[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: infuriating Bakker
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