[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Tyrannosaur vision
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Phil Bigelow
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:27:43 -0400 Jordan Mallon
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On 8/22/05, Phil Bigelow <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > But this all assumes that T. rex did not have any fleshy
> > adornments on
> > > its snout. Keep in mind that the nasals on T. rex are quite
> > rugose.
> > > Bone rugosity probably does not evolve without a function.
> > The tests were run on fleshed-out models, with all the rugosities
> > restored.
> Soft tissue structure is conjectural, of course.
> Curious, what type (and height) of soft tissue structure did the model
> have over its nasal bones?
Ummm... Perhaps when I posted before, I was being a bit too subtle. Let me
rephrase by saying, hypothetically of course, that one
might not have to wait too long to see such a paper if it had already gone
through peer review...
On a totally unrelated note (yeah, right), you can find the following reference:
Stevens, Kent A. (in second review) Binocular vision in theropod dinosaurs.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, resubmitted after
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
Building 237, Room 1117
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796