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

Re: Oviphagus armadillos



I agree. Tunnels would be more likely to collapse. And trap and fossilize
what was in those tunnells. But likewise, I have NO idea if this is the
case. Geologists.....
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bois <jbois@umd5.umd.edu>
To: David Lessin <dlessin@accesschicago.net>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 3:43 AM
Subject: re: Oviphagus armadillos


>
>
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, David Lessin wrote:
>
>> Also, and I raised this point before in an old stealthy oviphagus
>>thread, there is (was at that time at least), no evidence in the fossil
>>record of eutherian mammals having preyed on dinosaur eggs. My guess is
>>that if mammals were preying upon dinosaur eggs in the fashion that was
>>ascribed to the hairy armadillo, that the same event/process that led to
>>the fossilization of a dino-nesting site,  would similarily preserve some
>>evidence  of this form of predation in/and the  network of underground
>>tunnels.
>
>To the extent that non-avian dinosaurs used sand, tunnels were more
>unlikely (i.e., more likely to collapse).  For me, no matter how the eggs
>are reached, the ability to crack them in a smallish mammal is what
>counts, what causes the greatest incredulity.  And yet here is hard
>evidence!  One question I didn't ask the author of the paper is whether or
>not he/she would expect the evidence to fossilize.
>
>
>