Re: Fw: Ceratopsian Frills

["Vlad Petnicki" <bucketfoot-al@justice.com>]

6-ton Torosaurus yes - but imagine what a 10-ton
Triceratops Maximus could have done.

P.S.  Cliff - Where can one view/purchase your "1/35"
line?  I do not believe that I have seen your work
before.

Thanks

Vlad

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:47:24 -0600, "Cliff Green" wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>  Dear Mark and list,
> 
>      It's funny you should mention Ceratopsians using
> thier beaks as
> weapons.
>      I first mentioned this hypothesis several years
> ago, when I was doing
>  research on horned dinosaurs for a Discovery channel
> commission, and my
> 1/35th scale line. I didn't receive alot of feedback.
I
> am probably not the
> first person to come up with this idea in the hundred
> twenty plus years of
> ceratopsian study, but I didn't get the idea from
> someone else.
>     The jaw muscles on horned dinosaurs must have been
> emmense. Then take
> into account that the premax is still pointy, even in
> fossil form.Now
>  imagine how crisp the edge of the keratin sheath on
> that premaxilla must
>  have been. A six ton torosaur may have been able to
> nip small trees down. I
> can just visualize what it could do to the leg or
> exposed underbelly of an
> attacking tyrannosaur. Lawn shears through wet
> cardboard.
> 
>  Lost in the Lance Cliff
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Hallett" <marksabercat@yahoo.com>
> > To: <rtravsky@uwyo.edu>
> > Cc: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:12 PM
> > Subject: RE: Ceratopsian Frills
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "Richard W. Travsky" <rtravsky@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Andrew A. Farke wrote:
> > > > > From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
> > > [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Richard W. Travsky
> > >
> > > Thin and "porous". That frill practically goes
back
> > > to its butt. It looks
> > > like it wouldn't be strong enough to hold up as a
> > > barrier either.
> >
> > I think that a relatively thin and porus shield (I
> > prefer this term to "frill", since I think "shield"
> > comes closer to what I consider to have been its
> > intraspecific combat, anti-predator qualities) would
> > have still been effective against tyrannosaurid
> > predation. A downward or forwardly directed
> > tyrannosaurid bite would inflict tremendous damage
on
> > a fleshy, especially a vertical, structure like the
> > neck, trunk or spinal column, where the structure
> > would be perpendicular to the angle of the occluding
> > teeth; it would be less effective when brought to
bear
> > against a wide, hard curving surface (in the case of
> > an adult Torosaurus)like the shield, that exceeded
its
> > gape and may have largely deflected the bite. The
> > results would probably be similar to the T. rex
attack
> > on the Land Rover's sunroof in JP1: a frustrating
> > inability to get its jaws around something. This at
> > least could have bought some time to turn and stage
a
> > counterattack with the beak. I'm not implying that
> > ceratopsian shields were only for defense, but I
think
> > Richard's horned toad hypothesis has merit.
> >
> > --Mark Hallett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for
25¢
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> >

_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com