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

Re: Little skulls...

>We could tell they were food by two counts:
>1)    If there were signs of acidic corrosion on these skulls caused by
>digestion.  Alas this doesn't account for them being uneaten food
>2)    Also if there were bite marks on the skulls which could have been put
>there by being killed by the mother, carried by her back to the nest, or
>nibbled by the youngsters.  Again a lack of bite marks does not prove they
>weren't food.

As I suggested earlier, the presence of corrosion by digestive acids would
be convincing evidence that the little Dromeosaurs were either eaten by the
adult (most likely) or the babies (unlikely).  On the other hand, if the
little skulls showed no signs of having been eaten, we would be left with
the speculation (which is all we have now) that they were uneaten heads of
immature Dromeosaur individuals that somehow came to reside in the nest of
an Oviraptor.  Personally, I can't recall the last time I saw anything
deposited in the nest of an avian predatory species containing hatchlings
that wasn't consumed or discarded overboard within seconds.

Only under the most unlikely scenario do these little skulls make sense as
the remains of predators or unconsumed food left by the adult.