Re: JP3 Thoughts (frilled Dilophosaurus revisited)

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/19/01 11:20:25 PM EST, theclaw10@home.com writes:

<< Before everyone starts thinking I'm completely insane: no, I don't
necessarily
 think that _Dilophosaurus_ had a neck frill. However, I honestly did not know
 that enough fossil evidence existed to completely rule it out in known
species
 of _Dilophosaurus_. If all anyone could present were reasons related to the
 animal's  size or place in the food chain, that to me isn't good enough to
 completely rule out the neck frill-type structures. But if such a structure
 would show evidence of muscle attachment scars on the bones supporting the
 frill, and none exist...well, that still makes me wonder; how do we know that
 _Dilophosaurus_ specimens have preserved all of the muscle attachment scars
 without any being eroded into obscurity? I would imagine that the muscle
 attachment scars for a neck frill would not be very large. >>

I can hardly believe my eyes. Some writer decides to stick a crazy neck frill
on what he or she called a Dilophosaurus in a Hollywood movie eight years
ago, and now we have this wacky debate? Has the world gone mad? We can't rule
out that dinosaurs had pink and blue polka dots, either, but should we waste
bandwidth debating this?