Thanks for the reply, X. Answers within....

--- Xavier Panades I Blas <cogombra@...>
wrote:

>
> "Hello droogies -
>
> A few weeks ago I asked if anyone had any comments
> on
> Charles Deemings judgement of oviraptor eggs, with
> their large pores, being habitually buriedm but no
> answer."
>
> People are on field work I have just come back
> from Catalonia....

Hope you had a nice time!

>
> I have received an email from one of the
> self-exile palaeooologists from our list saying that
> the Charles Deemings's publication had three
> claculations erros...However, he never outlined
> them...
>
> Whereas, I have not been able to go through the
> whole publication. It would be interesting to know
> where they are (if they exist), and if they are
> really mistakes or different calcilational
> arrangements to suit their theories...
> Obviously Charles Deeming opinions here would be
> greatful...I will try to pursue the self-exile
> palaeooologist...
>

Maybe those supposed errors will not affect this
aspect.

>
> "I think their elongated shape may be
> correlated with being buried near the surface,
> whereas
> perhaps more "obovoid" shapes might mean deep burial
> or no burial."
>
> Why is that? how could you prove that?

I don't do proof in my science! Some refutation here
and there combined with a bit of guessing. I've never
seen much of what I'd call proof in natural science,
and would dispute its existence.

>Where is the evidence?

Where is the refutation?

> "A glance at the layout of the Big Momma nest
>
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/detectives/images/amnh%20big%20mama.j\
pg
> seems to me to leave a fair possibility that the
> eggs
> were shallowly buried, with some of the shell very
> near or above the surface."
>
> Indeed, but we do not know how they were cleaned
> etc...

I don't think it would be very easy to lay those eggs
diagonally as they appear in the fossil. I think they
were laid vertiaclly and became tilted over, possibly
during or after fossilisation.

>
> "Sauropod eggs are always rounder aren't they?"
>
> Approximately

Thanks.

>
>
> " Maybe
> this would be best for them since they probably
> didn't
> have very dextrous egg manipulation capabilities,
> and
> "near the surface" would have been more tricky for
> them than deep or no burial."
>
> I do not know about the "very dextrous egg
> manipulation capabilities", that is difficult to
> demonstrate.

The opposite is hard to imagine. That's evidence.
There is only circumstantial evidence in natural
science.

>
> I know that sauropods could bent their back limbs,
> so my suggestion is that they laid their eggs and
> went away!

I uspect they were fed by their parents. What could
they eat otherwise?

>
> "If sauropod eggs were not buried deeply, and
> presumably not incubated, does this mean they must
> have developed in warm conditions?"
>
> There is a bird that has developed an egg that can
> go without incubation for days!

Sounds somewhat familiar.

> I am pretty sure they laid their eggs in warm
> conditions by known the climatic conditions at that
> time...

Perhaps. But some lived way polar of the subtropics.

>
> "I wonder how many
> sauropods have been found in colder climes. I
> suppose
> it's possible they just piled a few leaves on top!"
>
> Or maybe they did have a different mecanism like
> ostriches!!

Do ostrich eggs require brooding? I mean all of them?
I know the ones near the edge die but I find it hard
to imagine that the ones that survive all get warmed
overnight by the parent.

>
>
> "Cheers,
>
> John J."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com