[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Oviraptorids as Parrots?
There are some articles that deal with bite force in feeding in birds,
which might be interesting in the view of this discussion. They are:
Sander W. S. Gussekloo and Ron G. Bout Cranial kinesis in palaeognathous birds
J. Exp. Biol. 2005 208: 3409-3419.
Sander W. S. Gussekloo and Ron G. Bout The kinematics of feeding and
drinking in palaeognathous birds in relation to cranial morphology
J. Exp. Biol. 2005 208: 3395-3407.
M. A. A. van der Meij and R. G. Bout Scaling of jaw muscle size and
maximal bite force in finches
J. Exp. Biol. 2004 207: 2745-2753.
Furthermore, it is hypothesized (Zweers et al) that the most primitive
form of feeding in birds was a so-called 'catch-and-throw' method, in
which a food item is grabbed and thrown into the air to be
subsequently swallowed. Maybe a similar method existed in advanced
theropods such as oviraptors?
all the best, Hanneke
On 2/2/06, Jaime A. Headden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Y'know, I was kinda enjoying the sauropod biomechanics topic since it seems
> to have generated the most proactive discussion yet in this forum's history,
> my estimate, with such esteemed commentaries from practical research on the
> parts of Kent, GSP, and Scott. So when another biomech discussion rears its
> "ugly" head, one must focus once again. Or at least, myself.
> ... my pretties ...
> There are a good deal of similarities between the construction of the
> oviraptorid skull and that of parrots. This wasn't obvious from the view point
> of Granger when he discovered the holotype of *Oviraptor philoceratops* in the
> sandstone below the cliffs of Bayan Zag. It wasn't obvious when Osborn had it
> partially prepared and sent a note to _Natural History_ on the discoveries led
> by the crew of Roy C. Andrews into central Asia in 1922 and 1923, and he
> it "Fenestrosaurus" as he seemed to note the light and airy structure of the
> skull with its large fenestrae. Afterward, Osborn would simply note its
> proximity to a nest of eggs, saw it was edentulous, and christened the animal
> for all posterity *Oviraptor philoceratops*, the egg thief, fond of
> ceratopsians. Most important of Osborn's features was a bony prong sticking
> down from inside the medial jaw, perfectly suited to puncturing eggs.
> New research on the jaw anatomy would have to wait another 50 years, when
> Barsbold began his research on fossils found in the 60's and 70's during the
> occupation of Mongolia by Russia. He performed a short-form analysis on the
> skull of one specimen and generalized form of an oviraptorid in 1977, and
> that the jaws seemed perfectly designed for the crushing of objects in the
> mouth; Barsbold would claim, however, that the preferred food would have been
> shelled animals, bivalves (mollusks) and ostracods (clam-imitating
> crustaceans), because the jaws seemed overly built for such delicate things as
> eggs. Indeed, two prongs in the top of the jaw, inset from the sides and
> from the maxillary bones where they fold beneath the vomer (which subsequent
> researchers would continue to refer to as "teeth"). The problem, as shown even
> later by David Smith, was that what Osborn had pointed to as prongs in the
> holotype of *O. philoceratops* were in fact ectopterygoids. Be it so, Osborn
> would be borne out for identifying at least an animal suited to crushing
> shelled food. Barbsold would later add to the collection of oviraptorids (and
> the name, Oviraptoridae) by describing new species of oviraptorid, including
> "Ingenia" (preoccupied) and *Conchoraptor*. The latter taxon would be a nearly
> double entendre to Barsbold's hypothesis, perhaps not intended, for these
> "conch"-eaters. The word used, konkge, means "seashell", deriving from a Latin
> word of the same meaning. Prescient? Who knows.
> In the early 90's, however, the old myth of the egg-terrorizing oviraptor
> would come face to face with ugly truth. Dong and Currie would publish on a
> find from Bayan Mandahu in Inner Mongolia, China, of a partial oviraptorid on
> top of a collection of paired eggs; the poster of the arm was wrapped backward
> around a folded leg atop what appeared to be undisturbed eggs, and prompted
> them to propose the find of the first known oviraptorid nest. Meanwhile,
> and associates uncovered a bevy of fossils from Ukhaa Tolgod, hundreds of
> west of Bayan Zag but largely the same age, which would allow them to argue
> eggs it was caught stealing were its own. The primary find was that of a
> delicate embryo of an oviraptorid on a half-shell, the same shell Granger had
> found nearby a clutching oviraptorid, and which Dong and Currie found beneath
> partial skeleton. This would catalyze them to nickname a specimen later
> referred to *Citipati* as "Big Momma". The eggs had come home, and with it a
> challenge to Osborn's hypothesis, and perhaps a revival of Barsbold's.
> Along with the embryo, two tiny skulls Mickey previously mentioned of "baby"
> *Byronosaurus* (originally thought to be dromaeosaurids before an adult skull
> of *Byrosaurus* was recovered) were associated, and these were considered to
> pertain to food brought by the nesting parent to feed soon-to-hatch babies. It
> is also possible these animals were present to feed on the unhatched
> oviraptorids, as it is also possible that a mother troodontid have brought
> them. However, this is all speculative and associative.
> Barsbold attempted to glean the diet direct from the horse's -- err,
> _oviraptorid's_ -- mouth, but several qualities had not been quantified and
> studies would tell us what the possible abilities of the snout would be. One
> major issue that thwarts published data from comaparing the skulls is that we
> do not yet know the forces the skull could withstand; work such as Rayfield
> others are performing on skull after skull has not reached this group yet.
> However, following Barsbold, we know that oviraptorids skulls, like turtles
> unlike parrots, tend to the akinetic, without mobile snouts or palatal
> elements. Some features are similar: a ventrally enlarged, deflected palatal
> process and pterygoideus anchor, as in crocodylians; the snout is greatly
> enlarged relative to skull size, and the skull is hypershortened (extremely
> brevirostrine, in croc-terms); the skull retains large open spaces in the
> and the cranial framework tends to shape as a box, rather than the psittacine
> typically avian cranium, or the "plank-like", broad snouts of living
> crocodylids and alligatorids, built to distribute forces acting on one side
> across the snout, and from the front to the back, thus minimalizing stresses
> throughout the skull and limiting torsion.
> Sam Koning mentions some behaviors of parrots in frugivorous feeding, that
> parrots will use their beak to cut open a fruit's husk to get at the pulp.
> However, while it is possible the oviraptorid snout is similar, we should
> consider than parrots are a bit odd when it comes to birds, even though that
> feed on fruits such as toucans: parrots, for their size, have the largest
> of almost any bird, and this seems to serve as a functional "third leg" (no
> jokes please!) for birds that clambor around thin branches and twigs for
> inaccessible fruits otyher birds cannot get, or for getting those difficult
> dangling fruits by suspending themselves and using the head to gain leverage.
> Parrot feeding is fascinating to watch, and aided by that magnificent rostrum,
> of which the prokinetic hinge is important, while one foot is often raised to
> rotate the fruit for easy manipulation and processing. This is an exceptional
> adaptation, and it would seem that relatively small headed oviraptorids are
> similar, but they do in fact lack that typical parrot-like rostrum, and it is
> unlikely that fruits were their preferred foods, as these do not tend to be
> ample foods on the ground, since parrots (for most of the African ones at
> least) are cliff or canopy dwellers who feed in the regions of fruit abundance
> -- in trees.
> Yet, even so, most parrots feed by placing the hard food between platforms
> formed from keratin of the jaws and crushing the nut or hard fruit until they
> can release the germ or pulp. This behavior is performed by various other
> durophagous animals, suited to crushing with their jaws, from aardwolves to
> various (but by no means all) turtles [especially the ocean-going variety] to
> walruses (though I admit in the latter it has not been so observed as much as
> inferred given that walruses suck in shellfood, then spit the undigested shell
> back out). To look at the commonality among durophagous animals is the best
> to observe the possible use of the jaws in the similarly adapted oviraptorids.
> This is the focus of most of my research, so you will excuse me for being
> in my conclusions. What I have described above has been largely historical and
> drawing in the major modern analogues that I would encourage anyone curious
> about the subject to consider.
> Especially important, I think, for researchers to consider if they wish to
> elaborate on this is to investigate various animals suited to eating
> hard-shelled food and do it successfully THROUGH the shell (that's right, the
> occassional lucky lion or baboon who kills a turtle doesn't count, nor I think
> do those vultures that like to drop them from on high or sea otters to crack
> shellfood against stones).
> Jaime A. Headden
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
The first issue of 2006 is now online!
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to whom or which it is addressed. Unauthorised use, disclosure or
copying is strictly prohibited. The sender accepts no liability for
the proper transmission of this communication nor for any delay in its
No responsibility is assumed by the PalArch Foundation (Stichting
PalArch) for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a
matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use
of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained
in the material herein. The foundation cannot be held responsible for
any damage to the product due to package, transport or otherwise.