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

Re: Fw: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?

Don wrote--
"Apologies to the kids, but this sauropod invulnerability thing is
proving hard to crack from the cultural perspective. Vivid images may
be required."

Sorry to rain on this thread's parade a tad, but unless we start
getting (or at least searching for) some data on the turning speed of
Alamosaurus, the amount of protective plating on the underside of
Alamosaurus, the energy it expends keeping its head out of reach of a
Tyrannosaurus, the amount of time it takes the foreclaw of an
Alamosaur to catch up with where it's nose used to be, the distance at
which an Alamosaur can spot something moving toward it, the amount of
pressure a sauropod needs to apply in order to cripple a
Tyrannosaurus... aren't we just defending the cultural image of
"Tyrannosaurus - superhero" by trying to smash the cultural image of
"untouchable sauropod"?

........... Part of this thread has become discussing the idea of a 
theropod/sauropod "arms race". I don't know when (or if)  the last encounter 
between Alamosaurus and T. rex was, but assuming there was interaction; 
starting from the Triassic and moving forward, and then ending the scenario w/ 
the biggest theropod and the toughest sauropod seems kind of appropriate.... 
That said: all of this data would sure be nice to have, although the 
spotting-from-a-distance seems moot from a still-hunters perspective, as does 
the applied pressure thing. Will you (or some one) please explain to me in at 
least minimal detail how the hunting scenario (missed surprise headstrike) I 
described in the post this answers places a bipedal predator in danger? The 
reason I ask, is no one has yet, and this thread is extended now. Can the 
foreclaw reach the nose when the neck is extended? Can the tail? Does anyone 
out there posit that a pivot and tail-smash could occur before our biped moved 
 into the woods? -- DO.

Don't get me wrong - I believe a solitary large animal can kill a
gargantuan one if given the right conditions: Polar bears smashing the
blowholes of whales and waiting for them to drown, for instance.  I
just don't think this idea of gladiatorial one on one speculation is
getting us anywhere.

................. Polar bears smashing the blowholes of whales? WOW! I hear 
you, bears. -- DO.

On 6/17/07, don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "don ohmes" <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 6:53 AM
> > First, probably a good time to reiterate what my points are as all points
> > tend to wander in these things;
> > 1). T rex and equivalents were physically well-suited and environmentally
> > blessed if they 'chose' to use a still-hunting strategy. If this argument
> > can be made convincingly, and I believe it can, it implies that eyesight
> > and foot speed do not define the difference between predator/opportunist
> > and obligate scavenger in T rex or equivalents. Barring very hard times.
> > 2). The long-necked dinosaurs had a uniquely vulnerable physique which
> > affected their evolutionary path critically, leading to maximal giantism.
> > That last term is a little redundant, but gee, they were big.
> > 3). Therefore, I intend to show, or make the best case possible, that the
> > large bipedal carnivores had the tools and opportunity to prey on even
> > adult sauropods, thereby establishing parameters for the previous two
> > points. Behavioral phenotype and the actual day-to-day activities of T rex
> > equivalents are not provable, in my opinion. At least not by me.
> 1) Just about nobody thinks *T. rex* was an obligate scavenger. What exactly
> do you mean by equivalents? Other tyrannosaurids of that size range ( =
> *Tarbosaurus*), or all theropods of that size range?
> ......... I am a functionalist, caring little about who has sex w/ who, so 
> the working definition is tall enough to reach the base of the largest coeval 
> sauropods neck. -- DO.
> 2) They can't have been _that_ vulnerable, or they'd have died out as soon
> as the first seriously big theropod appeared. There is no evidence for an
> arms race, and some against. More importantly, *Opisthocoelicaudia* and the
> nemegtosaurids were fairly small, and yet they, not *Amphicoelias
> fragillimus*, coexisted with *Tarbosaurus*.
> ........... I think it unlikely that the first seriously big theropod 
> appeared before or after the first seriously big sauropod (within the margin 
> of error). They probably moved pretty much in lock-step. From the functional 
> perspective, top herbivore/top predator form a predation pair. The fact that 
> the most extreme cases of giantism in both occurred simultaneously in 
> geological time is, in my view, evidence for an arms race (I term I dislike, 
> but have no immediate substitute for). Further, vulnerability does not equal 
> extinction. Consider the amazingly vulnerable and evolutionarily enigmatic 
> 'possum (American style). Restate your point, and then think about it. If the 
> level of vulnerability required for an arms race was defined by extinction, 
> there could no arms races...  that said, I am more interested in your 
> evidence _against_ selective symbiosis (arms race). Finally! A potential 
> substitute for 'arms race'. Maybe. -- DO
> 3) I agree that the large theropods were able to prey on adult sauropods. It
> can't have been more difficult than elephants killing lions (which happens
> on a regular basis -- see top of
> http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/search?q=elephants+lions), and pity the poor
> lions for their canines that are circular in cross-section! I'm just saying
> it can't have been as extremely easy as you assume.
> ...... I think that when it was practical (prey density= proximity 
> probability, mostly), it was very easy. The ability of prey animals in 
> general to detect immobile objects is over-rated by many in my opinion. I 
> base this on personal experience w/ white-tail deer and wild turkeys, which 
> if you are patient you can get VERY close to, in zero cover. Understandably 
> this is not convincing to a scientist, or even some inveterate hunters. Can't 
> move your eyes at all w/ the turkeys. They get the picture then. -- DO.
> > But then, I discount 'neck fling'. [My basis for doing that this; I
> > estimate from practical experience that if I were to take a pine log the
> > approximate dimensions of a diplodicus neck, mount it parallel to the
> > ground, and hang 2 Cadillac Escalades on the end of it, it would probably
> > break immediately.]
> That pine log has no muscles in it... but that probably doesn't matter. What
> matters is that you assume that sauropods held their necks very close to the
> ground most of the time -- which was clearly the case for some, but not
> necessarily for all --, and that you overlook the possibility that a
> sauropod might swing the neck around as a weapon, the same way as the tail.
> Sure, sauropods would have avoided using the head as a tail club for obvious
> reasons, but being struck by the middle of a sauropod neck can't have been a
> very pleasant experience either.
> ........... Well, the idea of the pine log was that it is assumed to be 
> 'stronger' than a neck. Obviously multiple opportunities for error here and I 
> would LOVE to test the concept more realistically. As to neck swing; well, 
> that sounds a little desperate. }:D -- DO.
> > I think if the strike missed there was ample time for predator get-away,
> ...unless the tail or a forelimb hit.
> How? The head is 10 m from the feet in standing position. Now we are delving 
> into an area of sauropod mysticism I have just never gotten, even when I was 
> 8. If I am lurking under a tree like a rattlesnake (for example), and a 
> foraging sauropod wanders close enough for me to try to grab it's head, and I 
> miss, how am I in any danger? Will it pirouette and smack w/ its tail so fast 
> I can't back away? The pivot speed for the largest land animal ever was 
> probably the slowest ever. Can it swat a fly off the side of it's head w/ 
> it's tail? Can it follow me into the trees? Not likely in any way that will 
> place me in danger. MAYBE if I trip and fall? -- DO.
> > As to sauropods stomping theropods... well, I just don't think the
> > theropods were THAT slow.
> Why shouldn't a sauropod be able to kick much faster than it usually walks?
> ..... Some. But not much.  Heh. "Kick away. I am up here by yer ol' punkin 
> head. Which you better be movin' while yer kicking, 'cause I ain't gonna miss 
> again." -- DO.
> > E.g., consider the standards you mention for a successful (adult) sauropod
> > kill; close proximity (5-8m) to head, total surprise, and full jaw grip at
> > or very near the head.
> Such close proximity to the head can't have been easy to reach in an open
> landscape. Note that "*Alamosaurus*" has not been found in the Hell Creek Fm
> which was a wooded environment; likewise, the Nemegt Fm had gallery forests
> at most, IIRC.
> Proximity happens, and the rewards were significant. Loose association of 
> still-hunters, somebody gets lucky, everybody eats for a week... it seems 
> very do-able to me. -- DO.
> > particularly the delicate skulls (likely eaten immediately)
> What for? Nutritional value close to 0.
> ........ Already mashed up and in my mouth? From me drinking the arterial 
> blood gushing like a high pressure hose out of your body? Apologies to the 
> kids, but this sauropod invulnerability thing is proving hard to crack from 
> the cultural perspective. Vivid images may be required. -- DO.