[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Tyrannosaur numbers
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:54:39 +1000
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
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