RE: Feathered topics.

["Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>]

Responding (belatedly) to the question about the use of frog DNA in the
reconstruction of the dino DNA in Jurassic Park:

I believe it was partially addressed in the book, where the chief geneticist
described all sorts of attempts to rebuild the dino DNA.  I think the frog
DNA proved to be the most receptive and malleable [obviously for the major
plot point previously mentioned].  Croc DNA was supposedly too primitive and
inflexible, and bird DNA was too derived.

It may be that frog DNA allowed them to build the correct egg and amniotic
fluid needed to properly sequence the growth of the dino embryos - a problem
that the books and movies ignored entirely.

Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
HPB1956@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:51 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: HPB@bdal.de
Subject: Re: Feathered topics.


alex@voyager.net wrote on October 1st, 2000:

> And I do agree, a frog was a horrible choice, and so generalized, too.
> I would have picked creatures much more similar to the evolutionary
> line, even possible descendants, or visually similar creatures. (like
> an ostrich or rhea for the _Gallimimus_, perhaps, or something else
> similar for the T-rex, etc. I might even go as far as to say a rhino
> or bovine for a ceratopsian.)

Aren't birds and crocodiles as extant animals the best choice? They are used
for phylogenetic bracketing dinosaurs because they are the closest _living_
relatives of _extinct_ dinosaurs. The DNA of birds must contain very much
information about the bauplan of dinosaurs, especially theropods.

Cheers

Heinz Peter Bredow