[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: taxonomy is not stratigraphy (was Re: JVP 25(2): New Dinos, Birds, Discoveries)
>>>> Tim Williams wrote: Even the largest of
titanosaurs were small when
were young. BTW, it's
my personal opinion that theropod predators
typically targeted the smaller or weaker members of
a sauropod herd anyway,
and avoided the larger and stronger individuals.
This would be more in
keeping with the behavior of modern predators.<<<
Assuming titanotheres were selected for size by
predation: is there a contemporaneous predator large
enough to tackle them one on one? If not, this would
support a pack strategy for a smaller top predator.
--- Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Tim Donovan wrote:
> > Brochu said TMM 41436-1 was T. rex or a close
> relative. The latter is
> >probably true given the age of the Javelina and the
> relatively small size
> >of TMM 41436-1. (Carpenter also mentioned a short
> face compared to T. rex.)
> A more recent paper dealt with this. TMM 41436-1 is
> probably _T. rex_.
> >It must have been a smaller ancestor of T. rex.
> Why "must"?
> >No wonder its tyrannosaurs were rather rare and
> Alamosaurus so common.
> Actually, as pointed out in previous postings,
> _Alamosaurus_ is a
> wastebasket/dustbin for LK titanosaur material from
> North America. Several
> titanosaur taxa may in fact be represented across
> the southern U.S.A.
> >They hadn't yet evolved the size necessary to take
> on the titanosaurs in an
> >environment dominated by them.
> Even the largest of titanosaurs were small when they
> were young. BTW, it's
> my personal opinion that theropod predators
> (including tyrannosaurs)
> typically targeted the smaller or weaker members of
> a sauropod herd anyway,
> and avoided the larger and stronger individuals.
> This would be more in
> keeping with the behavior of modern predators.