[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.)
>
>http://hometown.aol.com/drlectervv/Various.html

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.