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

Re: Did Osborn Goof? [was Re: Dinosaur FAQ #8]

I would agree that oviraptor jaws do look like they were good for crushing something, but just what we don't know---eggs, crustaceans, clams, small turtles, the necks of other reptiles, seed pods, bones. Could be a lot of different things, so I would still advise some statement that oviraptors "might" have been misnamed and that we don't know that they ate eggs at all. They could have eaten a combination of the such things, just as Tyrannosaurus could have been both hunter and scavenger.
But I do agree that the pendulum has swung a little too far the other way, since there were other dinosaurs which probably cared for their young as carefully if not more so, and I would much rather "pet" the head of an ornithischian than of any theropod (with or without teeth).
------Ken :-)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
CC: kinman@hotmail.com
Subject: Did Osborn Goof? [was Re: Dinosaur FAQ #8]
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:15:58 -0800 (PST)

Ken Kinman (kinman@hotmail.com) wrote:

<...and (2) that oviraptors might have been misnamed, and that
the eggs they were thought to be "stealing" were probably really
their own (at least that's how I understand it).>

  Hmm. Noone's found an oviraptorosaur with an egg in its jaws.
Even so, one can surmise (as I have) that the jaws are built for
crushing something, be it clam- or egg-shell. In fact, as Osborn
(1924) originally suggested [and it was a suggestion] and
further discussed by Barsbold (1977) then refuted by Smith
(1992) [but not sufficiently, in my opinion] the jaws are very
decidedly built for crushing, and the only thing available that
would fit the jaws were eggs or clams. This gives us (as
Barsbold, 1977, suggests) very few possibilities for a diet.
What the AMNH team had done in 1996 was show that the eggs that
oviraptorids were featured as eating were its own. They came to
the conclusion (permissible) that they [oviraptorids] were not
real egg-eaters, but egg-"nurses" (to use Guerney's coinage --
sorry, Brian).

  This does not, however, contradict the morphology of the jaws,
so that, unlike the recent trend in treating oviraptorids as
such friendly, non-devlish "mothers." Yeah, to their own babies,
maybe.... It's not inconceivable that oviraptorids did not prey
on other species' eggs, such as birds, varanids, or even other
contemporary theropods or ornithischians (*Protoceratops,*
*Bagaceratops,* *Breviceratops,* *Pinacosaurus,* *Velociraptor,*
*Byronosaurus,* the Ukhaa Tolgod "dromaeosaurine" and
ornithomimid come to mind), or on other oviraptorids' (there
were more than one species in the Djadokhta or the Barun Goyot,
and probably more than one in the Nemegt).... And that's to say
nothing of caenagnathids, the diets of which have _never_ been
suggested except from the position of Currie et al., 1994, to
relate the environment of *Caenagnathasia* as being restrictive
in diet (however far you want to take a coastal wetland parallel
for the Bissekty that Nessov has).

  So finally, oviraptorids probably did eat eggs.

  PS:  This is not anything against Ken, I just felt that what
  has been misconstrued since 1996 (egg-nurses vs. egg-eaters)
  really needs to be confronted scientifically.

Jaime A. Headden

  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com