[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: _T. rex_ strikes ( was Ceratopsian frills)
Stan Friesen wrote:
> An edmontosaur is a *huge* animal (it makes a moose look small).
> It seems likely that T. rex could manage to move fast enough to
> contact such an animal. And I doubt that great precision was
> necessary - repeated slashing bites would bring down the prey
> just as thoroughly as a choking bite such as used by cats.
I don't know that an edmontosaur weighed, but it looks significantly
smaller than _T rex_. Perhaps _T rex_ could crush its neck in one quick
bite. It looks like it didn't have the mass or the bones to cause
catastrophic dental failure. (Losing one or two teeth at a time, like a
child, would have been okay.)
Best of all, it looks innocuous! I understand its tail had limited
motion, and I don't think bipeds could use their tails as effectively as
If I were a _T rex_, that's what I'd eat even if the others called me a
wimp. Did no species prey on the more dangerous game?
> > Weren't America's plains once overrun with millions of buffalo whose
> > size made them fairly invulnerable to wolves?
> Already really answered, but I will add the tag that the prairie wolf
> may well have subsisted *mainly* on buffalo. (or at least some packs
> of wolf did).
I'd better explain that. Naturally, there were enough vulnerable
buffalo to feed a certain population of watchful wolves. Suppose bigger
wolves had the power to make a meal of any buffalo in sight. They would
have had more meals, and intraspecies competition would have shifted the
gene pool toward bigger wolves. Buffalo would have become harder to
find, like many prey animals. The fact that wolves weren't bigger
indicates that this would not have been an advantage, although buffalo
were readily available.
> So what if the prey pulls away - that just tears a big chunk of flesh
> out. T. rex just bites again, and again, and again. (I probably
> favored the fleshy parts rather than the bony ones anyway, as that
> would do more damage per bite).
It would be fine to molest prey that way as long as the prey wasn't
armed and considered dangerous. It's like the line from "Blazing
Saddles": "DON'T SHOOT HIM! YOU MIGHT MAKE HIM MAD!"
> I would not say T. rex was built like a battlship, more like a
> battlecruiser - fast and lethal.
In some cases, _T rex_ had to be lethal fast because the prey could fast
> > I assume _T rex's_ arms were not its primary weapons.
> Probably true, but they may have been more use than you think. They
> were well placed to grab an _Edmontosaurus_ or _Triceratops_ on the
> back and hold it in place for the teeth to rend.
I'd prefer long, powerful arms with big, grasping claws for the former.
As for the latter... Five tons? Very agile? Built to turn and lunge?
Four-foot horns on an eight-foot skull? Able to catch me in a sprint?
A beak that looks like it could bite off a utility pole?
Is that why _T rex_ skeletons never seem to be complete? I'd have to
have his written guarantee that he wouldn't get upset when I bit him.
If only I knew how to give him a bad knee before I introduced myself...
Say... remember the Roadblock Scene in "Thunder Road"? Instead of
slowing, Robert Mitchum speeds up to 90 and hits the weak parts of their
cars with the strongest part of his. hmmm....
> Any relation to Wayne Throop?
I'm sorry, I don't recall. I don't want to say anything that could be
used against me in a court of law, but I don't want to deny anything in
case he's rich or famous. Maybe after I get proper advice from Lawrence
However, I'm ready to admit to being my grandfather's grandson. I just
found out he collected handsome royalties for many years after patenting
the _Light Bulb Socket_.
If only he'd had the vision to see the implication of his technological
miracle! But no, it was Thomas Edison who got the bright idea of
creating a flashy accessory for my grandfather's invention.
Thanks for the remarks.