NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2461109" data-attributes="member: 2205">Yeah, that's the showman and cowboy in him.  He does like to make outrageous statements from time to time.  His book Dinosaur Heresies was kinda ironic, though--by the time he published it (1986?) his characterization of the paleontological stodgy "old guard" was 10-15 years out of date; he was railing against ideas that hadn't been accepted in a long time.  He also put words in some folks' mouths--the name of the bone histologist from Italy escapes me at the moment, but he notably did not agree with the details that Bakker attributed to him.The idea of aquatic ceratosaurs sounds ludicrous to me; presumably by ceratosaurs he means Ceratosaurus nasicornis as "ceratosaurs" is an extremely broad classification.  And if he does mean C. nasicornis that's a bit ironic, as he used the fact that the Cleveland-Lloyd Quarry (and the Morrison Formation in general) were very dry climates as part of his argument that sauropods couldn't be the aquatic floaters that they were formerly assumed to be.  Now ceratosaurs in this same climate are supposed to be obligatory piscevores?  I have no doubt that if a big dead fish washed up on the bank of a river or wadi that a ceratosaur wouldn't mind having a bite of it, but that's not a particularly telling observation.Lookit; I've slipped into lecturing mode.  Sorry.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /></blockquote>

Verification