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

RE: Despicable New Papers

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, John Hunt 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.

What if more than one were feeding and this just happens to be a part
that particular predator took away to eat?