[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> I can't really stomach the thought of sauropods with trunks...
> personal preferences aside, didn't sauropods lack the proper facial
> necessary for a trunk, anyway? (Yeah, they might resemble elephant
> in their physique, but why must some try to flesh them out as
> These are dinosaurs, not mammals!)
> Rachel K. Clark
If physical features do not permit so (I wouldn't know, as I'm no
anatomist or have examined sauropod skulls), then fine, no trunks.
But I really don't like this attitude about "I can't stomach the
thought . . . these are dinosaurs, not mammals." In the history of
life, there have been many parallels. Mastodonts weren't true
elephants, but they looked pretty darn the same. Ichtyosaurs looked
like sharks and dolphins, but they heck sure weren't same, and on with
pterosaurs and bats, etc. Of course, there have always been unique
branches of evolution. But without keeping an open mind along with a
scientific mind, I don't think anyone could be a good paleoscientist.
Yes, dinosaurs are unique, and that is even a greater reason to accept
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com