|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:43:19 GMT
Uh oh lets not get into a warb blood cold blood thing now. I believe that Bakker pointed out long ago that predator-prey ratios in the late Cretacious, based on fossil finds, matched mammalian predator-prey ratios of today rather than reptile predator-prey ratios. (Ie lots more predators among cold-blooded critters than among warm-blooded vis-a-vis the prey) ... studies of Dimetrodon fossils and prey animals, as another example, match the cold-blooded model in another match-up ... pretty much as we would expect ... |
|
|
|
Post by mmfrankford on Sept 20, 2011 19:44:08 GMT
Good God...  |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Sept 20, 2011 19:44:39 GMT
Good God... Quite. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 19:45:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:46:33 GMT
*ducking*
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:48:02 GMT
I gather that the warm vs coldblooded question has generated debate?
Surely all can agree that SOME dinosaurs (ie, Theropods, were clearly warm-blooded), some were probably warm-blooded, and some may have been in-between (Sauropods) ... but their growth rates suggest even they were warm-blooded, do they not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 19:48:17 GMT
Is there any evidence to support yours? You are saying baby dinosaurs just sit around in their nests by themselves until they are a year old or older! No animal does that today!
Here's my evidence.
1) Baby ceratopsids and hadrosaurs look different than adults. Thats a trait seen in babies that require parental care.
2) Baby ceratopsids and hadrosaurs stayed in or near the nest after hatching. This is a trait seen in babies that require parental care.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on Sept 20, 2011 19:51:20 GMT
Is there any evidence to support yours? You are saying baby dinosaurs just sit around in their nests by themselves until they are a year old or older! No animal does that today! Here's my evidence. 1) Baby ceratopsids and hadrosaurs look different than adults. Thats a trait seen in babies that require parental care. 2) Baby ceratopsids and hadrosaurs stayed in or near the nest after hatching. This is a trait seen in babies that require parental care. Quite right. Simple logic and the principle of Occam's Razor are pretty irrefutable in this regard, absent actual evidence to the contrary in this example. As either Griffin or Arioch pointed out earlier in this thread, the niche will largely govern patterns of animal behaviour. Hence we can logically infer that Triceratops herds, from afar, behaved in a similar fashion to, say, herds of Wildebeast do today .... other than their nesting, of course ... the little ones would eventually be expected to travel with the herd ... |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 20:02:14 GMT
1) California quails (just to a say some species of galliformes) are precocial and look nothing like adults.
2) There is no proof that all those bonebeds were nests.
The behaviour is "writen" in the DNA of each animal, and the environment just plays a minor effect on it. Unless we talk of learned behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 20:04:32 GMT
1) California quails (just to a say some species of galliformes) are precocial and look nothing like adults. 2) There is no proof that all those bonebeds were nests. The behaviour is "writen" in the DNA of each animal, and the environment just plays a minor effect on it. One bird that evolved that trait on its own out of thousands of other species of birds that do care for their young. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 20:11:43 GMT
Actually, many species of birds: ducks, gooses...
How come being scarce within Aves makes them invalid as example?
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 20:14:59 GMT
The adult ducks and geese take care of them! The babies follow them around. The parents protect them. They sleep together, eat together. That's parental care!
If behavior is ingrained in the DNA then why don't all animals act the same then? Why do some birds act a certain way with their young and others don't? DNA can change. Its evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 20:22:53 GMT
They´re still considered precocial as they can eat on their own, and they dont stay in any nest.
About your last sentence, I agree, but i dont see how is that related to what we´re discussing (archosaurs acting like mammals.)
Again I recommend you read the Andrea Caus entry I posted ealier to know an expert opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 20:27:49 GMT
But... they still get help from mom and dad! lol Thats my point! Some birds stay in the nest some don't. Fine. Some dinosaurs could have stayed in the nest and some may not have!
|
|
|
|
Post by Libraraptor on Sept 20, 2011 20:41:00 GMT
Wow, I haven´t been reading such an interesting debate here for some months now. I appreciate you´re all into it that much. Although I must admit on the long run this all starts to bore me. So if you want to misread and misunderstand each other on purpose, it´s not that entertaining for others - why not continue in the PM section? Hm, now I feel like drag ;D |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 20:43:06 GMT
Sure, everything is possible but only what is backed up by some solid evidence is plausible. That what separates educated theories from mere speculations based on dubious analogies.
I´m not denying that there could be some non extensive parental care in certain dinosaur species, but again, we need stronger evidence before taking it as a fact.
And yes, I wonder why understanding that is such a batltle too....
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 20, 2011 20:57:12 GMT
I'm telling you we have the evidence! Its plausible! Lots of paleontologists think so!
Ugh unless someone else chimes in with new stuff i'm done here. Think whatever you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 20, 2011 21:17:52 GMT
And so the magic happened again! A simple thread about a dino show became an epic discussion about dinosaurs behaviour, two different points of view clashing like ancient knights on the battlefield... Joking aside, Arioch, not to sound rude but the evidence gathered so far IMHO is heavy on the "parental care" side. Andrea Cau has his opinion about it, but many other paleontologists (as far as i know) think otherwise plus, as Griffin said, the majority of birds today care for their young (to various degrees, of course), and crocs too; many animals today are precocial yet stay with their parents as long as it suits 'em. Why dinosaurs should have been different?  |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Sept 20, 2011 21:27:51 GMT
Like I were making this up. I just stick to experts objective opinion, sorry. None of the truly reliable experts think seriously of complex, extensive parental care as a fact anymore . Young -hatchlings- skeletons and juveniles found together on what could have been a nest or not implies strong evidence of extensive parental care? in those bonededs which are certainly nests, how we even know how much they lived after hatch, or if they had the chance at all considering that all remains belong to extremely young, barely newborns and not growing chicks? please. There´s no way we can go on with this if we keep ignoring that. But yes, this is an esterile discussion since we all have so different standards and understandings on what is reliable and real science and what isn´t. I´m done for now. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 20, 2011 21:35:58 GMT
Soooo... Can we talk again about Planet Dinosaur?
|
|
