[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Theropod tooth embedded in sauropod rib
Fellow list members,
A pair of truncation rescues
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 17:34, XingLida <email@example.com> wrote:
WOW, i just knew that, thanks Ben,
I have a free PDF to all of you:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 17:29, Erik Boehm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
"Given the large size difference between the sauropod and the theropod
and the absence of reactive bone growth around the tooth, the bite
likely occurred post-mortem during scavenging."
The size difference may or may not be a valid argument... but I don't
think the bone growth argument is valid. Doesn't that just mean the
bite did not happen a significant amount of time before the death of
I find it very hard to believe this supports scavenging. I doubt there
would be any difference if the bite occurred 3 hours before death, 3
hours after death, or 3 days after death.Also, if there was active
predation, its unlikely the theropod would start munching on the ribs
before it had killed the sauropod.So either way, one would expect the
bites to the ribcage are going to be post-mortem regardless of whether
it is predation or scavenging.
Or am I missing something?
Perhaps this paper:
(automatic *.pdf download). Pay special attention to figure 5. Given
that animals can and do survive predatory attacks it seems likely
that, with this method, teeth could get embedded in ribs if the
predator overshot its mark or didn't particularly care where it was as
long it was the flank of a sauropod.
Is it me or does this proposed behavior look awfully similar to that
of cookiecutter sharks,