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

Re: Despicable New Papers

Hm, I am not too sure (having read only the abstract), if this really
indicates scavenging. I distinctly remember watching a nature program
in which a rather well-fed bear stumbled across a sick elk, killed it,
and ate solely the snout. Then ambled off.......

I am really looking forward to reading the entire paper :)


On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, John Hunt <john.bass@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Hone, D.W.E., and Watabe, M. 2010. New information on scavenging and
> selective feeding behaviour of tyrannosaurs. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica.
> ABSTRACT: Feeding traces for carnivorous theropod dinosaurs are typically
> rare but can provide important evidence of prey choice and mode of feeding.
> Here we report a humerus of the hadrosaurine Saurolophus which was heavily
> damaged from feeding attributed to the giant tyrannosaurine Tarbosaurus. The
> bone shows multiple bites made in three distinctive styles termed
> 'punctures', 'drag marks' and 'bite-and-drag marks'. The distribution
> of these bites suggest that the animal was actively selecting which biting
> style to use based on which part of the bone was being engaged. The lack of
> damage to the rest of the otherwise complete and articulated hadrosaur
> strongly implies that this was a scavenging event, the first reported for a
> tyrannosaur, and not feeding at a kill site.
> Why the humerous?
> If the carcass was old, then presumably either something else ate all the
> good stuff or it had all rotted away.  If it was rotten then surely some of
> the meatier parts of the carcass would have more of a meal.  If something
> else had killed or scavenged first then the other bones would have been
> marked.  If it had been a fresh carcass then again there would have been
> choicer cuts.