[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Somebody call it heads or tails, and were any dinosaurs born with their eyes still closed?
- To: dinosaur@usc.edu
- Subject: Somebody call it heads or tails, and were any dinosaurs born with their eyes still closed?
- From: Mickey Rowe <rowe@psych.ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <LAW2-F178AnD4Su2tFc00003127@hotmail.com> (andyfarke@hotmail.com)
- References: <LAW2-F178AnD4Su2tFc00003127@hotmail.com>
- Reply-to: rowe@psych.ucsb.edu
- Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
"Andy Farke" <andyfarke@hotmail.com> wrote of what might be called the
pushme-pullyou-saurus model of Ankylosaur defense:
> The picture that was posted makes me think of the tail being used as
> a decoy for the head--or at least drawing attention away from
> it. This is somewhat similar to those snakes (I can't remember the
> species) that have coloration on their "tail" that resembles the
> head. Could a similar thing be going on in ankylosaurs?
In case Honored Person Ralph Chapman hasn't already told you, you
might want to look through the dinosaur list archives. You can start
with Ralph's own summary of a relevant paper:
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1995Feb/0015.html
> Again, this is totally speculation!
That's kind of what we said back in 1995. In any case, I fear you've
been scooped by a good five years :-)
In totally other news, Larry Dunn <majestic_cheese@yahoo.com> asked
about altricial vs. precocial dinosaurs:
> Can we tell from fossilized eggs and fossilized hatchlings how
> dinosaurs were born? Would this have varied among the dinosaur
> species as it does with birds?
This is actually an old topic for Jack Horner. He's got a new review
on the subject which contains (among other statements):
Skeletal Development
The degree of epiphyseal development and ossification in embryonic
and neonatal dinosaurs has been used to hypothesize stages of
overall development and to speculate on altricial and precocial
post-hatching behaviors (Horner & Weishampel 1988, 1996). It was
observed that the epiphyseal ends of the embryonic femora of the
coelurosaur Troodon, originally misidentified as the
hypsilophodontid Orodromeus (Horner & Weishampel 1996), consisted
of a thick pad of calcified cartilage penetrated by an opening that
appeared to contain a cartilage cone. In contrast, the epiphyseal
ends of an embryonic femur hypothesized to belong to the
hadrosaurid Maiasaura was described as having a thin calcified
cartilage pad overlying a very spongy endochondral metaphysis. The
ends of the Maiasaura femur were described as spongy and
incomplete, and incapable of withstanding the rigor of locomotor
activity. Maiasaura was hypothesized to have been altricial, or
nest-bound, and in need of parental assistance for acquiring food
(Horner & Weishampel 1988). Troodon was regarded as capable of
locomotor activities and precocial. Later discoveries of other
non-avian dinosaur skeletons that had limb bones with incomplete
condyles were interpreted as representing altricial young (Jacobs
et al 1994, Chure et al 1994), and those with well-formed limbs
were regarded as precocial (Coombs 1980, Winkler & Murry 1989). A
compilation of data and cladistic analysis (Weishampel & Horner
1994) of the evolution of dinosaur life histories with regard to
mode of development suggested that several hadrosaurid taxa were
altricial.
Geist & Jones (1996) challenged the interpretation of the epiphyses
by correctly pointing out that the reason that the neonate
Maiasaura femora appeared incomplete was that they were missing
their articular fibro-cartilage caps (Reid 1997). Geist & Jones
suggested that the Maiasaura neonates (perinates) and various other
embryonic and neonatal individuals all possessed well-ossified
skeletons, and showed no characteristics suggestive of altricial
behaviors. The Geist and Jones study, however, was based on
morphological observation rather than histology. Horner (1996; see
also Horner et al 2000a) re-examined the bones using histological
techniques, and showed that there were major differences in
metaphyseal development separating Maiasaura from Orodromeus and
Troodon. Maiasaura possessed massive calcified cartilage
pads. However, a thin calcified pad overlying endochondral bone was
evident in both Troodon and Orodromeus. Horner (1996) and his
colleagues (Horner et al 2000a, b) showed that the epiphyseal ends
of the limbs of hadrosaurs possessed calcified cartilage structures
that would have severely limited active locomotion during the time
between hatching and when the hatchling doubled in size. Within the
avian altricial-precocial spectrum (Stark & Ricklefs 1998b), the
maiasaurs appear to have been semi-altricial, requiring adult care
until they at least doubled in linear dimensions from hatching
(Horner et al 2000a, b).
Hope that helps,
--
Mickey Rowe (rowe@psych.ucsb.edu)
Ref: John R. Horner, (2000). "Dinosaur Reproduction and Parenting",
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 28:19-45.
http://earth.annualreviews.org/cgi/content/full/28/1/19
(I don't think you'll be able to read the full text on-line unless
you're at an institution like UCSB that has a subscription.)