[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Dinosaur Planet, parts 3 & 4
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Ken Carpenter
> Since Tom raises this issue:
> "There is now a cliche of the "hordes of newly hatched sauropods
> running for saftey in the trees" sequence, for which there is NO
> positive evidence. Simplest assumption by phylogeny: sauropod
> parents stayed near their own
> young through hatching into the first few weeks of life."
> I would take strong exception to this, noting that the "evidence"
> for parental care in the Dinosauria (even Jack's Maiasaura) is
> very weak and based mostly on inferences and assumptions.
That's why I said "simplest assumption by phylogeny". Additionally, as
mentioned, I pointed out that the phylogenetic inference would be only
during the first few weeks of life (as in crocodilians): after that, they
might well have been on their own.
> evidence there is indicates that the smallest footprints in track
> sites are half- or more adult size. There are NO baby tracks with adults.
But this might also be taphonomic, as a baby sauropod wouldn't be expected
to make a footprint except in soft sediment. So unless the same tracksites
also preserve the footprints of non-sauropods of the same expected body size
as baby sauropods as well as the half-grown and larger ones, the possibility
remains that the absence is preservational.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796