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

RE: Dinosaur Revolution Review





----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:27:36 -0700
> From: pristichampsus@yahoo.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Dinosaur Revolution Review
>
> Not a problem. I had originally meant to respond to Ronald Orenstein's 
> original question anyway.
 
I admit I'm curious what replies will be given (by anyone, actually) to the 
published assertion(sp) you cited.
 
> Hopefully this whole thing didn't come off sounding harsh.
 
 you didn't sound harsh (at least not to me)...it just made me realize I had 
forgotten my "kidding" disclaimer there.
 

>
> 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
> >>
> >