Re: Velociraptor Footprints( Arundel contemporary)

[Tompaleo@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-08-27 18:44:30 EDT, you write:

> > << To date, NO dermal armor or
>  >   horns have been reported which has led me to hypothesize that P.
crassus 
> 
>  > was
>  >   a _NAKED_ Nodosaur! >>
>  >  
>  >  Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
>  
>  Are you (Thomas R. Lipka) hypothesizing that nakedness was a primitive 
> condition for nodosaurs?  Or that _Priconodon_ had lost the body armor of
its 
> ancestors?  If the former, I would have to say that the presence of body 
> armor in polacanthids, ankylosaurs, stegosaurs, scelidosaurs,
scutellosaurs, 
> and all other nodosaurids makes it most unlikely that nodosaurs were 
> primitively unarmored.
>  

Yes I am! Thomas R. Lipka that is ;-)

Seriously, though. No. I was not implying that nakedness was primitive for
the nodosaurs, (despite my digression that seems to be contrary) . And as
pointed out previously, I am basing my hypothesis for P. crassus really on an
absence of evidence in which case, I would further imply that this particular
nodosaur may have been aberrant in that had lost it's armor.Unfortunately,
with only one productive site here in Maryland, and the remote unlikelyhood
that any new sites will be opened or old sites reopened (slightly better
channce) we may never fully answer this question. I throw out this hypothesis
to the collective for discussion purposes only. 


Cheers!

Thomas R. Lipka
Paleontological/Geological Studies
http://members.aol.com/Tompaleo/Maryland.Dinosaurs.html




The evolution of body armor strategies in the families you mention above
would indeed be an interesting study.