[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Trexie and whales..?! (fwd)
> was trying to dine on pachyderm in such a habitat a good snozzler would
> be very useful - but I'd still need binocular vision for the final attack.
The developmetn of olfaction compared to vision in T.rex is what I
consider the most compelling argument for SCAVENGING in T.rex. For the
final attack, you want to zero in on a particualr section of the animal.
Just rushing toward a big smell with your mouth open isn't going to do
the trick if you end up clamping onto the frill or just take off the tip
of the tail.
> Other factors which are relevant - does the energetics of the situation
> permit such a large animal, or even any terrestrial animal, to exist on
> scavenging alone? It's not as if your Triceratops is going to be dying
> very often if the T. rex isn't killing it (can you image any other beast
> capable of preying on Triceratops?). If it's such an exclusive
> scavenger, then why aren't the teeth and forelimbs adapted to
> manipulating bones to get the most out of them (it can't be a scavenger
> because it's arms are too short!)
A low mortality rate would be a very persuasive argument for
PREDATION in T.rex. You may feast when you find a dead Triceratops, but
how long between meals? I recognize how grossly uncertain trying to
calculate this sort of thing from the fossil record is, but does anyone
have any idea what sort of natural mortality rate Triceratops (and
duckbills) might have had, and how much meat this might have provided for
a T.rex population?