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


>In a message dated 98-02-04 01:47:16 EST, dannj@alphalink.com.au 

><< Perhaps the hadrosaur was asleep and the Tyrannosaur mistook it
> for being dead. When the carcass screamed the Tyrannosaur realised
> its mistake, let go, and went off to search for something really
> dead, leaving the Edmontosaur still alive. Hey, it's no sillier or
> more extreme than some of the arguements in the bird-dinosaur
> debate! >>

>Hi Dann! I have a question about your scenario: Assuming that T. >rex's 
binocular vision and sense of smell was good enough for him to >be able 
to distinguish the basics of anatomy, wouldn't he rather want >to bite 
the "sleeping" Edmontosaurus' neck rather than the tail? I >think that 
makes sense. I think he'd rather bite his neck.

>Now my scenario: The T. rex was chasing the Edmontosaurus in a >hunting 
pursuit. In an effort to trip the Edmontosaurus, the T. rex >cocks his 
head to bite the neural spines part of his tail, and slows >way down. 
The tough Edmontosaurus puts up a struggle and manages to >trip the T. 
rex, maybe by swinging his stiff tail. The T. rex, now >losing his 
balance, tries in vain to stay up by biting down harder on >the spines. 
The spines snap off, and the T. rex comes tumbling down. >He watches in 
humiliation as his would-be-prey gets away.
>  IMHO, that's a better scenario.
>  Have a nice day!
>  Jim

Very good scenario.

A lumbering scavenger would also have not probably bitten a 
*Triceratops'* face as indicated by the specimen (don't know the number) 
that had *Tyrannosaurus* teeth embedded in the skull. Now, while we can 
think that no self-respecting T. rex would go after a living trike in 
the face, with those 3 foot horns (with keratin applied to them, 4.5 
feet) sticking forward and up, a possible retort would be what T. rex 
would go after a _dead_ trike's face, covered as it was by very little 
meat and a lot of tough skin and hide.

This dinosaur (the trike) was posed on the list a few days back as 
another example of how T. rex could definately kill living prey, not 
"kill" a corpse. I believe that, like hyenas and lions (more like the 
former) T. rex would hunt and scavenge if hunting proved futile and dead 
prey was more accessible.

And just in case anyone's wondering, hyenas are more likely to hunt down 
prey than lions, and are more effective at it, as well, with their 
"scavenger" bodies (huge, bone crushing teeth, strong jaws, powerful 
neck, forward torso enlarged and strengthed to anchor the neck, and hind 
limbs well-built to power the whole body). If a hyena were the size of a 
lion, the former would win out in almost any battle the two might 
possibly have, exclusively because the hyena is better built to kill, 
not scavenge. Lions rely on precise applications of their otherwise 
slender, delicate canines to pierce flesh in the region of the backbone, 
otherwise they hang on and attempt to weary the prey down till they 
start feeding---mostly when the unfortunate zebra's still alive.

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com