[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Nonindependence of tooth characters in mammals (at least!)
K and T Dykes wrote:
> <<I am drinking in the irony. How many times have mammologists, both extant
> and extinct, remarked that their teeth, their beautiful breeding teeth, were
> the essence of mammal evolution?>>
> Probably less often than when they've said: 'I wish I could find more of the
> critter than only the bloody teeth'. If teeth are all that's available,
> it's difficult to study the rest of the anatomy.
This is very true of the Australian mammal material. The Flat Rocks site
now has over 30 specimens, all either teeth, lower jaws, or toothless
lower jaws. In fact, I wonder what implications this paper has for the
recent Multituberculate-like tooth found during this years Flat Rocks
season? Or the whole placental-monotreme debate for Ausktribosphenids.
A 2004 Flat Rocks report will be coming soon...
GIS / Archaeologist http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia http://heretichides.ravencommunity.net/