Re: [Re: Feathered topics.]

[archosaur@usa.net]

dbensen <dbensen@gotnet.net> wrote:
> Here, I would like to stand in and defend Jurassic Park.  Although they
> did a lot of silly things, the frogs _weren't_ and accident.  The author
> (I misplaced my book, and I don't know how to spell Mr. C.'s name) put
> those frogs in there, because, without them, he couldn't plausibly have
> the dinosaurs change sex.  The whole idea was that the dinosaurs couldn't
breed because they were all female, but the frog DNA provided them with a
mechanism that turned some of the dinosaurs into males.  Frogs do make those
changes, and fish too, but I don't think any birds can, so birds are out as
genetic donors.  So, the frogs were necessary to the plot. 
> Dan

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As a die hard JP fan myself, I feel that I am well within my Es/Ex rights here
when I say that if Chrichton had bothered to do his homework a little more he
could have used parthenogenesis in place of that silly anuran idea.

This would be especially advantageous to him, the writer, since all diploid
reptiles and birds give parthenogenic birth to MALE young.

Jura


Jurassosaurus's Reptipage: A page devoted to the study of the reptilia:

http://reptilis.webjump.com

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1