<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sinornithosaurus Probably Wasn&#8217;t Venomous After All</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/</link>
	<description>Where Paleontology Meets Pop Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:48:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buck Teeth? Wait a Minute&#8230;. &#171; The Bite Stuff</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-3979</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck Teeth? Wait a Minute&#8230;. &#171; The Bite Stuff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-3979</guid>
		<description>[...] sets of authors on this issue, and have no opinion on the situation, which Brian Switek covered here, although it should be noted that in neither case did the authors demonstrate the extent of enamel, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] sets of authors on this issue, and have no opinion on the situation, which Brian Switek covered here, although it should be noted that in neither case did the authors demonstrate the extent of enamel, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Garofalo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2342</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Garofalo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 04:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-2342</guid>
		<description>I never said you shouldn&#039;t be cautious with BANDit papers, I just don&#039;t think they should be dismissed outright simply because of that fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never said you shouldn&#8217;t be cautious with BANDit papers, I just don&#8217;t think they should be dismissed outright simply because of that fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach Miller</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2338</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 23:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-2338</guid>
		<description>If a paper is written by BANDits, that&#039;s certainly a big fat warning label to me. But I try to read it with an open mind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a paper is written by BANDits, that&#8217;s certainly a big fat warning label to me. But I try to read it with an open mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2336</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-2336</guid>
		<description>Probably one of those deceptively simple questions that turns out to be anything but: How long ago did venom first evolve among vertebrates? Do we even have a guess for that, or is it too difficult to determine form fossil evidence alone?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Probably one of those deceptively simple questions that turns out to be anything but: How long ago did venom first evolve among vertebrates? Do we even have a guess for that, or is it too difficult to determine form fossil evidence alone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Garofalo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2329</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Garofalo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:41:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-2329</guid>
		<description>I wonder how many people dismissed the original paper simply because it was written by BANDits.  I was never convinced by their &quot;evidence&quot; in the first place, but dismissing it based on their position alone would be too ad hominem for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how many people dismissed the original paper simply because it was written by BANDits.  I was never convinced by their &#8220;evidence&#8221; in the first place, but dismissing it based on their position alone would be too ad hominem for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach Miller</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2325</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-2325</guid>
		<description>I just love how even unprofessional enthusiasts like you, Brian, and myself, and professional paleontologists cried &quot;fowl&quot; when this paper was published. We all knew better, and I&#039;ll bet the authors of the original paper did, too. I&#039;m glad Gianechini et al. published a rebuke. There needs to be more of that--beating down the cranks, that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just love how even unprofessional enthusiasts like you, Brian, and myself, and professional paleontologists cried &#8220;fowl&#8221; when this paper was published. We all knew better, and I&#8217;ll bet the authors of the original paper did, too. I&#8217;m glad Gianechini et al. published a rebuke. There needs to be more of that&#8211;beating down the cranks, that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Marjanović</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/07/sinornithosaurus-probably-wasnt-venomous-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2324</link>
		<dc:creator>David Marjanović</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=3510#comment-2324</guid>
		<description>The very widespread grooves probably come from the fact that the tooth roots of archosaurs are hollow. Squeeze them (by putting a few hundred meters of rock on them and wait for well over 100 million years), and you get flat, grooved teeth. Hollow bones are often preserved this way, too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The very widespread grooves probably come from the fact that the tooth roots of archosaurs are hollow. Squeeze them (by putting a few hundred meters of rock on them and wait for well over 100 million years), and you get flat, grooved teeth. Hollow bones are often preserved this way, too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
