Re: SPRAWLING POSTURE

[pharrinj@PLU.edu]

On Fri, 19 Jan 1996, D.W.Naish wrote:

> > That was always one of the weirder points of the sprawling ceratop 
> > theory:  The hindlimbs were supposed to be erect, but the forelimbs were 
> > supposed to sprawl.  Ceratop forelimbs are already considerably shorter 
> > than their hindlimbs, and sprawling would only have made matters worse.  
> 
> I can't help thinking about dicynodonts during all of this discussion: it's 
> well
> know, and universally accepted (ASAIK), that these animals had sprawling
> forelimbs, but erect hindlimbs. This is discussed at great length in Gillian
> King's book 'The Dicynodonts: A study in Paleobiology', and I don't have time
> to go through all the stuff discussed there here.
> 

I thought it was more the dinocephalians (_Moschops_, _Tapinocephalus_, 
_Estemennosuchus_) that had sprawling forelimbs and erect hindlimbs...

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that these animals have forelimbs 
considerably LONGER than their hindlimbs, so sprawling would have brought 
the lengths more in line with each other.

Ceratopes have very SHORT forelimbs to begin with, and very long 
hindlimbs, so sprawling the forelimbs would have made the difference even 
greater, compromising mobility!

> DARREN NAISH
>