[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Archaeopteryx age-related taphonomy
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: Archaeopteryx age-related taphonomy
- From: evelyn sobielski <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:18:07 +0100 (BST)
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport1.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <41DC1A670E674C41BAFA67C6C901C6C7@TYRANT>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
> This is unusual from an avian (sensu strictu = Neornithes)
> point of view, but not for a general dinosaurian point of
> view. The vast
> majority of dinosaur fossils are from subadults, not fully
> adult individuals.
> If, as previous work indicates, the modern avian growth
> mode (where fully body sized is achieved in <1 yr) did
> not evolve until deep
> within Avialae, then there is no unusual phenomenon to
> explain. It is simply the general dinosaurian growth pattern
> at work.
Certainly. I think a "saurian" mode of growth is null hypothesis for Archie and
perhaps 2as good as proven".
What puzzles me is that there is no known Archie hatchling, and that there is
only one juvie (there are 2 late subadults and there are many mid-late
subadults). Is this commmon?