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

Re: T. REX THE HUNTER(finding cover)

Okay, here's a post I sent yesterday and didn't append to the list, and 
later found I should:

<<<<Betty wrote:
If you put the cookie jar on a shelf over your head, it doesn't mean 
Junior won't know where to look for it. And cookie jars don't REEK like 
a carcass would to a meat eater.>>>>

I replied:

<<<And that's how it was unlikely a rex would hide anything that big and 
smelly from a creature with olfactory bulbs the size of golf balls.>>>

Wilee81@aol.com replied:

<<I definetly agree with both scenarios but it seems that you may have 
mistaken my point, It wasnt whether or not a Trex would have hidden an 
animal that size. I simply stated in arguement to a previous posting 
that It was POSSIBLE to hide "from view" an animal the size of an 
edmontosaur or for a live animal to hide itself for that matter. (Or: 
how, exactly, does one "find cover" for a five ton carcass?) I was 
arguing a point that had to do more with to human error to assume that 
the perception of scale from the veipoint of one 5 ton animal to another 
was the same as the perception of an average human to that animal. I was 
mainly speaking generally but I never said that a Rex wouldnt be able to 
find the carcass. 

I guess I should learn to be more specific next time.>>

Then I replied:
<I was not invalidating your point. Tyrannosaurs may have smeared their 
personnal kills with their own scent to mask it (cf. _Lost World_) or 
mark it as theirs. Thus, there would be no reason for hinding the kill 
in the first place. Now, to truly hide it, no, it would have been 
impossible to bury the thing, but there were large forests, and the rex 
could have dragged the carcass off into this dense foliage, even covered 
up the thing with branches it breaks off from local angiosperms or low 
conifers or such vegetation, which would also mask the smell with their 
resin or sap.

Now, the large volume of an edmontosaur is less considerable when lying 
on its side, for instance, and this would have decreased chances of just 
looking about and spotting this cool, delicious meal just waiting to be 
scavenged. Now, the fifteen or nineteen feet or so of height achieveable 
in a tyrannosaur like, per se, Sue, would have increased these chances 
of discovery, forming something of a bell-curve of probability. It 
really also depends on the rarity of tyrannosaurs and how they grouped, 
at all, as per my scenario or some other one.>

Jaime A. Headden

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