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

Re: Hadrosaurs etc



>Troodont teeth are still more numerous there, aren't they?<
I didn't find any, but that doesn't mean that no one else found one. I do
remember walking by another tyrannosaurid tooth, and thinking it was a leaf.
My friend did the same thing. Then the lady behind her said, "Hey! Look at
that tooth!" We felt like dopes. Not really relevant, but I think its funny.

>Right, but Lancian hadrosaurs didn't fit that description, nor mid
Maastrichtian ones.<
They did to _their_ predators.

>Sometimes locating an abstract is like finding a needle in a haystack but
IIRC the author was T. Ford.<
Originally titanosaur armour (IIRC) was thought to be ankylosaur armour,
until someone demonstrated otherwise. Could this be the reverse of this? If
not, and if HP Ford is really the author (and its been fully published, of
course), perhaps he could comment.

>Some of the well inland environments e.g. Javelina, were clearly titanosaur
dominated. Some hadrosaurs were present but not necessarily the same types
as in the lowlands.<
So they would be lambeosaurs then, if they weren't the lowland forms (as
you've been saying lowland=hadrosaurid, uplands=lambeosaurs). In the North
Horn, we had primarily titanosaurs and ceratopsians, but hadrosaurs were
present for sure, and we had a TON of eggshell that closely matched what is
known about hadrosaur eggshell (IIRC), along with theropod eggshell.

>Perhaps both of you are.<
Perhaps you should e-mail Dr. Erickson with your ankylosaur data. Maybe he
can comment better.

>Hadrosaurs obviously faced a new predator; why are famine and disease as
testable?<
Because the point I was making is that your hypothesis ISN'T testable. We
can't test Tyrannosaurus sweeping like a Mongolian horde into the lowlands,
we can't test is preferentially eating lambeosaurs, we can't test most/all
of your statements/hypothesis, as others such as HPHoltz and HP Williams
have pointed out (or at least tried to). Science isn't about dogmatic
beliefs, science is about testable hypothesis, and your statements to this
point have been mostly counter to that. I asked the question: "What evidence
would you need to disprove your ideas?" Every paleontologist should be able
to ask themselves this, because its _testing_ their hypothesis. If you're
unable to do this, I think it falls into (entrenched, in this case) opinion,
and not science, and therefore does not belong on this list. I motion this
thread be closed.
Peace,
Rob

Student of Geology
400 E. McConnell Drive #11
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Az. 86001
http://dinodomain.com
http://www.cafepress.com/robsdinos
AIM: TarryAGoat