[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.
(The other) Tim