Re: Viviparous dinosaurs? and egg sites.

[Crpntr@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Carpenter)]

Shaun <ssinclai@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:



>It is interesting that the eggs previously attributed to 
>herbivorous dinosaurs are now being attributed to carnivorous ones. To 
>what extent is this the case? Is it just with a few sites, or is this a 
>broader rethinking? Are their any references out there for further 
>reading on this?

Dinosaur Eggs and Babies, Cambridge U. Press (ISBN 0-521-44342-3).  The 
eggs in question
were assumed by the American Museum of natural History to be those of 
Protoceratops because
the elongated eggs were common and Protoceratops was the most common 
skeletal fossil.  These
was no embryonic remains to prove the identification.  The new find 
shows the AMNH was
mistaken.

>One last question...Is the attribution of an egg site to either 
>of a carnivorous or herbivorous dinosaur based on the lay-out of the 
eggs 
>and nest? 

No, evidence is building based on the association of embryonic/hatchling 
remains that theropod
eggs have a ratite-like ultrastructure.  The ?Troodon eggs (no embryos 
yet) have this type of
structure, as does the Oviraptor egg.

>I seem to recall Horner's egg mountain site being raised mounds 
>with central depressions in which the eggs were arranged in concentric 
>circles. I believe that this is also the layout for the "Devil's 
Coulee" 
>egg site, and possibly for the Mongolian egg sites as well. 

Sorry, not true.  Mound shape is not known for any dinosaur, contrary to 
claims (unsubstantiated)
by Horner.


Kenneth Carpenter