Re: Warm-Blooded debate

[Sean Connell <thelip@flash.net>]

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> 
>          
> >
> Well, there is more to the endothermy/ectothermy debate than is addressed on
> TV documentaries or popular books.
> 
> Although I am primarily agnostic with regards to total endothermy in
> adulthood in all nonavian dinosaur lineages, I would not characterize the
> "dinosaurs as ectotherms" camp as being strictly defensive nor beholden to
> post-1900, pre-1970 theories.  Ruben et al.'s respiratory turbinate
> analyses, for example, stem from recent discoveries, and do not harken back
> to Gilmore-era studies.  If you can find some writing on the subject which
> covers more than one point of view (the appropriate chapters in Fastovsky &
> Weishampel, for instance), you might learn something new.
> 
> (Incidentally, for those not aware of it, Owen himself, in the 1842 paper in
> which he coined the term "Dinosauria" ('fearfully great lizards'), includes
> a footnote suggesting that dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded, and
> approaching modern birds and mammals in terms of their physiology).
> 
>I agree.That's why I put in that part about "a simplified explanatiion".My 
>point was that much of the ectothermic vs. endothermic mess has been wasted 
>arguing against ideas that had no real basis for being put forth in the first 
>place.And certainly some of them were so polluted by popular dogma (yes it may 
>sound Bakkerian, but it's the truth)that existed during that time that they 
>should considered only as lessons on the fact that the scientific community is 
>composed of "people".                                                          
>      Thanks for the ear, Sean C.