Re: infuriating Bakker

[DinoBoyGraphics@aol.com]

Actually, I was refering to the functional analysis of muscle insertation 
movement within a phylogenetic context.  Not enough of those, although I'd like 
to see people other than just Bob tackle the subject.  I won't disagree with 
any of your points on tooth shape from a functional point of view.  I would 
like to caution that adaptation does not always reach an optimum.  Historical 
contingency plays a large role in constraining how closeely animals parallel 
one another.  For example, there's the possibility that the teeth were already 
exapted for use as large "serrations" in a continuous cutting surface, in which 
case the anterior-posterior enlargement of the teeth would have reduced the 
"serration" count of the tooth row, and would be less effective without at 
least a corresponding shift in behavior.  One the other hand, reducing tooth 
size could maximize the effectiveness of the tooth row for slicing as a single 
surface, while widening the teeth would be the only remaining!
 a!
!
venuse to increase overall strength.  The tooth row would be maximally fit as a 
functional complex, though individual parts would not be maximally fit when 
atomized.
    I should point out that this would be hard to test without a more complete 
fossil record, and is not intended as positive evidence for Bob's hypothesis.

Cheers,

Scott