Re: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?

["Martin Barnett" <martin.barnett3@virgin.net>]

I would say it was not likely.  My father's side of the family lived on an
arable farm in Sussex and one of the things they discovered was that ducks
make very neglectful mothers.  Due to this fact, duck eggs laid were usually
given to chickens which make excellent mothers.  Parent-child imprinting
went fine and the only problem was when the little baby ducklings waddling
after their mummy hen did the most natural thing in the world and dived into
the water (swimming, naturally).  The hens got so flapped by the whole
affair standing on the bank terrified of the water, agonising that they
couldn't get their baby back (okay a little anthropomorphic but you get the
gist).  I picture a similar thing happening if a young swimming sauropod
drifted off into the water it's mother wouldn't know where to turn -
worrying with good reason I imagine, after all have you SEEN the kind of
predators that inhabited the local rivers and seashores of the mesozoic
era!?!  Any giant terrestrial parent would have cause for concern if their
littlun was subjected to these conditions.

I never ever thought I'd be making a connection between artificial domestic
fowl families and sauropods - but a very real similarity nonetheless.
Yours,
           Samuel Barnett

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Willson <jwillson@harper.cc.il.us>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 1:51 PM
Subject: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?


> The 30 Aug 1999 post from "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
> "Sauropod nostrils (was RE: joke........)"     inspired a thought --
>
> >Breathing while most of the body is underwater (okay, does not work for
> sauropods, as established long ago, but in vertebrate history >this seems
> to be the main factor in narial retraction)
>
>
> My understanding is that it was "established" that this "does not work"
> based primarily on the observation that a sauropod's lungs would have been
> multiple meters below the surface, water pressure prevents the beast from
> inhaling, etc.
>
> Has anyone ever speculated that perhaps *juvenile* sauropods were aquatic
> (I.e., that the juveniles' lungs *weren't* far beneath the surface), and
> adults terrestrial, with the position of the nostrils a juvenile
> characteristic retained in adulthood?
>
> This doesn't strike me as particularly likely, but I throw it out for
> consideration.
>
>
> Jeffrey Willson <jwillson@harper.cc.il.us>
>
>
>
>