[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratopsian gait (was Re: Oviraptor)
On 03/20/98 14:09:34 you wrote:
>> When museum's reconstruct a protoceratops they have it's legs
>> sprawling. This is far from the truth. Their legs should be directly under
>> them. This also
>> they were swifter then orginally thought.
>What of the recent (1997 or 1996, can't remember which) studies on
>ceratopsian forelimbs that seem to indicate that a somewhat sprawling
>gait is more likely? I seem to recall an article in a book on
>functional morphology. This is all from memory mind you, so I'm in
>dangerous waters already, but I seem to recall that the study
>showed that the forelimbs could not have articulated directly beneath
>the body without serious dislocation. Is this not a popular view then?
Johnson, Rolf E., and John H. Ostrom, 1995. The forelimb of Torosaurus and an
analysis of the posture and gait of ceratopsian dinosaurs. In: Functional
Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology, Edited by J. J. Thomason. Cambridge
University Press: 205-218.
>Of course this does not relate to protoceratops itself, so for all
>I know Tracy's statement may well be true, but any chance to stir
>the coals... :)
If you want to know what I think how Ceratopians walked, you'll have to check
World. I'm NOT saying the forelimbs of Ceratopians were directly under the
Protoceratopians. They are DIFFERENT than Ceratopians. Smaller, lighter,