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

Re: DROMAEOSAUR "SICKLE" CLAWS



Kevin James Dracon wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Jeffrey Martz wrote:
>
> >
> > > mean I think he's right about _T._rex_.  The ecologist in me
> rebels at
> > > the thought of a large terrestrial scavenger; it just doesn't fly.
>
> > > Something like a 40% hunter/60% scavenger maybe, but a pure
> scavenger?
> > > No way.  The dino just couldn't cover enough ground to make it
> work.
> >
> >     If it was wandering around randomly looking for food, maybee
> not.
> > Horner's most compelling evidence (in my mind) for T.rex as a major
> > scavenger is the size of an olfactory bulb. If a meat eating animal
> had a
> > great enough sense of smell that it could head directly toward
> carcasses
> > miles away, its success as a scavenger would be improved
> dramatically.
> > Even Horner doesn't see T.rex as never taking down an easy prey
> animal, he
> > just sees scavenging as being predominant over hunting, and I am not
>
> > prepared to discard the idea entirely.
> >
> > LN Jeff
> > O-
>
> I must agree that Horner does make a good argument.  Many carnivores
> (referring the order Carnivora, not just any meat-eating vertebrate)
> have
> a highly developed sense of smell, but none are strict scavengers.
> Interestingly, the only strict scavengers are vultures and "turkey
> buzzards" and I believe that many of them actually have a very poor
> sense
> of smell.  I believe it was GSPaul who pointed out that the only
> reason
> that these animals are able to be scavengers is because they expend so
> few
> calories in searching for food (simply gliding) and covering such a
> huge
> range.
>
> I know that you do not rule out that _T._rex_ could have
> occasionally attacked animals, but I would like to point out one such
> instance where we are sure that it did attack a living creature.  The
> skeleton of _Edmontosaurus_ in Denver shows the scar of an attack on
> its
> tail.  Dr. Kenneth Carpenter (a wonderful gentleman, willing to
> indulge
> even a non-professional such as myself, thanx, Doc) spoke with me and
> has
> assured me that wound could only have been made by a _Tyrannosaurus_.
> The
> interesting thing is that the wound healed!  This means that _T._rex_
> attacked a living animal.
>
> Note that this was not a flame attempt, I do not indulge in that
> lovely
> pasttime.  I see nothing wrong with others doing it (especially when
> they
> are so certain that they are in the right), I simply choose not to do
> it
> myself.  I am, however, open to anyone who wishes to flame me.  I love
> a
> good roast!!
>
> Jack
> jconrad@lib.drury.edu

   I personnaly believe that T. rex was both a scavenger AND a hunter.
You know, he'd just take whatever was available. If it was already dead,
he'd take it. If it wasn't, he'd take it. Sort of like some(if not most
or even all) predators do today.

                                                                  Caleb
Lewis

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/6619/index.html