I did not see the article of Charles Deeming about the oviraptorid (Momma) eggs. Is there any possibility
to reed it as PDF or in other digital form?
(take into account, that the same eggs as the eggs of Oviraptor (Momma), were found in a great number in the
different localities of the Gobi Desert (both Mongolia and China) and have been described (structure) and calculated (porosity - the papers of Karol Sabath, Warsaw) many times and also were formerly described as the oospecies of Elongatoolithus. One problem is that similar in shape (but with different eggshell structure!) protoceratopsid eggs
were found in the same localities (as well as the skeletons of protoceraposes, bagaceratopses and
other ceratopsids - see the articles of Vladimir Alifanov) but the crew of American paleontologists
(who diggerd Momma) can't recognise these two differnt types of eggs and the difference in their eggshell
structure and refer in their papers to both types of eggs to the same eggs.
Finally, the models of incubation for theropods, protoceratopsids, sauropods, hadrosaurs,
were discussed in literature many times (and in most detail by Karol Sabath).
|
> |
"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....
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...
"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? Where is the evidence? "A glance at the layout of the Big Momma nest http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/detectives/images/amnh%20big%20mama.jpg 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... "Sauropod eggs are always rounder aren't they?"
Approximately
" 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.
I know that sauropods could bent their back limbs, so my suggestion is that they laid their eggs and went away! "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! I am pretty sure they laid their eggs in warm conditions by known the climatic conditions at that time...
"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!! "Cheers, John J."
Xav John Jackson <strangetruther@...> 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. 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. A glance at the layout of the Big Momma nest http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/detectives/images/amnh%20big%20mama.jpg 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. Sauropod eggs are always rounder aren't they? 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. If sauropod eggs were not buried deeply, and presumably not incubated, does this mean they must have developed in warm conditions? I wonder how many sauropods have been found in colder climes. I suppose it's possible they just piled a few leaves on top! Cheers, John J. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
|
--
Konstantin Mikhailov mailto:konstm@...
Offline 
Send Email
