RE: CURSORIAL STEGOSAURS?

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Matthew Bonnan
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:08 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: CURSORIAL STEGOSAURS?


Sent a message earlier to the list, but it vanished into thin air!  If it
shows up, you'll note it is very similar to this one. =)  I guess it went to
George, as he has already responded to most of this on list, so do what you
will with this less than stellar version.

Matt Bonnan


DinoGeorge writes:
"Metatarsal V was likely present in all known
stegosaurs as the usual dinosaurian splint or vestige, in which form it was
undoubtedly a functional part of the tarsal/metatarsal assembly, likely a
site of muscle or tendon attachment and leverage (otherwise it would
eventually have vanished, as it apparently did in ornithomimids)."

The presence or absence of a digit is not necessarily due to use or disuse.
Current embryological studies indicate that digit loss or retention can be
caused by the historical constraints of the genetic program -- digits are
merely iterations on a digital arch that forms from the ulna posteriorly to
the radius anteriorly in the embryo.  Their formation or non-formation is
therefore not directly related to their use or disuse as adults.<<

"But I was talking about digits, not metatarsals."

Digit refers to both metapodials (metacarpals or metatarsals) and phalanges.
  All comparative vert and embryology texts use and define digit in this
fashion.<<

Ok, then what do you call just the phalanges and unguals? Are they fingers
and toes?


Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074