Hadro necks, etc.

["Andy Farke" <andyfarke@hotmail.com>]

I've been reading with great interest the debate on hadro neck 
musculature. Great to see non-theropod debate!

Anyhow, I think that the big-necked hadros are a good idea. I've seen 
one argument that animals with small, light skulls didn't need big 
necks. Most of the hadro skulls I've seen are quite big and robust--more 
heavily built than many theropods. Discussion with several 
paleontologists shows that there is evidence of a nuchal ligament on the 
cervicals. The ambiguity of evidence concerning the "mummies" shows that 
alot of re-study is necessary. They are some of the most valuable 
specimens known, but relatively little research has been done on these 
(other than the original papers on them). 

Whether or not a reconstruction "looks right" is no indicator of whether 
it is correct. I think T. rex looks quite silly with those tiny little 
arms, but that doesn't mean they were bigger.

Also, regarding paleo reconstructions--I don't agree with taking 
evidence for one animal (e.g., sauropod spikes) and applying it to all. 
Likewise with feathered dinosaurs--just because one had them doesn't 
mean all did. I won't hold that against anyone though--I still love G. 
S. Paul's dinosaurs, spiked sauropods and all!

And that's my two cents for the day,
Andy Farke

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com