Re: dinosaurs did eat grass

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Keesey wrote:

> > That could be.  One thing that comes to mind is that rebbachisaurids 
> weren't
> > exactly a screaming success in the later Cretaceous.  We only know of a
> > handful of genera from the entire period
>
> Couldn't the same thing be said of  poaceans?

The authors infer at least five poacean taxa in the late Maastrichtian of 
central India.  If grasses diversified during the later Cretaceous, and 
rebbachisaurids were specialized for eating grasses, why didn't 
rebbachisaurids likewise diversify?

Jeff Hecht wrote:

> If we assume the titanosaur was eating everything within its reach, grasses 
> were only a small fraction of the foliage in a forest environment. The 
> authors don't think it had any dental adaptations for feeding on grasses, 
> but I don't think they have teeth.

AFAIK, the only sauropod teeth from the Late Cretaceous of India are 
isolated teeth named _Titanosaurus rahiolensis_ (nomen dubium, but probably 
titanosaurian).

> There are late Cretaceous mammals called gondwanatherians which do have 
> teeth with thick enamel, and may have specialized in eating grasses.

Did any "zhelestids" have hypsodont dentition, or were they all bunodont?

Cheers

Tim