[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cursorial adaptations (was T.rex and elephants)
> > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:18:41 -0700
> > Reply-to: Sankarah@ou.edu
> > From: Chris Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: Cursorial adaptations (was T.rex and elephants)
> We have to remember that _T. rex_ didn't have to catch
> > its prey; they're slow enough that closing the distance isn't the
> > problem. Being able to get around things like pokey horns would be a
> > good thing, however, and high mobility would help that. Being able to
> > get at the prey before help arrives (you know those big, lumbering tanks
> > of herbivores won't be turning about very quickly) would also be a very
> > good thing.
> Why would prey necessarily be slow? Rhino are not slow nor unagile
> and are comparable in size to triceratop(what's the plural?).
> Whether they did run fast is for the imagination unless someone comes
> up with the tracks.
This is going back a few years now, so the data is probably
out of date, but I seem to recall estimates for the top speed of
some large hadrosaurs to have been greater than that for tyrannosaurs.
I seem to recall reading this when the Great Russian Dinosaur
exhibition was having its final showing at Monash Uni here in
Victoria, Australia. A saurolophus mount was located near to a
tarbosaurus mount, and I remember the hadrosaur's hind limb bones
appeared stockier than those of the tyrannosaur. Although the
tarbosaur's long gracile legs made it "look" faster, I remember
thinking that the more robust legs of the hadrosaur "looked" better
able to withstand prolonged stresses from running. These were just
visual impressions mind you.