[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 attack.

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. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail