RE: Theropod Stance

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

Oops--Sorry Phil, meant to send this to the list. Hope
it's the Heineken.

--- Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:27:10 -0700 (PDT) don ohmes
> <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>
> writes:
> > 
> > 1. I think they had lots of time to get as big as
> they
> > could. Experimental evidence indicates that
> > evolutionary changes in morphology can happen
> fairly
> > quickly when measured in generations.

 
> I'm not claiming that there was an *evolutionary*
> reason for a
> carnivorous dinosaur to get bigger than T. rex.  I'm
> saying that,
> biophysiologically, there is nothing constraining
> bipedal carnivorous
> dinosaurs to a maximum mass of a T. rex (or of
> Giganontosaurus, for those
> who think it was even bigger).

Don: Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted your original
statement...reproduced below. Maybe I should have used
the term "maximum viable mass"
as opposed to "maximum theoretical mass".

    <<<I suspect that T. rex was nowhere near the
theoretical limit for 
bipedal
mass/size.  If the mass extinction hadn't occured, I
can easily 
envision
continued size inflation in evolving dinosaurs.  A
15-ton super
Troodontid preying on a 20-ton ultra-triceratops would
be quite a 
sight.>>>


> > 2. The morphological refinements you mention
> indicate
> > a strong selective pressure for the re-allocation
> of
> > mass. I take this to mean that if Sue got bigger,
> the
> > mass re-allocation would need to continue. If Sue
> got
> > bigger, could she significantly increase bone
> > pneumaticization or neck recurve?

Don: You seem (below) to be advocating using a 135kg
bird as a template for a 15 ton tyrannosaur. I don't
think that is the way it works, but have at it. Just
let me know when it is time for a speed run, I want to
watch.

> Using ostriches as a comparison, then yes.  IMHO,
> Tyrannosaurs had a long
> way to go to evolve maximum movement/mass
> efficiency.
 
> > I'm just guessing,
> > but her arms look so small they could be removed
> > entirely without affecting the center of mass.
> What
> > are the other morphological options here?
> 
> 
> Achieving a secure hold during mating is the only
> reason that I can think
> of for retaining any arms at all in a T. rex.  [were
> we all so blessed to
> have a secure hold in our mating habits].

And in the spirit of tax day and DOW -200: a great day
for beer and theater in the evening.

Struthio: "Hey girl, I hear you want to bulk up, and
need to re-allocate your mass. I got some cool
morphological refinements I've used on my own body."
Sue:(GULP), burp!. To hubby (Sam): "Hey, honey, have
you ever eaten one of those birds Phil brought here in
his time machine?"
Sam: "I hear they taste a lot like tricerotops, once
you get past the feathers."
Sue: "He said something about my ass. I always knew he
was looking at something. Gee, I'm already hungry
again."
Sam: "Birds are a lot like mammals, they will never
amount to anything, really."

> > 3. <<"Or possibly like ostriches get up after
> having
> >  fallen (anyone know how
> >  ostriches recover from a fall?).">>
> > 
> > Thats a great idea! I second the question. Anyone
> out
> > there happen to know?
> > 
> > 4. << "3) then simply stand up." >>
> > 
> > LOL, you are obviously young and spry.
> 
> 
> Hey dude.  I will die young, psychologically at
> least.
> Spry?  My spryness ended roughly at the end of the
> Clinton
> administration.

Sorry to hear it.

> <pb>