[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ther[i]zinosaurs - beaked or padded?
I'm not sure what you mean by "in principle." In this case, a "pad"
(presumably a cornified pad) versus a keratinous rhamphotheca have
differentiable osteological/histological/superficial correlates in various
mammalian, avian, and crocodilian taxa, and are contiguous across most of these
taxa. This allows us to extrapolate data on how to determine the nature, form,
and extent of any tissue covering for the snouts of therizinosauroids,
ornithomimosaurs or (my faves, of course) oviraptorosaurs. But the point here
is that in principle, the suggestion would require a detailed analysis to
answer, and so simply saying "yes" would be enormously gun-jumping.
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:52:09 +0100
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Ther[i]zinosaurs - beaked or padded?
> > I'm watching _Prehistoric Monsters Revealed_ and the artist
> > reconstructing _Ther[i]zinosaurus_ [...] says that it is believed
> > that because there are no teeth in the front that paleontologists
> > believe _Ther[i]zinosaur[u[s_ had a beak.
> > Could _Ther[i]zinosaur[u]s_ have had a pad inside the mouth like camels
> > and llamas do?
> In principle, yes, but the skull of *Therizinosaurus* is unknown, and
> *Erlikosaurus* had an ordinary beak like *Iguanodon*. That's not what
> artiodactyl skulls look like.