[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> But seriously. This has merit. As proposed before, the animal was a
> lake-side animal, or at least the two animals preserved tell us
> something of the like.
> The teeth, angled like fish-eating animals and unserrated to boot,
> would not conceivable be used like the hook of a raptor's bill, but
> rather has a "trap" device (cf. gators, crocs, comb-toothed pterosaurs
> [another common name]) that instead of cutting into the prey or
> holding it down to be bitten, as *Sagittarius* does, would have caught
> and disembowelled lunch with the manual claws; the feet were not
> claw-equipped (for as much as the few claws preserved show, being
> blunted similar to the ornithimimid degree) as the secretary BIRD was,
> but this means only that *Caudipteryx* didn't foot-snatch or stand on
> said lunch.
As for a lake dwelling animal Caudipteryx would certainly have been a fish
eater. The teeth seem suited for this purpose. But what about snails?
While the teeth are unsuited for this, they could have been scooped up,
swallowed whole, and then processed by gastroliths (get yer protein and
calcium in one shot). Also it seems possible that Caudipteryx might also
have been omnivorous, eating water plants and such. Why else would this
animal have gastroliths?
Northern Arizona University