[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Wheelies vs Springers, and other
On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Betty Cunningham wrote:
> There's been some evidence of T rex and other big bitey-eatey-chewie-a-saurs
> leaving teeth
> stuck in prey that got away, but the teeth being left in the wounds seems to
> have the
> wound heal rather naturally around it, and if the teeth were themselves
> bearers of infectous
> deseases or venom, well, wouldn't that NOT be the case?
> -Betty Cunningham
What have they found T. rex teeth in (besides other T. rexes)?
How about other predators?
I had envisioned ankylosaurs hitting each other in the sides, rather than
tails, with their clubs, but I'm forced to admit that looking at it again
makes it look- well, backwards. I can't imagine Ankylosaurs NOT using a
club on a predator, it's just that I figured maybe that was a secondary
use. As for what would eat an ankylosaur- I'd guess they didn't have a
lot to worry about, but Tyrannosaurs are big animals, capable of biting
through the head of a Triceratops femur. I might still be wary as an
ankylosaur.And good point about keeping the tail between
the head and the predator.
I was looking at yet another squirrel, wondering about his
perspective on the world, and wondering if his skull would show anything
about that- would animals that live a great deal of the time in trees or
up in the air show differences in their orbits? Some birds have downward
directed eyes for watching fish, I believe. I was wondering whether this
would be of any use in examining suspected arboreal animals. I'd guess
that Archaeopteryx would probably be too flattened to show any
downward direction of the orbits (if such features exist)
but that Drinker, which Bakker should have the skull of, and which would
be preserved in full 3-d, might show such features if indeed it were
arboreal and there are differences in the skull design.