Re: Ceratopsian gait (was Re: Oviraptor)

[tlford@ix.netcom.com]

On 03/20/98 14:09:34 you wrote:
>
>tlford@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>  When museum's reconstruct a protoceratops they have it's legs
>> sprawling. This is far from the truth. Their legs should be directly under 
>> them. This also 
means
>> they were swifter then orginally thought.
>> 
>> Tracy
>
>What of the recent (1997 or 1996, can't remember which) studies on
>ceratopsian forelimbs that seem to indicate that a somewhat sprawling
>gait is more likely? I seem to recall an article in a book on
>functional morphology. This is all from memory mind you, so I'm in
>dangerous waters already, but I seem to recall that the study
>showed that the forelimbs could not have articulated directly beneath
>the body without serious dislocation. Is this not a popular view then?


Johnson, Rolf E., and John H. Ostrom, 1995. The forelimb of Torosaurus and an
analysis of the posture and gait of ceratopsian dinosaurs. In: Functional
Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology, Edited by J. J. Thomason. Cambridge
University Press: 205-218.

>Of course this does not relate to protoceratops itself, so for all
>I know Tracy's statement may well be true, but any chance to stir
>the coals...  :)

If you want to know what I think how Ceratopians walked, you'll have to check 
out Dinosaur 
World. I'm NOT saying the forelimbs of Ceratopians were directly under the 
body, only 
Protoceratopians. They are DIFFERENT than Ceratopians. Smaller, lighter, 
swifter, etc. 

Tracy