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

Re: Sauroparental care

Peter Markmann (zone65@bigpond.com) wrote:

<Why is it always necessary to seek modern-day analogs to dinosaurs? What
do armadillos and moles - or wombats and aardvarks for that matter - have
the slightest in common with sauropds? Why must dinosaurs conform to what
you know about extant mammals, or even reptiles? Yes, we can "look at"
modern vertebrate morphology and behaviour, but they're not the yardstick
you're making them out to be. Are you sure *you're* looking at the whole
animal here?>

  Not to repeat what Ken wrote in response to this, but without the modern
world, we have limited to no means of comprehending the past. The
functional anatomy of organisms requires a behavior to be utilized, and
when we have but the structure, we must seek a use, or function for it.
Ken's point (experienced from decades of professional biological and
paleontological experience not limited to reading) about digging
adaptations, including the features of moles, is based on the work
(largely involving Szalay) providing a synthesis of anatomy used by
digging animals, even those only mildly suited to digging, and the
features he noted are all true, and should be expected for digging
adaptations. Such that when a peculiar feature is found in the fossil
record, we seek the living or Recent record to explain it in the best
possible way. This is the short answer.

  Let's also keep the personal remarks down.

Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.