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

Re: Cursorial adaptations (was T.rex and elephants)

Michael wrote:
> > Date:          Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:18:41 -0700
> > Reply-to:      Sankarah@ou.edu
> > From:          Chris Campbell <sankarah@ou.edu>
> > To:            dinosaur@usc.edu
> > 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.
> Michael

        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out of date, but I seem to recall estimates for the top speed of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.
        Dann Pigdon
        Melbourne, Australia