[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaurs Breathed Like Birds
> This is so often stated that it was Bakker who
> introduced, or reintroduced, the concept that
> Dinosaurs were not sluggish, slow, dim-witted,
> lumbering beasts but were actually active and social.
> He may have brought this mode of thinking to a wider
> audience but who here ever actually thought of
> dinosaurs as slow and sluggish creatures? I probably
> read such things in my early dinosaur books too (slow
> and stupid) but I never considered them to be anything
> less than full on action oritented creatures. Did
> anyone ever pit their Marx T-Rex and Brontosaurus in a
> slow motion battle? Where the only reason Brontosaurus
> lost was because he started eating bolders and sand
> because he was so dumb? Was there ever movies made
> where the dinosaurs meandered slowly and unmenacingly
> accross the screen? No matter how many times we were
> told about how dumb the Stegosaurus was because of its
> walnut brain did we every start really thinking it was
> a the chowder head of the Jurassic? I tend to think
> I take nothing away from Bakker, Well, with the
> exception of suggesting the worst name in Dinosaur
> Nomenclature; Ut@hRaptor.
> Andrew Simpson
Dear Andrew and List,
Hey!! I just so happen to like the Name Utahraptor. My only beef was
half of it's species name, Ostrommaysoum, is in honor of the president of
the now defunct Dinomation.Of course the flip side is that the first part of
it's species name honors John Ostrom.
Lives in Eastern Utah, 50 miles from the Yellow Cat Quarrie, Cliff
> --- "T. Michael Keesey" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On 7/15/05, Tyler Kerr <email@example.com>
> > wrote:
> > > That's really interesting. I just finished
> > reading Raptor Red by Dr.
> > > Robert "Jurassic Bob" Bakker, and he suggests the
> > theory that dinosaurs
> > > breathed like birds at least as early as '95. I
> > say it's interesting because
> > > his other "radical" ideas proved to hold water,
> > such as the idea that
> > > dinosaurs were complex social creatures (which has
> > pretty much become the
> > > norm). Bakker is, in my humble opinion, a legend.
> > Much of the book holds up pretty well. It's worth
> > noting, though, that
> > some of his heresies do remain heresies:
> > - Viviparous sauropods: pretty much disproven by
> > sauropod eggs,
> > including the spectacular Auca Mahuevo titanosaurs
> > - K/T Extinction caused by lowered sea levels +
> > plague: not widely held
> > - Dinosauria should be a Class: he had a point, but
> > a better one is
> > that the term "Class" is meaningless; the increased
> > adoption of
> > phylogenetic taxonomy has rendered this discussion
> > moot
> > - Phytodinosauria: most workers consider this
> > paraphyletic; his
> > ornithischian classification is a bit strange, too,
> > but ornithischian
> > phylogeny has not been as well-studied as, say,
> > theropod phylogeny, so
> > who knows?
> > Of course, these account for only two or three
> > chapters out of 22.
> > Even if I missed a couple, that's still quite good.
> > --Mike Keesey
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around