[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: More on the baby Triceratops
On 3/8/06, Richard W. Travsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Nick Pharris wrote:
> > Quoting Guy Leahy <email@example.com>:
> >> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/06_triceratops.shtml
> > Interesting that the baby, at a year old, is still very much in the "cute"
> > stage. Does this suggest fairly protracted parental attention? What say
> > ye?
> I also wonder how small they were at birth.
> Even at 1 year old there's no way their tiny legs could've kept up with
> adults; that implies, I think, some degree of parental attention.
Not really--who says marginocephalians cared for their post-hatchling
young at all? (Okay, phylogenetic bracketing does--but that's it,
TMK.) Young ones could have lived in independent creches--who knows?
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com