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

Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power

Yes I did "bother" to read the paper, and having looked at the range of motion involved in the carcass lifting behavior (not dissimilar to bending down to take a drink of water or bending down to take a bite out of a carcass lying on the ground), I disagree with the idea that any excavation would be necessary.

----- Original Message ----- From: <Ken.Carpenter@dmns.org>
To: <ptnorton@suscom-maine.net>; <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>; <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power

I assume that Carpenter 2001 actually refers to Carpenter AND SMITH 2001. Considering the limited range of motion of the forelimb of T rex, even I have to admit it could not get its hands down on a carcass to lift it unless it first dug a hole with its feet to accommodate its snout. Sorry, but I am not buying that behavior. I assume you actually bothered to read the paper available at my website below? If so, then you know the full argument we presented.

Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology & Chief Preparator
Department of Earth Sciences
Denver Museum of Nature & Science
2001 Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80205 USA

Office phone: 303-370-6392
Museum fax: 303-331-6492
For PDFs of some of my publications, as well as information of the Cedar
Mountain Project:
(if you have problems with the link, cut and paste it into the browser
address bar)
The scientific method is a myth:

-----Original Message----- From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of ptnorton Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 1:07 PM To: don ohmes; dinosaur@usc.edu Subject: Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power

Don Ohmes wrote:

However, Carpenter, et al, have definitely shown that the arms of the
old thing were such that they would have been more useful to "T. rex
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
his findings.  I mentioned the "carcass lifting" hypothesis earlier
it offers an explanation that is consistent with all the evidence but
not require predation or prey grappling as a premise. Let me say that I
no idea if T. rex engaged in carcass lifting or not, but in principle it
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
can Carnotaurus and others with extremely-dinky-and-also-very-weak
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