Re: Sauropod inferences

["Jordan Mallon" <j_mallon@hotmail.com>]

> From: Stephan Pickering <stefanpickering2002@yahoo.com>

> With all due courtesy, I wish to point out to you that your >statement "all 
> we really have at our disposal are fossils" is -- how >can I put it? -- not 
> quite on my wavelength. All we have are 9000+ >species of living 
> theropods... We also have quite fascinating work
> (Craig Packer & team on lions, other workers on hyaenids & rhinos & 
> >vultures,  Katy Payne on elephants, etc. etc.) on extant mammalian and 
> >avian herbivores and carnivores (with insectivores and frugivores in >the 
> mixture)...all giving the dinosaur scholar insights into analogous 
> >econiches.

I realize that.  But you cannot apply any of these extant models without 
first recognizing that dinosaurs have been dead for at least 65 million 
years.  As fun as it is to ponder over the parallels between dromaeosaur and 
falcon behaviour or what have you, in the end, you've got to relate this to 
BONES!  That's science - dealing with what we've got.  And as useful as the 
imagination is, it can be hindering at times, too.  As a paleoartist, I can 
understand the fine ballance between science and fantasy.  Give a little; 
take a little.  They can compliment one another if used wisely.
I have yet to see you give an example as to how you might relate these 
behavioural models of yours to the data we have at hand.  And when you do 
finally get around to it, keep in mind that dinosaur behaviour was about as 
varied as those behaviours we see in animals today.  Your chances of pinning 
them down are very slight indeed.

> I believe it likely that behavioural systems are replicated
> time-and-again throughout evolutionary history.

Why?  What makes you believe that?  What sort of behaviours are you talking 
about?  Give us an example using your ungulate/sauropod hypothesis.

> I would also add something else: fossils of pre-K/T taxa are not >silent, 
> nor are extant ecomorphologies useless in stepping back in >time, as it 
> were; one can establish probabilities of behavioural >strategies (brooding, 
> hunting, predator-prey strategies, etc.)
> using ongoing processes.

I agree.  But this has to be done scientifically.  Again, you have to 
support these behaviours you're deducing using fossils.

> I am not sure what you mean by "unscientific conjections [sic] and 
> >ssumptions" etc.

"Conjectures"; my mistake.  Take Jack Horner's babblings on tyrannosaurid 
predation (or lack thereof), for example.  There's no science behind them.

> Contra those who would shirk it, the imagination is a valid exploratory
> mechanism.

Not saying it isn't.  But it's got to be used *carefully* and in context.

Jordan Mallon

Undergraduate Student, Carleton University
Vertebrate Paleontology & Paleoecology

Website: http://www.geocities.com/paleoportfolio/
AIM: jslice mallon

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp