[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
Not a problem. I had originally meant to respond to Ronald Orenstein's original
question anyway. Hopefully this whole thing didn't come off sounding harsh.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 6:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Dinosaur Revolution Review
>> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:25:37 -0700
>> From: email@example.com
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
> I thank you for the hearty reply and explanation of the statement. Now I
> bad - my original reply had included a "i'm kidding" at the
> bottom, which I thought I had included when I did the copy&paste - sadly, I
> didn't check, I should have.
> and thank you again.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Anthony Docimo <email@example.com>
>> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 6:03 PM
>> > Subject: RE: Dinosaur Revolution Review
>> > two replies in one.
>> >> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:29:22 -0400
>> >> Subject: Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
>> >> Excuse my ignorance, but when was the evidence of parental care in
>> > hadrosaurs (which I thought was based on evidence that the young
> remained in the
>> > nest for some time?) refuted?
>> > No idea...maybe people realized it was anthromorphic to assume
> nonhumans care
>> > for their young?
>> Geist and Jones (1996) called into question the arguments for altriciality
> in hadrosaurs. The authors pointed out that Horner's evidence for
> altriciality (poor epiphyseal ossification) was more likely to be a
> artifact than an ontogenetic status. They compared altricial and precocial
> and did not find any difference in epip
seal ossification between taxa. Rather,
> the authors found a difference in ossification of the pelvic girdle between
> these two neonatal types. Using this new criteria the authors went back and
> at _Maiasaura_ and _Orodromeus_ nestlings and found that their pelvic
> development was more similar to precocial birds and crocodylians than to
> altricial passerines.
>> Carpenter covers this as well in Eggs Nests and Baby Dinosaurs.
>> Carpenter, K. 1999. Eggs Nests and Baby Dinosaurs: A Look at Dinosaur
> Reproduction. IUP. Bloomington, IN. pps 216-219
>> Geist, N.R., Jones, T. 1996. Juvenile Skeletal Structure and the
> Reproductive Habits of Dinosaurs. Science. Vol.272(5262):712-714