Re: Warm-Blooded debate

[Sean Connell <thelip@flash.net>]

Sean Connell wrote:
> 
> 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".
Sorry I had to repost, my roomie turned off the wrap lines option and it
looked terrible.