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

RE: Tyrannosaurus vs. "larger" Theropods

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 6:58 AM
To: clemensr@one.net.au; dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus vs. "larger" Theropods

I realize that T rex almost definately did scavenge carcasses from time to
time. Its Horners contention that T. rex was unsuited for hunting that
bothers me. It's become a pet peeve with me at this point. Even more so
Greg Paul pointed out the obsolesence of the concept. T.rex was obviously a
hunter and a damn good one. Ken Carpenter even found direct evidence of
tyrannosaurid hunting behavior that Horner seemingly ignores when he talks
about his scavenger theory.
Actually Jack doesn't ignore it. He talked at quite a length about it in a
talk he gave in San Diego.
 I assume most folks on the list are aware of
Carpenters hadrosaur fossil with the T. rex bite taken out of its tail that
had healed. I just dont understand how an intelligent, competent researcher
like Horner can so easily deny what is obvious to the rest of us. End of

True the animal had a bit or some such on the tail, but it didn't die
because of it. Would this mean T. rex was a bad hunter because the prey got
away? Also the specimen with the bite out of it has a busted and rehealed
anterior part of the ilia. There is a new Brachylophosaurus specimen that
the MOR has and it also has a part of the tail missing, but it isn't from a
bite. One shouldn't make comments about something unless he's talked about
it with that person and I've talked to Jack a lot about it.