[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Carnotaurus


Christopher Noto writes:

Let's not make the mistake of equating adaptive use with well developed
morphology.  It could be possible that the more robust arms are an
allometric result of increased body size, not because they had a specific
"use".  We need to be really careful when we make claims such as "x is
well developed, so it must have served a purpose y".  There are many other
factors that affect the size and development of organs, besides general
adaptiveness.

I don't think allometric considerations come into play when comparing Tyrannosaurus and Carnotaurus. In both, the forelimbs are puny, although proportionately punier in Carnotaurus. Theropods like Deinocheirus and the therizinosauroids/segnosaurs tell us that large theropods could also have very long forelimbs.

"More robust arms are an allometric result of increased body size"? Is there any evidence that juvenile tyrannosaurids had proportionately more slender forelimbs?

A question (this has been bugging me for a while, and nobody has a straight answer so far): when comparing proportions (such as within an animal's skeleton) should one use "proportionately" or "proportionally"? Can anyone help?

ZH


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.