>> |
Nagi
>>223145
The problem with this assumption is that it doesn't take into account the fact that it's still generally accepted that some families of sauropod (brachiosaurs, camarasaurs, possibly titanosaurs) did indeed hold their heads and necks much higher than their hips. The primary groups that're seen to hold their necks parallel to the ground were the diplodocids and omeisaurs, because a re-evaluation of their neck vertebrae indicates that the necks were MUCH stiffer and MUCH more inflexible than originally thought. They couldn't crane their necks up in all those elegant swan-like postures we're all so used to seeing in artwork and museum displays because they'd break their necks in a dozen different places just trying it.
>>223094
For an animal that has to consume massive amounts of food to sustain itself, a long neck gives it a wider, sweeping range with which to graze from. It minimizes the energy burned by going to the food because the body can stay in one place more often while the head reaches out and clears a wider swathe of greenery than other herbivores. Just because diplodocids and omeisaurs couldn't browse treetops like other varieties of sauropod doesn't mean they still didn't benefit from having a long neck, as it would've given them an exceptional reach in acquiring low and mid-level vegetation, much more than other herbivores of the time.
The tail was more likely used to counterbalance the head, not the other way around. It explains why the more horizontally-oriented diplodocids have absolutely huge tails countering the fact that their necks and heads are stretched so far out in front of them, while other sauropods who held their heads habitually higher generally have shorter and less massive tails. They aren't always holding their heads way out in front, and as a result a lot of the weight of the neck and head is resting closer to the center of gravity, and thus there's less need for a heavy counterweight coming out the back.
|