Re: new boook on functional morphology

[JCMcL <darwincr@laplaza.taos.nm.us>]

On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Stan Friesen wrote:

>  > In a world full of small fast predators, an unprotected ceratopsian 
>  > "saurlet," as 
>  > I've said earlier in these postings, would be topsy mcnuggets to such 
>  > predators.  Small, fat, squishy.  MMMMmmmmmm!  If the parents simply 
>  > abandoned such tasties to Cruel Father Nature, the ceratopsians would 
>  > likely have been a short-lived phenomenon.

> A  ceratopsian could still lay some 20 or so eggs per year,
> over a lifespan of several decades.  This comes out to hundreds of
> hatchlings.  All that is necessary for effective reproduction is that
> *two* of these survive to adulthood.

My own feeling is that one small-to-medium theropod could eat 20 hatchling 
(20 cm) ceratopsians while drinking a 6-pack and watching an episode of  "I 
Love Lucy," and could catch them with astonishing ease.  

>  > Nonetheless, the straight-ahead horns and other offensive-defense 
>  > elaborations so common in the ceratopsian theme argue, at least to me, in 
>  > favor of some very impressive selective factor other than head-butting, 
>  > expecially since it appears in both sexes.  
>  > 
> The last is not conclusive.  Many antelope have horns in both sexes,
> despite them being used mainly by the males.  Also, shoving is more
> likely than butting - there is less likelyhood of serious injury.

Shoving with the long straight-ahead horns of a Triceratops sounds 
blindingly lethal, especially backed up with a mass of several tonnes.  
Most intraspecies - "shoving" horned beasts have horns 
directed upward, backward, or sidewards.  Ceratopsians look as if they 
ran into things to kill 'em.  

But I'm not certain.

Thanks.

John McLoughlin