[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Theropod stance balance
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:27:10 -0700 (PDT) don ohmes <email@example.com>
> 1. I think they had lots of time to get as big as they
> could. Experimental evidence indicates that
> evolutionary changes in morphology can happen fairly
> quickly when measured in generations.
I'm not claiming that there was an *evolutionary* reason for a
carnivorous dinosaur to get bigger than T. rex. I'm saying that,
biophysiologically, there is nothing constraining bipedal carnivorous
dinosaurs to a maximum mass of a T. rex (or of Giganontosaurus, for those
who think it was even bigger).
> 2. The morphological refinements you mention indicate
> a strong selective pressure for the re-allocation of
> mass. I take this to mean that if Sue got bigger, the
> mass re-allocation would need to continue. If Sue got
> bigger, could she significantly increase bone
> pneumaticization or neck recurve?
Using ostriches as a comparison, then yes. IMHO, Tyrannosaurs had a long
way to go to evolve maximum movement/mass efficiency.
> I'm just guessing,
> but her arms look so small they could be removed
> entirely without affecting the center of mass. What
> are the other morphological options here?
Achieving a secure hold during mating is the only reason that I can think
of for retaining any arms at all in a T. rex. [were we all so blessed to
have a secure hold in our mating habits].
> 3. <<"Or possibly like ostriches get up after having
> fallen (anyone know how
> ostriches recover from a fall?).">>
> Thats a great idea! I second the question. Anyone out
> there happen to know?
> 4. << "3) then simply stand up." >>
> LOL, you are obviously young and spry.
Hey dude. I will die young, psychologically at least.
Spry? My spryness ended roughly at the end of the Clinton