Re: BARYONYX

["Jaime Headden" <jaemei@hotmail.com>]

<I was never a big believer in the bear comparison. Question: Has it 
finally been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Baronyx's claw was 
on the hand.>

We can be satisfied it wasn't on the foot. This would make an either 
dromie-bird group with sickle-clawed feet, or a *Noasaurus* relative, 
but the morphoplogy of a pedal claw (except for those cited above) is 
different from a manual one: less curved, to the main point. Bary's claw 
shows that the point actually angles parallel to the line drawn from the 
top of the articular joint to the bottom, not seen in any other theropod 
manus unless you're dealing with dromies, or *Dryptosaurus* (another 
dinosaur whose manual claw was originally confused as pedal, and you can 
take a look at the five-fingered leaping *Laelaps* picture Charles R. 
Knight painted). Now, with the *Noasaurus* analog, we have a small 
ceratosaur with a small pedal ungual that would possibly have served a 
function like dromies (if that can be sorted out) or a new hypothesis, 
that of mating behavior, for holding the female down.

<Now we've run into a slight snag. Again when Baronyx was first found 
the first thing that popped into everyones head when they saw the jaw 
was that it looked very suchian. So of course everyone automatically 
(for some strange reason) assumed that it as a fish eater (of course the 
*lepidotes* remains in the stomach wer also a clue) Point is that most 
crocs are not fish eaters. Sure they live in a habitat frequented by 
fish, but for most fish makes up a small part of the diet. The obvious 
exception to this is of course the gharials and the false gharials. They 
are specifically designed to eat fish and only fish (and as far as I 
know, that's all they do eat.) Other crocs like niles' and indopacific 
crocodiles have a diet consisting of any animal that comes to drink. 
They prefer terrestrial animals. So why does everyone assume that since 
Baronyx was crocodile like, that it was a pure fish eater.>

Okay, it was originally conceived as being a croc-like snout because, 
well, it's a croc-like snout. Take the subnarial gap and elongate 
anterior teeth, which are seen in crocs, Bary, and all coelophysoids, 
especially *Dilophosaurus*. But this doesn't mean fish were the main 
diet, as you pointed out, and as I was saying. The function of such a 
jaw served to maximize force of the bite to the front of the jaw, not 
the back, so the rear teeth are reduced, as seen in Diloph and Bary. 
When the jaw closes, the teeth of both jaws are evenly overlapped, with 
back and front coming together at the same time, as opposed to the 
back-first closeing method seen in crocs.

Any of you croc-guys can denounce me on this, but I think I got it 
close, if not hit the nail on the head.

<If it was anything like modern crocs then it would most assuredly 
prefer land animals.>

Indubitably.

<<Crocodiles, unlike bears, are developed almost to the exclusion of all 
other forms of habitat, to the water, while bears are very varied in 
their place of residence (though all species are excellent swimmers).>>
 
<Modern crocs are, but lets not forget that the crocodylatarsia were 
quite divers in their day. Even today crocs are known to make long 
voyages to other water holes. I say that modern crocs are more developed 
to tackling prey from the water, than to just a simple watery 
existence.>

I should have said "modern". Also note that in several circumstances, a 
croc can outrun a man.

<I'm suprised that you didn't site cranes and other wading bierds who 
quietly probe the bottom of river banks and mudwallows for fish.>

Probably because they lack teeth and stab at their prey, but I should 
have included them in the analysis anyway, as refutes of the platypus 
theory. I will work on this one.

<The only thoughts that I could give to that claw is that maybe it too 
was used to keep a hold on prey. But then why doesn't Baronyx have large 
claws on all it's fingers. And are it's forearms long enough to reach 
past it's snout.>

*Ingenia* has a huge thumb ungual as opposed to the other digital claws. 
This alone says that we should not believe that Bary's claw was not on 
the hand. Now, the excavation map of Bary was very jumbled, with caudals 
in the neck region, so the claw's location is doubtful as part of a 
jumbled aquatic burial.

And no, the forelimbs were too short; and aside from their being too 
short, the neck was way long and actually showed little of the flexion 
we actually get from *Allosaurus*, so he could not have bent his neck 
back as in birds, to a limiting S curve. The hands, though, would be in 
a great position to lunge out below the body or to the fore, and be very 
good at it, enough to disembowel you, or hold prey if it was large 
enough to require constrait.

Jaime A. Headden

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com