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

Re: Carnotaurus arms

>>Has anyone considered the possibility of stunted development in the 
>>arms of *Carnotaurus*? If they were stunted, could it be possible 
>>that the arms were actually normal-sized? I ask this before I draw 
>>*Carnotaurus* with normal ceratosaurian (or megalosaurian) arms and 

>The arms of Carnotaurus are very clearly (and grotesquely) short.

But whether they are that way naturally or through paleopathological 
reasons remains to be seen. The second *Timimus* femur is the exact 
opposite of stunting, similar to elaphantitis, hugely over-ossified. 
Humans are born with limbs that are perfectly normal in every 
way---except for the size of the limbs or certain limb, and even overall 
size is stunted or engrossed, via pithuitary and thyroid imbalances.

What I was asking was if those arms may have been stunted for similar 
reasons, or not. The hand's little spike might be a reason why the arms 
are naturally short, but when the hand cannot even reach below the level 
of the chest or forward, or that the humerus is so developed and the 
ulna and radius are not, then what purpose would any such limb 
proportion serve?

I've heard it suggested (not sure exactly where) that the arm and hand's 
unique situation may actually have been related to mating, the male 
holding the female to him during copulation---and this would propose 
that the *Carnotaurus* specimen is a male---in a platypus- like way. Of 
course, for that to work, the arm would have to be longer, no? If it 
_was_ naturally short, then that proposal's out the window.

I do not, however, have the funds or access presently to get that paper, 
but in the future I do intend to get these, perhaps through the local 
museum or university.

Until next time,

Jaime A. Headden

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com