Re: *Fruitafossor*

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Perhaps they gnawed holes into termite mounds???>
>
>  I have a big reply to David to get to but for now, secondary comments. 
> The
> postcrania of *Zalambdalestes* at least is not consistent with a bounder,

~:-| You mean "consistent with a bounder" and "not consistent with a 
digger", as do I, don't you?

> and
> the large complex postcanines of the skull are more consistent with 
> general
> insectivory and microcarnivory (eating small vertebrates) than for eating
> termites, which are largely processed by crushing into the palate or 
> simple
> swallowing and gut digestion, thus myrmecophages have typically smaller, 
> weak
> teeth, or none at all.

At least when they are above a certain size! Your examples are all bigger 
than a zalambdalestid, right? A small myrmecophage would morphologically 
just be yet another insectivore, because it wouldn't have to stuff itself 
with tens of thousands of termites per day.

> Animals that use their teeth to process earth, such as mole rats,

I've never suggested that zalambdalestids could have been burrowers. If it 
was myrmecophagous, it stayed above the ground, like a giant anteater or an 
alvarezsaurid.