<?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: What&#8217;s the Secret of Hadrosaur Skin?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2012/11/whats-the-secret-of-hadrosaur-skin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2012/11/whats-the-secret-of-hadrosaur-skin/</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: 220mya</title>
		<link>http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2012/11/whats-the-secret-of-hadrosaur-skin/comment-page-1/#comment-7264</link>
		<dc:creator>220mya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=8837#comment-7264</guid>
		<description>At least in late Campanian settings, I don&#039;t think that &#039;headhunting&#039; explains the discrepancy between occurrences of hadrosaurid and ceratopsid skin.  In places like the Dinosaur Park and Kaiparowits fms, plenty of ceratopsian postcrania has been collected (with and without skulls), and hadrosaur skin is still way more common.

One thing I find very odd is that Davis doesn&#039;t bother to look at average sediment accumulation rates for formations that preserve these fossils.  I&#039;d think that the higher the average accumulation rate, the more likely you are to get more skin impressions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least in late Campanian settings, I don&#8217;t think that &#8216;headhunting&#8217; explains the discrepancy between occurrences of hadrosaurid and ceratopsid skin.  In places like the Dinosaur Park and Kaiparowits fms, plenty of ceratopsian postcrania has been collected (with and without skulls), and hadrosaur skin is still way more common.</p>
<p>One thing I find very odd is that Davis doesn&#8217;t bother to look at average sediment accumulation rates for formations that preserve these fossils.  I&#8217;d think that the higher the average accumulation rate, the more likely you are to get more skin impressions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
