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

Re: Well...long necks



>Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 09:27:30 -0700
>From: Chris <cmi@netbox.com>
>To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
>Subject: Re: Well...long necks
>Message-ID: <199904301631.JAA08482@banana.filemaker.com>


>So am I the only one who has always thought that these long necks were
>for feeding underwater? From the shore, now while swimming. It seems
>there must have been a lot of lakes and ponds with lots water vegetation.
>I also don't recall much in the way of fossil evidence of animals who
>could take advantage of all that vegetation.

>Or am I just an amature with strange ideas?


Now there`s a thought! Maybe in our desires to make them non-aquatic in
opposition to 18th century thinking, we went a bit too far. Maybe they were
feeding off aquatic vegetation. Think about it,...evidence of pine needles
were found ...where?....In the belly of a dead carcass! Maybe there was a
draught,and in desperation, the beast ate some pine saplings and
died....(maybe of indigestion!).

Then again, what about brachiosaurs. They had more upright necks.....right??
Hmm....but also had nostrils at the top of their heads. Perhaps deep waders
feeding off floating vegetation?