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

Re: natatory Geochelone






From: "TRUETT GARNER" <DINOBOY@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: <DINOBOY@worldnet.att.net>
To: <Farlow@IPFW.EDU>, <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: natatory Geochelone
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:55:26 -0400


> I can imagine an ankylosaur or other big dinosaur patiently enduring


> such a trip.
In the case of the Galapagos tortise, this makes sense to me. Being cold blooded, these animals would not need to eat for a long period of time, and could therefor endure long ocean voyages.
However, assuming that dinosaurs were warm blooded, and therefor ankylosaurs among them, it would seem unlikely that a large (multi-ton) animal could go for such an extended period of time (days or weeks) without eating.


I can't find the ref at the moment , but I definitely remember reading
about several ankylosaurids being found in marine formations in the western
U.S. If memory serves me , they were found a good distance from any known
ancient shoreline and were preserved on their backs.
Yeah, I've read about that too. Would it be possible that this is because these animals got somehow swept out to sea, and then died of starvation, in the middle of the ocean. Their bodies would swell, and then burst, leaving no buoyancy. The animal would sink and tip over onto it's back (presuming that the back is heavier due to the armor plating, and the lack of flotation, since the guts have sank and rotted). Thus, you would end up with an ankylosaur on it's back in a marine layer.
Now, if I could explain how the anky got washed out to sea in the first place...
Peace,
Rob
AIM: TarryAGoat
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com