[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)



Denver Fowler wrote:

> Maybe. But, as Starkov noted, there is a correlation between the rise of the largest sauropods > and largest theropods, suggesting the latter became bigger to overcome more massive prey.

this makes the assumption that adult tyrannosaurs attacked adult titanosaurs which is rather unlikely.

Agreed. Unless the adult titanosaur was wounded or sick.

Tim Donovan wrote:

Maybe. But, as Starkov noted, there is a correlation between the rise of the largest sauropods and largest theropods, suggesting the latter became bigger to overcome more massive prey.

I haven't read any of Starkov's stuff, but I'm inferring from your statement that he is claiming that the largest sauropods co-existed with the largest theropods. Although it's an intuitively attractive idea, I don't believe we have the data to back it up. For example, _Tyrannosaurus_ was a very large theropod, but _Alamosaurus_ was not that impressive by sauropod standards. Similarly, the Nemegt sauropods were not spectacularly large, and these were the guys who rubbed shoulders with _Tarbosaurus_. All post-Triassic terrestrial Mesozoic habitats were probably home to theropods and dinosaurian herbivores of different shapes and sizes; but I don't think we can pair up the carnivores and herbivores based on size alone.


Cheers

(The other) Tim