[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Tyrannosaur numbers

I think the reverse is more the case. Because they were very efficient hunters, their eco-system would not allow large numbers of them. Larger numbers would have offset the balance between predator and prey.


From: Benjamin Hughes <grombek1@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: grombek1@hotmail.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Tyrannosaur numbers
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:54:39 +1000

Hi all
I'm relatively new to the DML, certainly no expert like manyof you here, but jut thought I'd add my bit. I have ideas and if I'm wrong then I'm happy to hear why.
I have heard (coan't remember source, sorry) that there are very few Tyrannosaur fossils ever found. Whether this means that few have been found out of a large amount still undiscovered, that few of the animals ever happened to be fossilised in the first place, or that there were few Tyrannosaurs ever in existance at all, I am not sure.
My point is that if it were true that there were few Tyrannosaurs, then this would most likely mean that it was simply because they were innefective predators, too big and cumbersome to catch faster prey, or to compete with slightly smaller predators.
Is there any way of knowing without the actual fossils the number of Tyrannosaurs that existed?



The Australian Discworld Convention - www.ausdwcon.org