Comments on: No Trunks, Says Palaeontologist

By: sschaper

sschaper — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:36:05 +0000

When I think about the avian affinities of even the sauropods, could there have been keratinous material like a bill for making calls and displays that doesn’t fossilize, and that explain the position - and lack of connections for muscles, of the nares?

By: Endroren

Endroren — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:24:13 +0000

Fantastic post! This sort of willingness to explore various sides of an idea is what I love about this site. Thank you!

By: Munnin

Munnin — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:53:24 +0000

Fascinating stuff from Mr. Munns and Mr. Naish both! Thanks for a great post. When I look at the model of the Macrauchenia above, I can’t help thinking that, if the trunk were shortened a bit, the resulting effect might offer a resemblance to the face of the Saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica).

By: Bill Munns

Bill Munns — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:03:07 +0000

Regarding this article, I commend Loren for presenting both sides of this discussion.

I would like to remind one and all my ideas are mere hypothesis, and based on considerations of biomechanical functionality. I happen to have great confidence in the evolutionary mechanism of nature to produce successful working anatomical features on prehistoric life, and in that regard, all prior descriptions of the sauropods with nares at the top of the head are poor biomechanical designs. That is why I feel the topic should remain open to discussion and more effective biomechanical designs need to be considered.

Bill

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:01:38 +0000

Good post, Loren!!!

By: Lightning Orb

Lightning Orb — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:20:48 +0000

I’ll admit I don’t know much about the fossil structure this would require, but if the sauropods didn’t have trunks, might they have instead had smaller, inflatable bulges like a bullfrog’s gullet? Or a pair of “snorkels” on the top of the head, like the strange horn-like appendages depicted in some loch monster sketches?