[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 <rtravsky@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Nick Pharris wrote:
> > Quoting Guy Leahy <xrciseguy@sbcglobal.net>:
> >>
> >> 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?
Mike Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com