[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Triebold pachy (any pubs?)
Since I don't have access to the article of Dr. Kenneth Carpenter, I
was wondering, what the reasons where for him to dismiss the whole
head-butting idea and on which pachy did he base his conclusions?
Tracy Ford wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> NICK SNELS
> Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 3:45 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Triebold pachy (any pubs?)
> It is the first time that one has found material from the neck. Both
> the atlas and axis are present and three other cervicals, including
> the last one. Attached to the last cervical is a string of three
> dorsals with wedge shaped centra. As a result the neck is nearly
> perpendicular to the back, which apparently wouldn't have the
> animals permitted to butt heads. The cervicals apparently weren't as
> solid as one would expect from an animal which would have used his
> head as a battering ram. One has always portrayed pachy's with a
> solid, rather robust neck, so that it would be adapted to their life
> No, I don't think so. The battering ram theory has been, IMHO, shown
> incorrect (Yea, I hear ya Ralph). Carpenter wrote an article on this not so
> long ago, and I agree with him.
> Carpenter, Kenneth, 1997. Agonistic behavior in pachycephalosaurs
> (Ornithischia: Dinosauria): a new look at head-butting behavior.
> Contributions to Geology, Univeristy of Wyoming, Volume 32, Number 1: 19-25.
> I've written about this in an article for Prehistoric Times also.