Re: Baby dinosaurs

["Colin McHenry" <cmchenry@westserv.net.au>]

Hi Richard, how are you?

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Forrest <richard@plesiosaur.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Thursday, 22 August 2002 5:35
Subject: RE: Baby dinosaurs


>On what basis have they been described as juvenile?
>Richard Forrest
>richard@plesiosaur.com



I _think_ that it is only the basis of lack of fusion of vertebral
elements....but perhaps that isn't the most reliable evidence, as I've seen
plenty of large plesiosaurians with unfused neural arches, etc.

 Apparently there's a paper to wait for....:-)

Cheers

Colin



>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
>Dann Pigdon
>Sent: 21 August 2002 21:50
>To: DML
>Subject: Re: Baby dinosaurs
>
>
>Colin McHenry wrote:
>
>> Dan, you keep up with this stuff....
>
>I try too...
>
>> Have they shown it to be juvenile
>> plesiosaur?  Did I miss the most significant development in marine
>reptiles
>> in the last decade? Or is this just more hype from the Flannery media
>> machine?
>
>Well, Flannery IS the king of hype (not always a bad thing). However, on
>the South Australian Museum website Ben Kear mentions that around 95% of
>the plesiosaur remains coming from the opal fields are of juvenile
>animals. I don't know if this has been published anywhere.
>
>http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/plesiosaur/project_2.htm
>
>--
>________________________________________________________________
>
>Dann Pigdon                   Australian Dinosaurs:
>GIS / Archaeologist         http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs
>Melbourne, Australia        http://www.alphalink.com.au/~dannj/
>________________________________________________________________
>
>