Re: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?

[LONEWOLF <s086529@student.uq.edu.au>]

> Has anyone ever speculated that
> perhaps *juvenile* sauropods were aquatic
> (I.e., that the juveniles' lungs *weren't* far beneath the surface),
> and
> adults terrestrial, with the position of the nostrils a juvenile
> characteristic retained in adulthood?


Or, what if the fact that the sauropod was such and such a height did not
mean that it necessarily submerged to such a depth, but possible, waded
or swam in shallow lakes, therefore submerged to a much more modest
depth? 

Of course all this is just spitballing on the nostril thing, hasn't it
been proved or at least, shown rather strongly, that based on the foot
structure most sauropods were probably land dwellers? If I remember
correctly, the toes of most sauropods, while not elephantine, certainly
were pretty squat, not the more splayed out morphology you'd expect in
semi-aquatic creatures.