[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

"Dino-skunks", mimicry, and Independence Day


Tracy,
    Last post today for me.  Plesion Pelecanimimus is very incertae sedis
in my opinion.  Even I (a lumper) would be hesitant to place it in
Ornithomimidae, as I regard it as more problematic than Deinocheirus.
     Whether it was mimicking something (and I'm obviously not talking
about Tertiary pelicans) is hard to say, but it wouldn't surprise me.
     With all this dinofuzz and/or protofeathers among most major groups of
coelurosaurs, such integumentary structures would have made mimicry far
easier to achieve.  As for other groups of dinosaurs, it wouldn't surprise
me if ankylosaurs or stegosaurs may have mimicked the other in an earlier
and cruder attempt at mimicry (but perhaps closely related enough---as a
paraphyletic group?--- that they have fooled even scientists into thinking
they form a holophyletic group Thyreophora).
     Must keep our minds open to all kinds of possibilities, and it is this
kind of thing that can sometimes make intuitive eclecticism more valuable
than simplistic parsimony.  The simple "parsimonies" are relatively easy to
discover compared to "complex parsimonies" (the latter phrase may sound like
a contradiction in terms to some, but not to me).
      Cladistic methodologies and algorithms are still not able to handle
many complex evolutionary problems.  Therefore, as much as I am confident in
the future potential of cladistic analysis, I see it as being at a rather
unstable "teenage" stage, still sowing its oats, and therefore PhyloCode
could be like the Colonies trying to declare their independence about 50
years too soon.  Good timing is so important, and Benton seems to understand
that the timing of PhyloCode could be a premature disaster in the making.
    Being almost the 4th of July, I guess I'm feeling the urge to declare
my independence once again from both traditional overly-intuitive
eclecticism and a premature and overly-strict cladism.  I still believe a
new synthesis will emerge, following a backlash against implementation of
the PhyloCode.  That's when I think things will get very interesting, and
will be a time of great excitement for moderate elements on both sides.
                   Good night to all,   Ken
*********************************************************

From: "Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@home.com>
Reply-To: dino.hunter@home.com
To: "Dinonet" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: RE: any "Dino-skunks"? (now mimicry )
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:14:40 -0700



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Ken
Kinman
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 3:38 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: any "Dino-skunks"?


Matt,
     But the point is that mimicry has little to do with skeletal
differences that we use to identify, because the predator only sees the
outside of the body.  If you were a predator who had had one or more bad
experiences with a spotted skunk, and later on caught a glimpse of an
animal
of the same general size (with the same spotted pattern) running through
the
grass or brush, you would almost certainly hesitate (probably long enough
for the animal to escape), or perhaps even head the other way.  It is
rather
unlikely you are going to go full speed after it to get a close enough look
to see if it another skunk or not.
     That is why mimicry is a rather common occurrence.   A large number
of
spiders (in a variety of different families) are ant-mimics.  Not only the
body shape, but they often run around in the jerky manner that many ants
do.
  Of course, the reason this works is that many spider predators don't
like
the taste of ants.
     Mimicry certainly isn't 100% effective, but if looking like an ant or
a
skunk is even 50% effective in getting predators to avoid you, or at least
hesitate, sooner or later you are probably going to get a mimicks evolving
to take advantage of it.
     As for Protarcheopteryx, I think it is probably closer to
Oviraptorids
than are the therizinosaurs.  Between Protarcheopteryx and Oviraptorids
would be Families Caenagnathidae and Caudipteridae, and possibly genus
Beipiaosaurus (but probably not segnosaurs).  The similarities between
Protarcheopteryx and Caudipteryx are almost certainly due to their being
closely related.
      Biologists can fairly easily tell a monarch from a viceroy
butterfly,
and even a therizinosaur from an ornithomime, but if viceroys can fool
modern birds into thinking they are monarchs, then I think therizinosaurs
or
ornithomimes could also have developed mimicry that would have fooled their
predators, at least part of the time.<<

This is something that I've brought up on the list before. Can we now, with
all the known dinosaurs, state whether or not some of the animals actually
'mimicing' other dinosaurs? I.e. Buffetaut et al's belief that
Pelicanimimus
mimicking ornithimimids? Or to put it in a more accurately, are they
mimicking a body morph? (Yea I've heard how Pelicanimimus is an
ornithimimid
by some of youse guys, but the skull is just plain wrong).

Are other dinosaurs mimicking a body morph and do not belong in the current
family (group, clade, what ever) that they are placed in? I've also asked a
few paleontologist about this very thing a few months ago. IF, and yes this
is a big IF, if this is true, then what?

Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca  92074

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com