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

Re: T. rex

Re: Jack Horner's ideas about _T. rex_, Larry Dunn wrote:
> I think what he was saying for those wishing to read between the lines
> was that he was raising this issue at least in part to get people to
> think about T. rex just the way that you now are.  

I believed this initially as well, but in Jack's last book (DINOSAUR
LIVES 1997), he was still doggedly propounding this idea, so...

> Many people grew up assuming that T. rex was a homicidal maniac       > 
> running around killing just for the hell of it. This of course is      > 
> silly, but Horner's claim that T. rex was an obligate scavenger made a > lot 
> of incensed people actually sit down and think hard about T. rex's > 
> lifestyle and what could be reasonably inferred from its morphology.  > It 
> also made people look for things like evidence of predation upon    > likely 
> prey species.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Jack started espousing his
"_Tyrannosaurus_ as scavenger" theory until sometime in the early '90s.
Ken Carpenter's tail-bitten _Edmontosaurus_ was known in the late '80s
(or earlier); the original version of my _Tyrannosaurus_ biting
_Edmontosaurus_ painting (based on that find) was done (at Ken's
suggestion for an article he was writing) in 1988. So, there was
*already* good evidence for predation by _Tyrannosaurus_ before Jack
came up with the obligate scavenger idea. I always wondered why he never
addressed this particular specimen in his talk at the AMNH.

> Then again, maybe he's right.  :)

In the face of direct evidence to the contrary, it doesn't seem likely
though. Sorry, Jack.

Brian (franczak@ntplx.net)