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

Re: So how intelligent were troodontids?

> But Deinonychus took the place of Utahraptor,
> and by the theory of darwin this should mean that Deinonychus
> was the most succesful of both, despite their seize.

Wait a little. All we know is that *Deinonychus* lived after *Utahraptor* in
about the same area.

- Do we know they occupied the same "place" (ecological niche)? For example,
whether they hunted the same or comparable prey?
- Do we know that *Utahraptor* was really extinct at the time the known
*Deinonychus* fossils come from?
- Do we know, on the other hand, that *Utahraptor* and *Deinonychus* ever
co-occurred, so that they could ever have competed? (As opposed to
*Utahraptor* dying out first and *Deinonychus* evolving/immigrating later.)
- In short, do we know if they competed?


That's how science works: keep asking yourself stupid questions until all
your hypotheses break down under their weight. =8-) Those that don't break
down deserve being published so that others can heap stupid questions on
them, repeating the process to eternity.

Back to the example... we currently have no idea if any of the two was more
successful, let alone why.

> Since they had to overcome prey that was way bigger
> than they were, they had to hunt somehow sophisticated.

We don't know how much that "somehow" is, and we don't know how much of it
can be replaced by weaponry (sickle claws).