[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.

Jason



----- Original Message -----
> From: Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>
> To: pristichampsus@yahoo.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 6:57 PM
> Subject: RE: Dinosaur Revolution Review
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
>>  Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:25:37 -0700
>>  From: pristichampsus@yahoo.com
>>  To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>>  Subject: Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
> 
> I thank you for the hearty reply and explanation of the statement.  Now I 
> feel 
> 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 <keenir@hotmail.com>
>>  > To: augustoharo@gmail.com; ron.orenstein@rogers.com
>>  > Cc: mickey_mortimer111@msn.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
>>  > 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 
> taphonomic 
> artifact than an ontogenetic status. They compared altricial and precocial 
> birds 
> 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 
> look 
> 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.
>> 
>>  Jason
>> 
>>  Refs:
>> 
>>  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
>>                            
>