Re: Duckbill necks

[luisrey@ndirect.co.uk (luisrey)]

> it might be because he likes  the sauropods like that... who cares? You
>are very much free to choose and be as creative as viable  possibilities may
>> allow you.

>I know you used the word "viable" but to me we are coming dangerously close
>to the old "do anything you want with dinosaurs, it doesn't matter because
>we can't know for sure anyway" way of doing things.


Well, nothing is farther from my intention. 'Viable' is crucial and you
neglect to mention part of my message where I speak about 'positive' and
'negative' evidence. There's anatomy and there's speculation. You speculate
where anatomical details allow you to speculate... no more and no less.


>But as the next batch of
>popular books appears we can expect to see thick hadrosaur necks and tons
>of spiny sauropods (along with more one-row-of-plates stegosaurs).
>Who cares?  I care.

If you care, then sauropods should normally be recionstructed as spiny or
armoured since there has never been found a naked-back one or at least full
back-skinned sauropod without spines! That of course doesn't mean that they
didn't exist.
'Naked' sauropods are thus more speculative than spiny ones.
Same goes to middle-sized and small theropods and feathery or protofeathery
integument. There's negative evidence of scaly skin for any small
theropod... and in EVERY book (except the ones we know) they are
systematically reconstructed with scaly skin.


>I'm tired of unfounded ideas-of-the -moment being
>thrown out there carelessly, confusing people and making it seem as though
>dinosaur-folk don't know what they're doing.

Oh yes I agree. But then, avoid confusion using the available positive
evidence whenever possible.

>"you are very much free to choose and be as creative as viable possibilites
>may allow you".  And nobody can prove you're wrong anyway.

As long as you get the anatomy right, what is wrong with wild flights of
fancy regarding the rest?

Luis Rey

Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey