[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Do not misunderestimate the king was Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid
Subject: Re: Do not misunderestimate the king was Re: Evolution of
> Assuming that any T.rex or functional equivalent that ended up on
> back after a fall
From: David Marjanovic: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Was that even possible? AFAIK the back wasn't flat, but instead the
spines formed a keel, and the ribcage was tall and narrow.
==> If the animal was capable of a 'back-down' position, it certainly would
have no need for roll-wise stability (quite the opposite!), as it
obviously could not rise from this position. Therefore, if shape prevented an
equilibrium state in the 'back-down' position (on
flat ground), all the better for the king, as the worst-case
end position of a fall on flat ground was w/ the animal laying on it's
side. -- DO
> Logically, the arms might be useful in providing roll-wise stability,
> even minimal thrust in such maneuvers, although ill-suited for such,
> as you say.
Even worse: they are attached to the ventral surface of the body, so
they could be spread (which is not the case), they couldn't touch the
if the animal were indeed lying on its back.
==> I certainly did not imagine that the arms were of any
assistance until _after_ the animal was on it's stomach. -- DO