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

Re: What would Hitchcock have thought...?

Do highly kinetic skulls in and of themselves prohibit applying significant force?>

I am relying here on the work of Campbell and Tonni, who published a number of articles in the 80's about teratorns and the kinesis of their skulls. It was their conclusion that the skulls were not strong enough to kill or dismember large prey and that teratorns were more likely to have swallowed smaller prey whole.

How did you estimate the lifting ability? (snip) What sort of feeding ecology did you reconstruct for teratorns, given that you found an inability to dismember large prey or lift smaller prey?>

I don't think I said that they weren't able to lift a certain amount of load (after all, if they ate it on the ground or carried it in their mouth or feet, they would still need to lift it when they flew away). What I did say is that their legs and feet were not adapted to grasping prey, but for walking. Again, this is from Campbell and Tonni. These authors also conclude that teratorns were predaceous carnivores (not scavengers) that hunted small prey (hare sized or smaller) which they could swallow whole.