[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Gallery and Commentary for Copenhagen Mamenchisaurus



I understand that this question is not actually relevant to the point of the discussion at hand in this thread but....... since I haven't been instructed on this point for about 20 years...... I was always under the impression that the grasses didn't arrive on the scene until after the Cretaceous. When did they "crop up" in the fossil record?
Frank Bliss
MS Geology/Biostratigraphy
Weston Wyoming


On Jun 24, 2004, at 9:44 AM, DinoBoyGraphics@aol.com wrote:

Here I must object to the term "grazing" which implies grass eating and a necessity to eat at ground level. Again, I don't think anyone is saying that.<<<

Ok, if you restrict the definiftion to "grass," then clearly you are correct. I was implying "restricted low-level grazing", I suppose. And while the Cetiosaurus paper was not implying that Cetiosaurus was a grazer (sensu me), others most certainly have for diplodocids.


I _do_ think that neck morphology aided in partioning food resources among sauropods, with for example shunosaurs and haplocanthosaurs being good at eating low to medium lying food, camarasaurs having a good medium to high (by mammalian standards) browsing range, brachiosaurs having a high browsing range. The issue is that I think the energetic and morphological data supports diplodocids as extremely high browsers rather than restricted low-level browsers. Some who strenuously object to this hypothesis point out (correctly) that no one has quantitatively demonstrated that diplodocids were designed to do this regularly. But they fail to mention that the energetics of locomotion, fricition from an elongated respiratory tract, and increased calories needed just to support that much extra mass far outways the advantage of being able to "stand still" during feeding.

So while the question is certainly still open as to why diplodocids have such long necks that cannot be elevated much above the shoulders without rearing, (and there could be non food aquisition selective factors we are ignoring), the evidence is hardly stacking up in favor of the hooverasaurus diplodocid hypothesis. This (IMHO falascious) skewing of the data to favor the hooverasaurus hypothesis is frequently implied via pers. comm. and in papers popular and professional by Dale Russel, Kent Stevens, Ray Wilhite (my apologies to Ray if I misspelled that), and on occasion Matt Bonnan.

So perhaps this is a political arguement, in as much as I encounter a wide array of people who examine the morphological data and ignore the energetic data, and buy into the press that the evidence is mounting in favor of habbitual low-level feeding in diplodocids.


Scott Hartman Zoology & Physiology University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 82070

(307) 742-3799