Re: [dinosaur] Submerged sauropods

Kermack's reasoning is rock-solid, and there is essentially no possibility
of snorkelling sauropods. As Kermack himself noted in the closing words of
his paper, "If the sauropods were, in fact, aquatic, they probably lived
much the same sort of life as the present-day Hippopotamus, swimming and
diving in the water, and walking along the bottom. To breathe, however,
they would have needed to raise their body nearly, if not quite, to the
surface."

Did some sauropods live that way? It seems enormously unlikely that, among
such a huge clade, widespread in time and space, there were not at least
some species that were as habitually aquatic as hippos. In determining
which those might be, the osteological correlates to look for would include
stout limbs, barrel-shaped (as opposed to slab-sided) torso, and reduced
skeletal pneumaticity. In the first two of these, Opisthocoelicaudia looks
like a strong candidate; but it fails the last.

-- Mike.


On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 12:39, Poekilopleuron <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Good day to all listmembers,
>
> I would like to ask what is the general current opinion on the hypothesis
> that sauropods could not submerge themselves completely under water (except
> for their heads), as it would definitely kill them - because of the
> hydrostatic pressure. Is it possible that despite this argumentation, some
> sauropods could enter the water "up to their shoulders" for at least some
> time? Thank you in advance! Tom
>
> See e. g.: Kermack, K. A. (1951). LXXX.—A note on the habits of the
> Sauropods , Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4(44): 830-832. doi:
> 10.1080/00222935108654213.
>