[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: back to science
John Bois <email@example.com> wrote:
> To: Ralph Miller III <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Wed, 27 May 1998, Ralph Miller III wrote:
> > In other words, not
> > only is the nest not demonstrably bowl-shaped, but the shell hasn't
> > trampled to bits as in the nests of the presumably altricial
> > young. So this type of clutch is not the least bit consistent with a
> > attendance hypothesis.
> Inconsistent with _altriciality_ maybe, but totally consistent with
> nest attendance--even if defense is the only activity engaged in (as in
Oops! I didn't make myself clear at all. I was referring to the idea of
nest attendance by the sauropod hatchlings, not by the adults. The adults
certainly could have guarded and attended to the needs of the unhatched
eggs, but the hatched young were not nestbound for an extended period of
time (as is believed for young _Maiasaura_) or the shells should have shown
signs of trampling by the sauropod chicks.
-- Ralph Miller III email@example.com
"Could you be more vague?"