Re: sauropod rearing

["Kent A. Stevens" <kent@cs.uoregon.edu>]

On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:27 AM, GSP1954@aol.com wrote:

> I was asked by a list member to summarize the argument for rearing  
> sauropods.

Actually, Greg, I was not asking for that (maybe someone else asked  
you, but not me).  I asked of he DML as a whole:

> Would anyone want to help lay out some ground rules on what would  
> be a convincing (if not overwhelming) argument either for choosing  
> between the two (mutually exclusive) alternatives:
>
> 1) that (at least SOME) adult sauropods engaged in feeding  
> bipedally (or tripodally)
>
> or alternatively:
>
> 2) NO adult sauropods engaged in bipedal (or tripodal) feeding.
>
> My question is NOT which is your answer (1 versus 2) but what would  
> be a convincing argument for nailing either alternative.

I was/am trying to forestall just another round of "looks-like-a-duck- 
quacks-like-a-duck" reasoning, because sauropods are sufficiently  
different from modern analogues (elephants for rearing, in this case)  
and mass scales with the cube power of lineal dimensions, and all  
that, regardless of enticing qualitative (as opposed to quantitative)  
similarities.

I believe quantitative analysis will be a useful addition to  
qualitative analogical reasoning (based on extant models, such as  
elephants), and I am trying to elicit commentary on the METHODOLOGY,  
and not just call for a compilation for options 1 versus 2.