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

Re: [dinosaur] 6 month incubation?

...sorry...meant to question whether development is from slower to faster in amniotes.
Another question for the paper: the authors used 42% of incubation period for tooth initiation...and they called this "conservative". But, if dinosaurs developed faster than crocs, they would need their teeth sooner. Might this not mean that they should begin tooth formation earlier?

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:14 AM, John Bois <mjohn.bois@gmail.com> wrote:
Additional questions: since this trait (daily periodicity of dentin formation) appears to be somewhat labile (as shown in some mammals, at least), and since strict periodicity without cues (i.e., light for embryos within eggs and under substrate) would be a harder regulatory trick than no periodicity, and since the grade in amniotes is from slower development to faster development and dinosaurs are further along that grade than crocs and squamates, and since dinosaurs are well known for _rapid_  development beyond hatching, and since 6 months in the dirt is an awfully long time to be available to predators of well-advertised nests...wouldn't it be judicious to maintain some skepticism for this result?
Also, am I reading their graph right...it seems to show that the bigger the crocodile egg, the faster the incubation time...and since the closest extant toothed amniotes are crocodiles...and dinosaurs derived since them, you would think this would raise another red flag.
Thanks again.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: John Bois <mjohn.bois@gmail.com>

To: dinosaur-l@usc.edu
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 6:29 AM
Subject: [dinosaur] 6 month incubation?

Gregory M. Erickson, Darla K. Zelenitsky, David Ian Kay, and Mark A. Norell (2017)
Dinosaur incubation periods directly determined from growth-line counts in embryonic teeth show reptilian-grade development.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1613716114

I have several questions regarding assumptions made in this paper...but just one for now: von Ebner lines are assumed to be deposited daily. While circadian rhythms are observed in many animals, this is not universal. In a paper called: Ontogeny of dentinogenesis in the rat incisor...early deposition is ultradian (more than an hour/less than a day) and then after the second to third week after birth, circadian rhythms predominate. This makes sense to me: during gestation there is likely very little periodicity in light reaching the pup. And then, in a dinosaur embryo buried under substrate, light might also be an unreliable cue. And so, since circadian periodicity is apparently not universal in dentin deposition, I'm not sure the estimation of incubation time in this paper is reliable. Any thoughts?


It's certainly interesting that rats have this pattern. The question, though, is whether that pattern is an exception to the rule or not. Erickson ground truthed his assumptions by previously identifying lines of von Ebner deposition in pre and post-hatchling alligators. Those patterns did reflect a daily cycle, as do the patterns of dentine formation in embryonic humans. A brief literature search seems to indicate that ultraradian dentine formation is rare to find compared to circadian-based dentine formation. Though to be fair, there doesn't seem to be that wide a selection of literature out there on embryonic dentine formation.

I would like to see a study or two that looked at pre-hatchling squamate dentine formation, so as to better round all of this out.

Another thing to consider is the shorter days of the Mesozoic (~23 hrs), which produced slightly longer years (~380 days). I don't think Erickson et al. accounted for this (their month estimates suggest they did not), but it would slightly reduce the incubation time (sort of) to closer to 5 months rather than 6 for Hypacrosaurus. Note that there is lots of slop here. The length of a day in the Cretaceous would have been longer than a day in the Triassic, etc.

That said, the authors did make it clear that all of their assumptions were as conservative as possible and that incubation times were likely longer than they have proposed. It will be interesting to see this technique applied to more dinosaur taxa (including some toothed bird taxa), and see just how variable these estimated incubation times were.

http://reptilis.net "I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer