>>Hollow bones break easily, they are a decided disadvantage to a land-living
>>creature. If there were an advantage, why no hollow boned mammals today?
>
>I found this on the web, which may be of interest. Note that the subject is
>a *saurischian*, not *ornithischian* dinosaur. I quote all the substance of
>the web page:
><http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/1960/Coelophysis.htm>
>
>COELOPHYSIS
> "Hollow Form"
>
>ANATOMY
>Coelophysis was a small, lightly-built dinosaur that walked on two long legs.
>It was about 9 feet long
>(2.8 m). It had light, hollow bones (hence its name), a long head with dozens
>of small, serrated teeth,
>three clawed fingers on its hands, and a long neck.
Fascinating. While it isn't a mammal it still shows that the line of
reasoning I was pursuing on this issue was wrong and thus I am wrong about
land animals evolving hollow bones. Isn't the first time. THanks for the
correction.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution