|
|
Post by ambulocetus on May 19, 2011 4:57:21 GMT
Back as a child I always thought it looked wrong to see sauropods supported by water, and for books to say they could harly walk on land. The books assured us that this was so, however. But they were wrong.
Years ago, in an issue in Discover magazine i read about a theory (I"m fairly sure it was one of Robert Bakker's theories) that large sauropods didn't lay eggs. There's a limit to how large an egg can get, he explained, and something very large was passing threw the birth canal. His conclusion was that sauropods gave birth to live young, He thought they had even evolved a placenta-like envolope to nourish their young. And this was accompanied by a painting of a newborn calf sauropod shedding the envolope it was birthed in. All this seemed very reasonable to me. Much more so than the image of brachiosaurs laying cluchings of tiny eggs.
Except Bakker and I were both wrong this time. It seems virtually proven nowadays that suaropods did indeed lay eggs.
My question: is there any evidence AT ALL to support Bakker's theory anymore?
|
|
|
|
Post by ambulocetus on May 19, 2011 5:02:21 GMT
I just found this statement in an article someone posted on mokele mbembe:
"Oh, and Bakker was right about sauropods being viviparous"
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 19, 2011 5:25:24 GMT
I just found this statement in an article someone posted on mokele mbembe: "Oh, and Bakker was right about sauropods being viviparous" I'm pretty sure that article is less supportive than you might want  |
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on May 21, 2011 7:03:55 GMT
Fascinating thought - "viviparous sauropods". But probably not correct in any case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on May 21, 2011 13:10:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ambulocetus on May 22, 2011 2:57:40 GMT
Yes, that article has the picture of the newborn sauropod. It's easy to laugh about all this now. But it still seems more credible than the truth, even today--that even giant sauropods like brachiosaurus laid clutches oif tiny eggs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on May 22, 2011 19:20:38 GMT
Yes, that article has the picture of the newborn sauropod. It's easy to laugh about all this now. But it still seems more credible than the truth, even today--that even giant sauropods like brachiosaurus laid clutches oif tiny eggs! Surely the latter is a lot MORE credible? They are archosaurs after all! |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 22, 2011 20:27:01 GMT
Yes, that article has the picture of the newborn sauropod. It's easy to laugh about all this now. But it still seems more credible than the truth, even today--that even giant sauropods like brachiosaurus laid clutches oif tiny eggs! Surely the latter is a lot MORE credible? They are archosaurs after all! It seems like since Bakker and the 70s, people have wanted to believe sauropods are elephant-like, raising only a few young to adulthood and living in caring family units. Land Before time didn't help... but evidence and, frankly, common sense IMO points to them being more like giant tortoises in terms of life history. There's a general "mammalification" of dinosaurs that hides the fact that they are, as you point out, archosaurs. We should use crocs and birds and other reptiles as first point of comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on May 22, 2011 20:41:29 GMT
There's a general "mammalification" of dinosaurs that hides the fact that they are, as you point out, archosaurs. We should use crocs and birds and other reptiles as first point of comparison. Very true. I suppose that - as mammals - we have a tendency to 'mammalify' everything, or rather view it from a mammal-centric perspective (if not an anthropocentric perspective). I did like what Greg Paul said in the Field Guide regarding dinosaurs seeming 'strange' and 'other' to us - namely that mammals should probably be viewed as the truly strange animals (with elephants given as a prime example of truly bizarre animals). |
|
|
|
Post by ambulocetus on May 23, 2011 5:07:13 GMT
My book The World of Kong: a Natural History of Skull Island, the described the evolved "brontosaurs" of the island as being viviporous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 23, 2011 15:07:49 GMT
My book The World of Kong: a Natural History of Skull Island, the described the evolved "brontosaurs" of the island as being viviporous. The point being what? They also describe a 25-foot tall gorilla (also functionally impossible). |
|
|
|
Post by ambulocetus on May 24, 2011 3:05:15 GMT
The only point is that it was something I remembered.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on May 24, 2011 11:25:47 GMT
My book The World of Kong: a Natural History of Skull Island, the described the evolved "brontosaurs" of the island as being viviporous. The point being what? They also describe a 25-foot tall gorilla (also functionally impossible). Ouch, he was just adding to the conversation. I found it interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on May 27, 2011 20:25:58 GMT
Yeah I don't think he was using it to argue anything.
I remember reading a while back some believed pachycephalosaurs could have been having live young as well because of their wider hips. This also ended up to be less than credible. But its interesting to note.
|
|
