[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Horner's Pachy Lumpin' - Your Thoughts?
Don Ohmes <email@example.com> wrote:
> Stressing I have NO opinion re lumping/splitting, etc, I do
> not find horn size reducing w/ age, or even disappearing
> entirely, to be particularly "counter-intuitive".
I agree. "Counter-intuitive" is in the eye of the beholder. After all, WHO's
intuition are we talking about?
This entire issue reminds me of another of Horner's ideas: that _Tyrannosaurus_
was exclusively a scavenger. This idea certainly had its time in the sun.
However, plenty of people regarded this hypothesis as just plain silly. It was
silly; but that's never killed an hypothesis yet. What doomed the
"T-rex-was-only-a-scavenger" hypothesis was biomechanical and anatomical
studies (especially on the jaws and forelimbs of _Tyrannosaurus_), and fossils
that revealed healed wounds on the bones of herbivorous dinosaurs that are
inferred to have been inflicted by _Tyrannosaurus_ (i.e., the victim was alive
before and after it was bit).
Hypotheses survive or fall because they are exposed to further testing. To hark
back to the Origin-of-Birds 'debate', a great many unorthodox (I'm being nice
here) ideas have come from Feduccia and other members of the BAND camp. But
those other studies that have pointedly refuted (with data) the claims of
Feduccia etc have actually strengthened the birds-are-dinosaurs hypothesis in
the long run.