[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dino reputation 'is exaggerated'
----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dinosaur Mailing List" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Dino reputation 'is exaggerated'
> On 10/13/05, Jorge Dichenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > In modern times, 800-1000 kg animal (really big Gaur
> > or Cape Buffalo - neck thickness similar to cow - or
> > medium black rhino) is rarely attacked by 160kg tiger
> > or several 140kg lions. So I don't expect that 1000kg
> > Terontosaurus could be brought down by 20-40kg
> > Velociraptors.
> Especially since _Velociraptor_ lived over 30 million years after
> (But I agree with the main thrust of your point.)
> Mike Keesey
> The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
> Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com
I wonder wether (and if so, how) the results would have been different if
Manning et al. made the "experimental claw" really sharp. Im no expert, but
most experts I had the chance to talk with believed that the "sickle claws"
were "very sharp". I think that testing the experimental setup with a really
sharp claw might have resulted in an additional set of data. It would have
been most interesting to see wether the point at wich "sharpness" would have
led to different results would have been within a reasonable margin (of
"sharpness") or not.
Torsten van der Lubbe