[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, Ken.Carpenter@dmns.org <Ken.Carpenter@dmns.org> wrote:
> But phyletic bracketing also includes the bowler bird, which does not
> have parental care after hatching.
Is that a megapodiid?
As I understand it, that just illustrates that parental care can be
lost, but isn't relative to the PB in this case. Off the top of my
head, outgroups to _Triceratops_ for which the state is known are
_Psittacosaurus_ (present; I completely forgot about this when writing
my earlier post), then _Maiasaura_ (present), then _Aves_/_Neornithes_
(present, lost in megapodiid galliforms), then _Crocodylia_ (present).
Of course, I don't know how you could ever prove that a fossil animal
*didn't* care for its young, so that could mess with the bracket,
since it can only show positives for fossil taxa. There is that
possible creche of young ankylosaurs (can't recall which species at
the moment), but, IIRC, they weren't all that young, and, anyway,
there could have been a guardian adult nearby who survived or
otherwise was not preserved--who knows?
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com