Thank you for the comment and the reference - I will check it out. I very much agree that looking at the teeth is one of the next steps in this research. I am currently collaborating with engineers and an expert in biomechanics at Villanova to examine the material properties of the teeth from the three different field sites (rock types). Our working hypothesis is that the teeth in urchins from field sites with different rock types, e.g., granite versus sandstone, will show different properties. We also suspect they may have different regeneration rates.


Thank you for the comment and the reference - I will check it out. I very much agree that looking at the teeth is one of the next steps in this research. I am currently collaborating with engineers and an expert in biomechanics at Villanova to examine the material properties of the teeth from the three different field sites (rock types). Our working hypothesis is that the teeth in urchins from field sites with different rock types, e.g., granite versus sandstone, will show different properties. We also suspect they may have different regeneration rates.
I like this kind of hypothesis because either result is interesting - if there are no differences, then the properties of the teeth are stable, despite the differences in the substrates. If there are differences, we can bring urchins into the lab and do reciprocal "transplants" to see if/when the properties change.
So many hypotheses . . . so little time . . . .
Thanks again -
Michael Russell