Not horrified, surprised.
O. Sensu stricto.
Could you explain? Haven't read Parsons et al..
I thought you want to do dinosaurology onlist, rather than an ethnography of it?
In many species, especially predatory ones AFAIK, the females are considerably larger.
A violation of actualism. OK, the present isn't the key to the past, the past is the key to the present and to the future, but please explain.
Again, please explain or tell us which paper we're supposed to wait for.
The calorie is the outdated unit of energy, why "and"?
Fruits and seeds are better than leaves in this respect, but we can safely assume that big herbivores would never find enough of them and therefore eat leaves/needles (or grass which didn't exist).
So that's the ecological term for patriotism? :-) If so, that's wrong when the foliage "migrates". In the Serengeti all big herbivores AFAIK are not in the least territorial because they have to follow the rain all the time. There's no way all known dinosaurs, or all ceratopsians and theropods, could have been territorial (some certainly were).
But not necessarily equipped with more display structures. In birds of prey today the females are larger and stronger, possibly for this reason (avoiding intraspecific competition is another). In crocodiles, they are not. In lots of mammals the males are much bigger.