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

Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power

Don Ohmes wrote:

However, Carpenter, et al, have definitely shown that the arms of the big old thing were such that they would have been more useful to "T. rex the predator", than to "T.rex the scavenger". <

Carpenter's 2001 paper was a nice piece of work as far as evaluating the strength of T. rex arms, but with all due respect I suggest that his conclusion that T. rex was therefore predator does not logically follow from his findings. I mentioned the "carcass lifting" hypothesis earlier because it offers an explanation that is consistent with all the evidence but does not require predation or prey grappling as a premise. Let me say that I have no idea if T. rex engaged in carcass lifting or not, but in principle it can not be ruled out on the evidence and is therefore an equally plausible explanation of forelimb function.

So anyhow, on to my main question -- for those that _do_ accept that Carpenter, et al, has supplied definitive proof of a predatory lifestyle; can Carnotaurus and others with extremely-dinky-and-also-very-weak arms now be safely accused of being 'dumpster-divers'? <

Before speculating about other types of dinosaurs, those folks must first explain how the premise that an animal possessing a M. biceps capable of generating a force of 1955.3N compels the conclusion that that animal was a predator.