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

Re: Re[Re:Sauropod Neck]

  Perhaps this has been covered already, as I've avoided this post until
now, BUT...
  Did anyone recall Jeff Wilson's talk at SVP where he showed a picture
of a camel bending it's neck all the way over it's back so that it's
head was litterally upside down and staring at it's own behind?  He made
a mention about the fact that if we were to judge a camels neck motion
based on it's cervical vertebrae and zygopotheses and all the
methodology that we are judging sauropod neck motion by, then that camel
could not do that.  Yet it did.

 David Krentz

atrick Norton wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> >There is very little flexibility in the neck of most sauropods. In fact,
> many scientists believe that they were not good ground foragers. Instead,
> they were more accustomed to finding a particular patch of food, then feed
> in that one spot, because the vertebrate did not allow the neck much
> flexibility to move around.  Anyone have any addition thoughts?<
> The recently published works on sauropod necks are >really< interesting and
> have proven to be very inspiring in terms of speculation about the feeding
> behavior of these creatures. But I simply find it hard to accept, from a
> "gestalt" point of view, that the long necks of these animals had such
> limited range of motion.  I can't think of any modern vertebrate analog with
> more than 8 cervical vertebrae that have anywhere near the limited range of
> motion proposed by some for sauropods.  Has anyone applied the osteological
> methods used to evaluate sauropod neck mobility to the cervical vertebrae of
> modern long necked birds or even long necked mammals?  Every day I drive
> past a farm with a small flock of Emus and a small herd Alpacas--both of
> which are long neck species with necks that have at least a 270 degrees of
> motion in all planes.  As far as I can tell, sauropods would be unique among
> the archosaurs--and among vertebrates for that matter-- in having such a
> limited range of neck motion.  Perhaps speculation from fossilized cervical
> vertebrae is correct and they were limited in that fashion, but if they were
> I think the question is what advantage did that offer, rather than how they
> survived with that "limitation".