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

Re: Ohh, do I hate to do this! (JP)

jbmiller@fn.net wrote:

>At 10:47 AM 7/22/96 -0400, Jay Freeman wrote:
>>    3)  _T._rex_ almost certainly had far better sensory apparatus than
>>depicted.  If it's incapable of detecting a stationary human being right
>>under its nose, then it's likely not capable of finding its own freshly-killed
>>prey -- it knocks down the prey, then as soon as the critter is dead and
>>stationary, _T._rex_ cannot see it.
>there's a bit in Lost World about this, about how Alan Grant was wrong and
>that Rex would have to see still things in order to be an effective
>predator. doesn't fix the movie performance, tho.... 

        Yes, the second book is kind of a sequel to an amalgamation of the 
movie and the book. This explanation is counter to the explanation for the 
T-Rex's ineptitude in the first book.

>come to think of it, was there any mention in JP the book about t-rex not
>seeing still things?

        This is explained in the original book (JP) as the result of mixing 
dino-DNA and amphibian-DNA. To fill in the missing sequences in the ancient 
DNA, the scientists used amphibian (frog?) DNA. Some frogs, it was 
explained, hunted by motion and ignored things that were still. When Alan 
Grant was faced with the T-Rex he noticed its strange behavior and figured 
this out.
        This is also the reason that the dinosaurs were able to reproduce, 
since some amphibians are hermaphroditic and have the ability to become male 
during certain circumstances.
        Of course, this explanation creates all sorts of problems, like if 
you mixed Dino-DNA and frog DNA, wouldn't you come up with animals with 
physical characteristics of both dinosaurs and the amphibian DNA donor?

Sjt. William C. Ward         
Williamson's Co. 
4th Battn., Royal Regt. of Artillery

Where a goat can go a man can go,
and where a man can go he can drag a gun!

             -Major General William Phillips, RA