[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: re: T. rex
> Horner is sadly mistaken in saying active predators require their
> in predation.
Quite. Even if I am wrong about the possible use of the forelimbs,
the Bakker/Paul style of slash and follow hunting is still quite
acceptible a method. And a tyrannosaurs hind limbs are quite
powerful, so they could possibly deliver a fairly substatial
> Actually, Alexander's studied was seriously flawed. He used an 8
> for T. rex, based on an incorrect scaling (a hip height of 3.6 m).
Urp - *8* tons! That is a truly *old* weight estimate.
[It is also the almost highest that has ever been published].
4-5 tons is more like it.
> actual specimen "modelled" (its an atrocious model, by the way) has
> height of less than 3.2 m. Scaled correctly, the mass is some 4.6
> and the strength of the value almost doubles. However, Farlow et
al. have a
> paper in review which might change some of this...
This sound more like it.
> The evidence for running tyrannosaurids is much stronger than for
> ceratopsians. The whole hind limb of a tyrannosaurid is desinged to
> elongated and gracile. Ambush still might work, given the forested
> of some the habitats they lived in, but pursuit still is possible.
Quite - I remember an old study comparing Albertosaurus with
Daspletosaurus where the difference in the limb proportions
was of a sort to suggest one was more 'ambush' oriented than
the other. (The relative sizes of the upper and lower limb
bones are different in 'runners' versus 'sprinters').
[I think the study was actually the article that *defined*
Daspletosaurus as distinct from Albertosaurus, and this limb
proportion difference was one of the defining differences]
The peace of God be with you.