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

RE: Photos of hadrosaur survival

>-----Original Message-----
>From: MariusRomanus@aol.com
>To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Sent: 11/05/2002 12:18 PM
>Subject: Photos of hadrosaur survival
>Take a look at these photos... I scribbled a few comments about what I
>see here, but... I don't think they are really necessary. I think that
>more mounts such as this one need to be done... Not only do you get an
>up close and personal depiction of a snap shot in time that could very
>well have taken place, but, I think the scene gives you a much better
>foundation to build your speculations around. Drawings just don't match
>seeing the real thing. (No offense to you fabulous artists out there.)

The point is, why didn't rex bite onto the tail of Edmonton
when it got close? And in the snap shot why didn't the 
longer-legged T. rex kick at Edmonton instead?

Zebras kill lions because in order to bring down a zebra
a lion needs to attack its haunch, which is within the 
range of the kicking hind legs of the zebra. But, the
well-known bite mark on the tail of Edmonton suggests
to me that a large predator such as T. rex could attack
their tail regions which are beyond the reach of their
legs. At least i can say the attack on duckbills by
T. rex was a lot safer than attacking the zebras by lions.