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

RE: Despicable New Papers

Having now RTFP it seems a reasonable scenario for why only the humerus was
feed upon.  Perhaps the rest of the arm came off if the scavenger tried to
pull the rest of the carcass free from burial?

-----Original Message-----
From: Heinrich Mallison [mailto:heinrich.mallison@googlemail.com] 
Sent: 04 July 2010 00:12
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Despicable New Papers

Having read the paper now, I must say that I am not fully convinced,
but deem it highly likely that what the authors describe was really a
scavenging event. While nearly-full carnivores sometimes only eat a
few extra delicious parts of their prey, the pectoralis does not seem
to belong to that sort of morsels.


On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
>> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
>> On Behalf Of John Hunt
>> 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.
> Actually, at least some of the feeding involved eating the big
> deltapectoralis muscles, as evidence by the scrape marks on the DP crest.
> This is not an insubstantial piece of meat!
> Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> Email: tholtz@umd.edu   Phone: 301-405-4084
> Office: Centreville 1216
> Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
> Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/
> Fax: 301-314-9661
> Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/sgc
> Fax: 301-314-9843
> Mailing Address:        Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
>                        Department of Geology
>                        Building 237, Room 1117
>                        University of Maryland
>                        College Park, MD 20742 USA