Mike Skrepnick wrote in reply to my cat / hands experiment:
*** Now, lets modify your first experiment. ..(snip).... Suddenly your struggling cat has been reduced to "puppy chow" in less time than it took you to read the words "puppy chow".***
My question is not whether Dienonychus could kill a cat! What I'm asking is why the immobile hands would be better at killing the cat than a Dienonychus with more mobile hands.
Basically, if the SLC and immobile fingers are to be explained as predatory adaptations and not wings, what makes then better for predation?
David Marjanovic wrote:
"Who mentioned PDW?"
"While many parts of PDW do still hold, 1988 was 14 years
Is one of the parts that still holds the bit that says tyrannosaurs killed by delivering the big powerful big they were designed for, then backing off, to avoid being hurt?
Seriously, tyrannosaurs evolved from creatures with longer forelimbs. (Does anyone doubt this?) By the time advanced tyrannosaurs appeared the heads were big and the arms were small. If the arms were used in prey capture, why would they be small? How would they draw the prey towards them in the first place? They have serrated, slicing teeth and "D"-cross section gouging teeth, not conical croc types so the jaws would be no good.
All extant carnivores that use forelimbs to hold / grapple prey have long, mobile forelimbs.