[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropod inferences
From: Stephan Pickering <firstname.lastname@example.org>
With all due courtesy, I wish to point out to you that your >statement "all
we really have at our disposal are fossils" is -- how >can I put it? -- not
quite on my wavelength. All we have are 9000+ >species of living
theropods... We also have quite fascinating work
(Craig Packer & team on lions, other workers on hyaenids & rhinos &
>vultures, Katy Payne on elephants, etc. etc.) on extant mammalian and
>avian herbivores and carnivores (with insectivores and frugivores in >the
mixture)...all giving the dinosaur scholar insights into analogous
I realize that. But you cannot apply any of these extant models without
first recognizing that dinosaurs have been dead for at least 65 million
years. As fun as it is to ponder over the parallels between dromaeosaur and
falcon behaviour or what have you, in the end, you've got to relate this to
BONES! That's science - dealing with what we've got. And as useful as the
imagination is, it can be hindering at times, too. As a paleoartist, I can
understand the fine ballance between science and fantasy. Give a little;
take a little. They can compliment one another if used wisely.
I have yet to see you give an example as to how you might relate these
behavioural models of yours to the data we have at hand. And when you do
finally get around to it, keep in mind that dinosaur behaviour was about as
varied as those behaviours we see in animals today. Your chances of pinning
them down are very slight indeed.
I believe it likely that behavioural systems are replicated
time-and-again throughout evolutionary history.
Why? What makes you believe that? What sort of behaviours are you talking
about? Give us an example using your ungulate/sauropod hypothesis.
I would also add something else: fossils of pre-K/T taxa are not >silent,
nor are extant ecomorphologies useless in stepping back in >time, as it
were; one can establish probabilities of behavioural >strategies (brooding,
hunting, predator-prey strategies, etc.)
using ongoing processes.
I agree. But this has to be done scientifically. Again, you have to
support these behaviours you're deducing using fossils.
I am not sure what you mean by "unscientific conjections [sic] and
"Conjectures"; my mistake. Take Jack Horner's babblings on tyrannosaurid
predation (or lack thereof), for example. There's no science behind them.
Contra those who would shirk it, the imagination is a valid exploratory
Not saying it isn't. But it's got to be used *carefully* and in context.
Undergraduate Student, Carleton University
Vertebrate Paleontology & Paleoecology
AIM: jslice mallon
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.