[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Tyrannosaurus rex and its youngsters (fwd)



> A Tyrannosaurus wouldn't be cannibalistic towards its OWN young.  But a male
> that wasn't the father had damn good reasons to kill the youngsters -- he
> must spread his genes, and killing the other male's youngsters eliminates
> another generation of his genes passing down.

Another possibility is that, as has already been discussed, females of these
theropods had the proverbial 'upper hand'. It has become clear in recent tests
of genetic parentage in bird clutches that females are 'using' males more than
vice versa (e.g. the female mates with as many males as possible to promote
sperm competition and hence 'fitter' juvs, while convincing the male that he is
using his time and energy to produce 'his' kids).

Moreover (still trying to work that word into everyday speech), while
infanticide amongst _Panthera_ species is now well known, in species where
females are bigger and polygamous (e.g. Jacanids), the situation is reversed.
Male jacana receive no help from the female after the eggs are laid, and it is
his job to brood and rear the babies. A roving female who decides that he will
make a good gene-bearer will destroy the clutch he has taken over from a
previous partner. Like a male lion, she will even kill another female's babies.

So, it is just as likely that a female tyrannosaur would go around killing juvs
IF (_if_) males look after babies (but is that likely?), and IF the females were
the big, boss ones.

"It is hard to see one's self as to look backwards without turning round"
"Japanese textbooks are for the helping and not to be the laughing at"
"Over here we have a saying: 'When the cook puts both his feet in the cooking
pot, you should not be surprised when the vegetables bite his toes!'"

DARREN NAISH