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

Re: Dinosaurian biology and sexual selection

Slight error from me too

Padian and Horner (2010b) is a reply to Knell and Sampson (2010) which itself 
was comment on Padian and Horner (2010a).

Denver Fowler

----- Original Message ----
From: Brian Switek <evogeek@gmail.com>
To: df9465@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Fri, 29 October, 2010 11:01:32
Subject: Re: Dinosaurian biology and sexual selection

D'oh. Read that wrong. Saw the same authors and didn't fully check the
ref. Need more coffee...

Thanks for the catch, Denver

- Brian

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> n Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:45 AM,  <bh480@scn.org> wrote:
>> From: Ben Creisler
>> bh480@scn.org
>> In case this new paper has not been mentioned yet:
>>> K. Padian & J. R. Horner (2010)
>>> The definition of sexual selection and its implications
>>> for dinosaurian biology.
>>> Journal of Zoology (advance online publication)
>>It is also worth noting that Knell and Sampson have written a reply to
>>that paper in the same journal:
> No. The Knell and Sampson rebuttal is to:
> Padian, K. & Horner, J. (2010a). The evolution of ââbizarre structuresââ in
> dinosaurs: biomechanics,
> sexual selection, social selection, or species recognition? J. Zool. 283
> (Online DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00719.x.)
> The upcoming Padian/Horner (2010b) paper on sexual selection points out the
> differences between sexual slelection as originally defined, and its current
> usage, and how this changes the way we interpret dinosaurs.
> It's interesting that Knell and Sampson do not use the new term presented by
> Padian and Horner (2010a): "social signaling". Instead they use the old term
> "species recognition", which I agree has some inherent interpretation 
> The reply also makes some interesting diversions from the usual
ampson et al.
> The social signaling hypothesis actually makes a lot of sense, but I think you
> really have to use a high-resolution record to test it. You also need more up 
> date phylogeny, and an understanding of when cladogenesis actually happens, 
> the potential roles of phylogenetic inertia.
> It is not made clear why, if these structures are for sexual display, in
> ceratopsids they change so significantly through ontogeny: surely they would
> just start out with small horns, then get bigger (more like hadrosaurs). Why
> change the orientation? downsize/resorption? none of this is accounted for by
> the sexual selection only hypothesis.
>  ----------------------------------
> Denver
> ----------------------

Written in Stone - Coming November 1, 2010