[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: More on the baby Triceratops



On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 09:18:31AM -0700, Richard W. Travsky scripsit:
> 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.

Pretty teeny; couple of pounds at most.  Eggs have gas exchange size
limits.

> 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 at all.

The adults pretty much _had_ to move; especially if the herding
behaviour was general, the food density to support them isn't there
unless they move, especially year-round.

If the young couldn't keep up, and didn't grow enough to keep up in a
year, never mind one growing season, they weren't brought along when the
herds migrated.

Which implies that the young more or less had to have had a very
different ecological niche, and to have fended for themselves before
growing enough to join a herd.