Re: Duckbill necks

["Peter Von Sholly" <vonrex@gte.net>]

I did think of something to argue about:  these flights of fancy are fine
as long as they are not put forth as science.  And that's the problem. 
Should we just put armor and dermal spines willy nilly on all sauropods
because some may have one (or maybe both) of these features?  Go ahead, but
you may be proven dead wrong at some later date and you can't just go back
and change things once they'er out there.  And getting the anatomy right is
not so simple when dealing with so many unknowns.  Who says when it's
right, how do they know?  How did stegosaurs hold their tails?  Not
everybody agrees with the tails out, parallel to the ground stance, yet you
see it everywhere now.  Where's the line drawn when there's not enough
known to get the anatomy right?  Ceratopsian front limbs:  there is
certainly controversy here (at least among some) and these animals are
quite well known.  Is the anatomy right to put the limbs straight, bent,
forward, back?  With composite skeletons on display in major museums, the
anatomy is often quite wrong.  Your point about "absence of evidence not
being evidence of absence" is well taken.  But I think it can be taken too
far.  

> 
> As long as you get the anatomy right, what is wrong with wild flights of
> fancy regarding the rest?
> 
> Luis Rey
> 
> Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey
>