Re: Regarding Spinosaurus

[Graydon <graydon@dsl.ca>]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:02:28AM -0800, Jaime A. Headden scripsit:
[major snippage]
> This allows, along with teeth
> arranged in direct parallel to the dorsoventral axis of the jaw in
> section, very good bend-resisting stress reducers, and suggest the jaw
> action was one of "open--close" in a very fast and very strong action.
> Something interesting is that the jaw symphysis is not fused, unknown in
> other fish-snatching predators, and the lack of a defined or rugose
> symphysial plate in the jaw of *Spinosaurus* or the very small one seen in
> *Baryonyx* (pers. obs.) indicate that the binding cartilage was either
> small and weak, or absent, and that, as in *Torvosaurus* or some
> carnosaurs, the jaws could move slightly independantly (*Torovosaurus*
> also appears to have a very reduced symphysis, pers. obs.). Damn, why
> don't I just right the paper now?...

Has anyone considered the possibility of the jaw structure being
intended, not particularly for pscivory, but for feeding from the body
cavities of sauropods?

It seems as though there is a great deal of adaptation to having a
strong bite with a jaw that has the minimum cross sectional area; it
might make sense as a feeding adaptation for extraction, rather than
capture.

-- 
graydon@dsl.ca   |  Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre,
                 |  mod sceal þe mare þe ure maegen lytlað.
                 |   -- Beorhtwold, "The Battle of Maldon"