[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Hadrosaurs etc
From: "Rob Gay" <email@example.com>
To: "Dinosaur Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Hadrosaurs etc
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 08:59:33 -0700
>Troodont teeth are still more numerous there
I didn't find any, but that doesn't mean that no one else found one.
Of course they've been found in association with hadrosaur nests.
>Right, but Lancian hadrosaurs didn't fit that description, nor mid
They did to _their_ predators.
They were not overwhelmingly big in relation to their predators, but
only of comparable size and unarmed.
>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
dominated. Some hadrosaurs were present but not necessarily the same types
as in the lowlands.<
So they would be lambeosaurs then
Some evidence suggests otherwise. Lehman identified Naashoibito remains
as hadrosaurid; the same is true of Javelina hadrosaur material AFAIK.
In the North
Horn, we had primarily titanosaurs and ceratopsians, but hadrosaurs were
present for sure,
But not identifiable to family AFAIK.
and we had a TON of eggshell that closely matched what is
known about hadrosaur eggshell (IIRC), along with theropod eggshell.
>Hadrosaurs obviously faced a new predator; why are famine and disease as
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,
This scenario is testable-if a close relative of Tyrannosaurus is found
in the Horseshoe Canyon, it would be disproven.
we can't test is preferentially eating lambeosaurs
Possible. What if that plethora of North Horn hadrosaur material turns
out to be lambeosaurid? That would indicate that T. rex did not wipe them
out; their absence elsewhere would have to be due to some other factor.
science is about testable hypothesis. I asked the question: "What evidence
would you need to disprove your ideas?"
In theory, this could easily be falsified e.g. by the discovery of
Edmontonian-sized, adult ceratopsids or ankylosaurids in Lancian strata.
Every paleontologist should be able
to ask themselves this, because its _testing_ their hypothesis.
Student of Geology
400 E. McConnell Drive #11
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Az. 86001
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online