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

Re: Predator-trap theory debunked for Utah Allosaurus site



From: "Steve Brusatte" <dinoland@lycos.com>

Well, as Darryl said, there weren't really 1,000+ allosaurs present.

Yes, although I was implying bones alone, not entire skeletons.

The big question is whether 44 allosaurs was too large for a familial >group.

I would certainly imagine it to be. Are there any pack-hunters today that gather in such numbers? The only reason I can really picture such a mass assemblage of _Allosaurus_ together would be perhaps to breed.


However, it is much easier envisioning 44 allosaurs happening to die >in the same spot than over 1,000.

Yes, but on the same note, it is probably much easier to envision 1,000 _Allosaurus_ dying in the same spot rather than 1,000,000. It's all pretty unbelievable, I think.


There may have been a flood, which I see as more probable than a >drought, that brought the carcasses of say, seven familial groups >together.

I would agree with this if it weren't for the nagging fact that Scott Sampson himself said it wasn't likely that the bodies were dragged far from their place of death. Why would several familial groups be so closely located? Again, I would imagine for breeding purposes.


'Till next time,

-Jordan Mallon

http://www.geocities.com/paleoportfolio/

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp