Re: Duckbill necks

["Peter Von Sholly" <vonrex@gte.net>]

Good and interesting points, Luis.  Nothing I feel the need to argue with, 
Thanks.

----------
> From: luisrey <luisrey@ndirect.co.uk>
> To: vonrex@gte.net
> Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Duckbill necks
> Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 5:30 PM
> 
> 
> > 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
>