RE: Mammals are not dinosaurs

[Robert J Meyerson <meyersrt@uwec.edu> (Rob Meyerson)]

Tracy Ford writes;

>Wrong, Wrong, WRONG! The elongated frill of ceratopians are not related
>to muscel attacement. None, what so ever. And remember, Dinosaurs are
>NOT Mammals. Your argument doesn't work.

Hogwash!  If what you say is true, how does one explain the chasmosaurines
 tendancy for large fenestra in their frills?  How else does one explain the
 holes in the skull which lead from the lower jaw to the fenestra?  The only
 plausible explanation is that the frills are attachment sites for the jaw
 muscles.  Since this is the case, is it not reasonable to suggest that
 those with longer frills had stronger chewing power than those with shorter
 frills?  The frills were most certainly related to muscle attachment.

Sure, dinosaurs are not mammals.  However, we can do comparisons between
 forms, to see if there are any similarities.  Convergent evolution happens
 all the time, and to toss this aside just because the animals in question
 are not closely related seems a little short-sighted.  To say that the
 Ichthyosaur (not a dinosaur, I know) is not convergent with the dolphin
 just because the former is not a mammal would result in our losing a great
 deal of insight into the lifestyle of the Ichthyosaur.


Rob Meyerson
Orphan Vertebrate Paleontologist

***
"If you go to Za'Ha'Dum, you will die."
        -K.