Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="imhotep" data-source="post: 30336575" data-attributes="member: 562115">Nobody knows. But the accepted version is that Deinotherium could have used its tusks to remove branches that would have gotten in the way of feeding."Research conducted on Deinotherium suggests that these tusks were likely not used for digging, nor are they sexually dimorphic, leaving use in feeding as their most likely function. These tusks exhibit patterns of wear, in particular on their medial and caudal sides. In a 2001 paper Markov and colleagues argue that Deinotherium could have used its tusks to remove branches that would have gotten in the way of feeding, while using the proboscis to transport leaf material into its mouth. From there Deinotherium would have used a powerful tongue (inferred based on a notable trough at the front of the symphysis) to further manipulate its food. Different tusk anatomy in young individuals would suggest altered feeding strategies in juveniles."Also note:"While a trunk would be present, it would likely not resemble that of modern elephants and instead be more robust and muscular, which they reason is evidenced by the lack of a proper insertion surface. Although later research concurs that the trunk or proboscis of Deinotherium was likely notably different from those of modern proboscideans, the idea of a short tapir-like trunk is questioned. In particular, it is pointed out that the tall stature and still relatively short neck of Deinotherium would render it very difficult for the animal to drink without assuming a more complex posture. Thus it is suggested that the trunk must have been at least long enough for the animal to effectively drink.</blockquote>

Verification: Hata thunen beduwama keeyada? (60 bedeema thuna)

Top Bottom