Re: Oviraptor

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM>]

>From: LBlosser@aol.com
 > 
 > What?   You mean Oviraptor is no longer considered to be a small, carnivorous
 > - er, "egg-consuming" theropod?  This is news to me, an admitted amateur.
 >  Can someone elaborate? 

All that has really changed is the interpretation of its association
with certain eggs and nests, from attacker to mother.
It is still considered a predator - and it is even still possible
it did eat eggs, we just do not have any direct evidence of this
like we once thought.

 >  The last classification I saw was something like:
 > 
 >  Theropoda-Tetanurae-Coelurosauria-Maniraptora-Oviraptorosauria-Oviraptoridae
 > 
 > Does this classification still hold, or is it just the nature of beast itself
 > which has undergone a bit of adjustment? 

This is still essentially correct.  (Individual researchers may
use slight variants of this, but the basic outline is accepted
by all).

 > Are you saying that "theropod" is
 > no longer an indication of an animal being a carnivore, or at least an
 > omnivore?

Well, actually it isn't such an indicator anyway, it is a
geneological term.

Still, Oviraptor probably *was* an omnivore or carnivore based on
its anatomy, we just have to stop citing its presence in certain
nests as evidence of this, since it was apparently *incubating*
those *particular* nests, not raiding them.

[Actually, all known theropods (not counting birds, that is) are
either omnivores or carnvores based on anatomy, but this need not
remain so].
 > 
 > When incubation was mentioned, I understood that to say the eggs were
 > possibly Oviraptor eggs.  If so, have there been any further studies on the
 > eggs or fragments of eggs found with the specimen? 

Other than the study which found an Oviraptor specimen in one
of the eggs of the type Oviraptor was found with, not that I know of.

 > I thought I read where a
 > specimen of Oviraptor was found "entangled" with a Protoceratops specimen; am
 > I mistaken?  Was that a different dinosaur?  If not, what is the explanation
 > of that finding?

Well, that finding is a seperate one - and it indicates that the
theropod so found *was* attacking the Protoceratops.  I think
this theropod was a Velociraptor, not an Oviraptor, however.


Note - Oviraptor is still considered to be an omnivore or carnivore.

swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com         sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.