[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Die Me, Dichotomy (was For you T. Rex addicts out there! - Part 2)
Tommy Bradley wrote:
The debate over HOW T-rex obtained its food will never end, and neither
side will give in and end the
discussion. For every case supporting predation, there is a counter
argument supporting a scavenger lifestyle.
The caudal vertebra of an _Edmontosaurus_ skeleton in Denver shows a scar
most likely inflicted by a _Tyrannosaurus_. The wound shows signs of
healing, indicating that the edmontosaur was alive before and after the
This discovery directly refutes the argument that _Tyrannosaurus_ was an
obligately scavenger. There are alternative scenarios more consistent with
an exclusively scavenging tyrannosaur, but I think these are less plausible:
1. The hadrosaur was putting on a very convincing display of "playing dead",
which attracted a carcass-seeking _Tyrannosaurus_.
2. The tyrannosaur tripped, and collided with a hapless hadrosaur.
This seems like the Paleontological Civil War.
A fairly one-sided one. Apart from Dr John Horner, what other vertebrate
paleontologists regard _Tyrannosaurus_ as an obligate scavenger?
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.