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

Re: Size of *Neoceratodus africanus* and/or *N. tuberculatus*

True, Don. But conical teeth and increase in range of potential prey
size would not imply the biggest spinosaurids ate tetrapods comparable
in size to themselves. It would just suggest that they may have preyed
upon something proportionately larger than smaller spinosaurs.

I do not consider that for reaching big size spinosaurs have to eat
relatively large prey. If smaller prey are more numerous, they can be
preferrable and will provide with more available fodder. For example,
there are ecosystems where salamanders provide a greater total biomass
than much larger species of mammals (Pough et al., 1996, Vertebrate
Life - I expect the book citation is right). With this I do not say
the larger spinosaurs ate salamanders.

2009/3/30 don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>:
> --- On Mon, 3/30/09, Augusto Haro <augustoharo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Conical
>> teeth may
>> better serve for fish catching, but in crocodiles their
>> presence is
>> not hindrance for catching and eating tetrapods as well.
> Don't crocs rely on their 'twist and shake' power to dismember larger prey 
> (into pieces small enough to swallow)?
> Given the "delicate" engineering of spinosaurid skulls, and the size of their 
> potential tetrapodal prey, wouldn't the forces necessarily generated by this 
> dismemberment tactic rule large tetrapods (ie, too large to swallow whole) 
> out as spinosaurid food? At least until decomposition had significantly 
> weakened connective tissue?
> Would spinosaurids have some other way to reduce such prey to bite-size 
> pieces?