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

Re: More on the Massospondylus embryos

--- David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jura" <pristichampsus@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 4:15 AM
> >> "These animals do not have any teeth, and since
> they
> >> are ready to hatch, that is strange," said Robert
> >> Reisz of the University of Toronto at Mississauga
> in
> >> Canada, who led the study.
> >>
> >> "The only explanation for that is they must have
> >> been fed by the mother. That would be oldest
> >> evidence of parental care in the fossil record,"
> >> Reisz added in a telephone interview.
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Or that the young ate different material from the
> > adults. Parental care is not the only answer.
> What could they eat if they really had no teeth at
> all? (There's no evidence 
> for a beak in *Massospondylus*, contrary to earlier
> hypotheses.) 


Insects are what first came to mind for me. They're
small, numerous and easily swallowable for large
enough animals. Furthermore, they don't actually
require teeth, or beaks, to be eaten (see toads as an

Alternatively, one could posit that the teeth came in
later, and that the young just lived off their yolk
until then. Personally, I don't really see that as
being very viable. Extant animals that rely on their
yolk sacs for nourishment in the first couple of days
of life, still have functional teeth in place.

Anyway, just a thought.


"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types 
than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around