[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 Donovan wrote:

> Agreed.  Unless the adult titanosaur was wounded or sick.

P. Currie mentioned healed bite marks on sauropod bone from the Morrison, IIRC, suggesting that even early theropods attacked sauropods capable of defending themselves.

Well, I'm not suggesing that the predator had a 100% success rate. Even weak and sick prey manage to escape sometimes.

Giganotosaurus and Argentinosaurus,
Carcharodontosaurus and Paralititan,
Torvosaurus/Epanterias and Brachiosaurus etc. Starkov mentioned other examples.

This reprises some of what Denver said: just because a given habitat includes both a very lage predator and a very large herbivore does not necessarily means that the former specifically targeted the latter. Medium-sized predators may have sought prey larger or close to the size of themselves (e.g., _Velociraptor_ vs _Protoceratops_; _Deinonychus_ vs _Tenontosaurus_, maybe). Large predators may have sought prey much smaller than themselves. There is a chapter in the new _Carnivorous Dinosaurs_ volume dedicated to this issue. I think Starkov's one-on-one predator-prey match-ups are too simplistic.

Yes, but Tarbosaurus was smaller than T. rex,

Not by much (if at all).

Based on that, and the Tyrannosaurus-like TMM 41436-1 in a titanosaur dominated mid Maastrichtian environment, it appears that Starkov is right about the origin of T. rex. Like
previous theropod giants, it apparently arose in response to large sauropods.

Or vice versa.