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

Re: Saurischia and Ornithischia pelvis

Stevens et al. (2008) proposed that the prominent pubic boot would serve to bear a large portion of the weight when theropods were in a resting position, something I can’t really see an ornithischian doing.

This of course can’t be applied to sauropods to the same degree (being quadrupedal, their centers of mass would be more anterior and a greater portion of the weight would rest on the ribcage and shoulder girdle), but even a slight benefit in weight-distribution may have been useful at the extreme sizes reached by many sauropods.

Most theropods that retained this morphology were carnivores, so they didn’t need particularly big guts. Theropods with an opistopubic pelvis were (and are) often relatively small (e.g. deinonychosaurs), herbivorous (e.g. therizinosaurs) or both (e.g. Chilesaurus).

What remains, saurischians that were neither large, nor carnivores probably just retained the plesiomorphic state because the associated benefits were too slight to lose this feature.

Stevens, Kent A.; Larson, Peter; Wills, Eric D.; Anderson, Art (2008): Rex, sit: Digital Modeling of Tyrannosaurus rex at Rest. In: Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth: Tyrannosaurus rex the Tyrant King. Bloomington pp. 193-204

Yours sincerely,

Darius Nau

On 10.07.2015 03:15, Stuart Plotkin wrote:
> I could use some advice as to what are benefits the forward facing pubic bone in the saurichia vs the rear facing pubic bone in
> ornithischia? I was able to determine that the ornithischia pelvis allowed for a larger abdominal area for digestion, but what
about the
> huge sauropod bellies? What selective advantage did these pelvic arrangements give to the two classes of dinosaurs? Thank you