[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Rex Fall part 2
Peter Buchholz wrote:
> Again, my point was: animals learn how to take falls while it is not lethal
> to do so; ie when they are little. So what if something gets broken? The
> point is that death is avoided.
> > Getting killed one out a hundred times you chase your prey isn't
> > a tremendous overall gain.
> You know what I meant.
Still, I am unclear as to what exactly you are arguing.
***The gist of the paper, and what I am arguing here, is:
1) **That the higher speed estimates of 35-45 mph are excessive. NOT that
T.rex didn't run, just that it didn't run THAT FAST. Your argument that
T.rex NEEDED to run faster in order to get significant net returns asuumes
that its prey could. **WHY?** 15 mph is pretty fast.
2) That compared to a large modern running quadraped, a running T.rex is
MUCH MUCH more likely to injure itself, becasue a) it is a biped b) the
likelyhood of breaking a bone when you fall increases with mass. In
other words, the larger you get, the less likely preventive manuevers like
landing on your butt or doing shoulder rolls would be to prevent AN
injury of some kind, even if it doesn't kill you, and c) the MAGNITUDE of
the potential injury increases with size. Multiply these three factors
together, and the risks become extremely significant.
Or are you saying that broken bones are not unhealthy enough for an
animal to try to avoid them? Broken bones are dangerous. If something
vital for the animal's survival like a leg bone, that animal would be facing
serious problems. Sue's luck regardless, I think it is safe to say that a
bipedal predator with a broken leg has even less of a chance of catching
prey then one that plays it safe. Imagine weighing six tonnes and trying to
run after prey with half your legs broken.
Could someone provide a little hard data on how frequent animal
falls, particularly biped falls, occur in the wild?