[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
When ever dealing with the fossil record one must remember that it is very
patchy. Just because we don't have an example of a baby T. rex doesn't mean
that we won't find one. Preservation bias may play a part; what if the
babies were raised in an area not prone to fossilization. Also collecting
bias may be at fault. T. rex has been called the most terrible dinosaur
ever to live, so in the past people were less interested in finding the
complete ontogeny and more impressed with the crowd drawing huge animals.
Also preditors are always in a tiny number verses the prey, so there are
more, say hadrasaurs, than the T. rex that feed on them. And it could be
that a great find of a couple of nests are just around the bend. Another
possibility would be that T. rex young grew extremely fast [to ensure
survival] and therefore spent more time as a juevinille than a baby. If T.
rex parents feed the young, then the siblbling competition for food may have
existed [like in birds], so one may eat the other baby, thus limiting the
chances of finding a baby. More skeletons and other evidence will have to
be found inorder to test this concept. And who knows, fossil poachers may
have already robbed the scientific world of several finds.