RE: Duckbill necks

["Stewart, Dwight" <Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com>]

Hmmm...  Out of this, here is the item that peaks my curiosity: has ANY
evidence ever been found of dinosaur tail dragging?  Partly I ask this
because we have a pretty good representation of dinosaur tracks in Texas & I
make a point of seeing all I can.  Growing up on a ranch, I have seen many
different kinds of tracks, EVEN alligator slides (yep, we have an occasional
Gator in Southern Texas! :-)) and tailing dragging, even by a 3.0 meter long
gator leaves a definite impression.  Or, are we talking about tail
positioning that is more subtly aligned than either parallel to the ground
or dragging?  
   As far as public misconceptions about dinosaurs, I am occasionally asked
about things like velociraptor being ~ 2.0 meters tall & I take the time to
explain that the velociraptor was only one type of Dromaeosauridae, & that
is was 0.8 meters tall, 1.8 meters long, & MAYBE, MAYBE weighed 100-110 kgs.
I explain there were "human sized" Dromnaeosaurids, though.  Look at it this
way, unless it was meant to be a juvenile, dilophosaurus was much larger
than portrayed in Jurassic Park.  Weren't the adults ~ 2.4-2.6 meters tall &
about 6.1 meters long? :-)  Frankly, I never seen a dinosaur movie that is
completely in accord with the latest data.  Look at King Kong (which was
pretty good, for its time) or those awful movies in which they used lizards
& alligators for dinosaurs! :-)!!!  Let's face it, I've seen supposedly
factual shows about dinosaurs that were pretty doggone bad!  
   Speaking of movies: did anyone else think the Burk character in the
second Jurassic Park movie looked like Robert Bakker?  :-)  Or was it just
me?

Regards;
Dwight




        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Peter Von Sholly [SMTP:vonrex@gte.net]
        Sent:   Wednesday, September 02, 1998 8:32 PM
        To:     luisrey@ndirect.co.uk
        Cc:     dinosaur@usc.edu
        Subject:        Re: Duckbill necks

        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
        >