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

Re: Lack of Running Giant Theropod Tracks



On 11/29/2010 8:43 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:

>  Why would a super-powerful, long-legged, high-buoyancy animal with a body
>  ideally shaped for moving through soft ground and dense vegetation avoid a
>  swamp? Especially when they were in need of a place where the giant bipeds
>  could not go?

Perhaps because they had the most compact feet of any animals bar cattle?

What? Do you think they needed webbed feet to navigate a swamp?

Or because the cross-sectional shape of their torsos was optimised for
terrestrial rather than aquatic locomotion?

How does "swamp" = "aquatic locomotion"? Elephants love swamps. No webbed feet there. What you mention is evidence they did not live in swamps 100% of the time. So?

Or because the adaptations that you consider beneficial for bouayancy
are best interpreted as lightening the body for a terrestrial
lifestyle?

They had to maintain terrestrial competency to nest, forage and periodically travel to greener pastures.

Or maybe everyone just assumes that sauropods were terrestrial because
sauropod fossils have been overwhelmingly found in seasonally dry
environments?

So? What, I am terrestrial, I can never go in swamps? Like elephants -- they NEVER go in swamps, they do not have webbed feet. Everything that utilizes swamp as refuge and source of browse has webbed feet. Apparently. End sarcasm, briefly...

How in the hell would an animal that size build a nest in a swamp? So it would require at least seasonally dry ground, right? Or have un-compact feet? Unless they just never went on dry ground?

None of that you mention gives us any logical indication whatsoever that they avoided swamps, soft ground or even marine estuaries...