Re: Another FAQ

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

George,
   In all fairness, it depends on who is looking and how closely.  If one 
didn't know better, one might well think the Tasmanian wolf was a member of 
Carnivora.  A closer look at the teeth, mode of reproduction, etc., would 
quickly expose this convergence of general body form and way of life.  But 
to the untrained eye, a Tasmanian wolf could easily look more like a wolf 
than a French poodle.
    The same could be said for convergences among dinosaurs.  It depends on 
who is doing the looking and how much they know about the details of 
anatomy.
         -Cheers,  Ken Kinman
*******************************************

> From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Another FAQ
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:33:44 EDT
>
> In a message dated 8/9/01 5:28:46 PM EST, qilongia@yahoo.com writes:
>
> << The distinction between *Tyrannosaurus* and *Tarbosaurus* would be
>  a lot harder to dscribed unless we knew the skin patterning or
>  coloration or whatever other features are there ... the skull shapes
>  are identical, with minor differences that are not fuilly quantified
>  in *Tarbosaurus* that indicate the likelyhood that these two could be
>  confused with each other... >>
>
> The skulls of Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus are >at least< as different 
> from
> each other as are the skulls of Tyrannosaurus and Albertosaurus. Look at 
> the
> tooth counts, the jugal spread, the tooth shapes, the postcrania. Good 
> grief!
> IDENTICAL?? Give me a break!


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp