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

Archaeopteryx, Othnielia & pachycephalosaurs

Dann Pigdon wrote about _Archaeopteryx_:

> Maybe one of the reasons why archaes were fossilised DEAD in marine
> limestone is that, away from stands of trees, they weren't capable of
> long flights across open water (and were poor swimmers)
> To be fossilised in a certain area, you need to die there first. Just
> because something turns up dead somewhere doesn't mean that it also
> lived there. The reason it died where it did may be because it found
> itself in a situation where it was at a distinct disadvantage.

But the most likely is that the _Archaeopteryx_ lived in this quite arid
area. It's possible that the _Archaeopteryx_ were killed by a storm, who
Maybe I should have been clearer: it seems that real forests were far from
the area:
I couldn't imagine a poor flier like Archie flying from a forest which is
more than 100km from there. Maybe Archie lived also in those forests, but
there's no evidence for it. It's the main problem I had with the
Naturwissenschaften paper.


I wrote about _Othnielia_:
> The specimen nicknamed "Barbara", from the Aathal Museum in
> Switzerland, also has a skull, but it's crushed and partially

Here's a photo of this specimen:


Quote from Mary Kirkaldy's link:
>> Goodwin has been vocal in debunking theories that pachycephalosaurs
butted heads. He has said their domed heads were not structurally adequate
for such activities and paleontologists would have found evidence of such
skull injury in the fossils. <<

Ah?? So, what was the advantage of having such a thick skull? What could it
have been used for? Wasn't it quite costly in energy to grow such thick
bones? Does everybody agree with this statement?

Cheers - Aspidel.