------------------

No shots were fired, and the cladistic peace has been kept. I, speaking as
one that does not fully understand cladistics, still appreciate the efforts
of others to explain and teach. It matters so keep up the good work, (you
know who you are).

---------------------------------------------

Doesn't the micro and macro aspects of tyrannisaurid teeth arrangements,
and jaw closing geometry, suggest a chunk ripper rather than a slash and
puncture type bite? If most tyrannisaurids were chunk rippers would this
support an ambush over chase hunting style, and why or why not? (No
tripping threads please :-| ).

---------------------------------------------

If intraspecific combat was the main use of the pachycephalosaur's dome
head, would the agressiveness of the dominate sex lead to territoriality?
If the olfactory lobes were enlarged and thier sense of smell was very good
scent markings of such territories would make sense. Also, in mating
behavior such territories could be pheromone (sp?) signal post,
broadcasting sexual readiness if you will.

---------------------------------------------

Is there any more material of Elmisaurid than what is cited in Dinosauria?
Would it be possible for Elmisaurids to be discovered in the Hell CreeK
Formation?

---------------------------------------------

Thanks,
Roger A. Stephenson