 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / September 2005New T-rex findings
T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it couldn't catch anything. It only came along after the kill, drove off the killers and ate what was left. It only had a great olfactory system like vultures and could smell dead things for miles away. It was also very prone to injury if it fell. A fall was probably the end for it. > T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. > It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it > couldn't catch anything. It only came along after the kill, drove off the > killers and ate what was left. It only had a great olfactory system like > vultures and could smell dead things for miles away. It was also very prone > to injury if it fell. A fall was probably the end for it. Too bad for your claims the evidence doesn't support them. Ken >> T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >> It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken You are just not up with the current findings. The leg bone configuration is incorrect for a running animal. The optical area of his brain was too small for good sight whereas his olfactory part of the brain was very large. The bone structure to weight ratio and short useless arms would cause broken bones on falling. Still being formidable no killer would argue with his stealing their prey. >>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > bones on falling. Still being formidable no killer would argue with his > stealing their prey. 1) At least one hadrosaur, an Edmontosaurus at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, has a partially healed bite that matches up with a T rex. This is strong evidence that T rex was an active hunter. 2) The T rex on display at the Field Museum has multiple healed injuries from living a rough and tumble life. These include broken ribs believed caused by two separate incidents and a major possibly debilitating infection of the left leg. This is strong evidence that T rex was a very active animal that could and did suffer serious injuries and survive. 3) No other large carnivore is found in the sediments which contain T rex. What was killing the hadrosaurs and ceratopians for all the T rex's to steal? With about 30 individuals recovered from the Upper Maastrichtian deposits in the North American Great Plains it seems improbable that a true top predator capable of making enough kills to afford losing kills to all those T rex would make no appearance in the fossil record. 4) Terrestrial obligate scavengers are completely unknown. To make such an extraordinary claim for T rex requires extraordinary evidence. None of Dr. Horner's claims are supported by such evidence. Ken >>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Ken While I do basically agree with you, what about the idea that the younger T-Rex did the killing while hunting in family groups well enough that most died at full adult size. Lions today come to mind. Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that there was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected 10-20 km away? That would mean that hunting would be a last resort. Carnivours today rarely attack healthy specimens. I'm thinking in part that "bird flue" is not likely to be a new disease. Z >>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > T-Rex did the killing while hunting in family groups well enough that most > died at full adult size. Lions today come to mind. I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not arguing that T rex never scavenged. Almost all predators scavenge and I'm fairly sure that if a T rex pack came across a dead hadrosaur they would try and drive off anything else scavenging it and have it for themselves. How ever I find it improbable in the extreme that T rex was an obligate scavenger. > Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that there > was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected 10-20 km > away? That would mean that hunting would be a last resort. Carnivours today > rarely attack healthy specimens. I'm thinking in part that "bird flue" is > not likely to be a new disease. I never said that T rex faced down healthy bull Triceratops for every meal. Of course the T rex killed the slower or weaker members of the herds. That doesn't change the evidence that indicates that T rex was not an obligate scavenger. Now from what we know about healthy large animal ecosystems the large herbivores do not die from natural causes all that often and that active predation is required to keep the ecosystem balanced. Now consider the known fecundity of hadrosaurs. Something was killing an awful lot of hadrosaurs. T rex is the only candidate from the Upper Maastrichtian from a variety of deposits that have yielded a large number of terrestrial vertebrates of all sizes. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence at some point the volume of evidence must push the possibility that another top predator was roaming the upper Great Plains of the Upper Maastrichtian very low. Ken >>>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > anything else scavenging it and have it for themselves. How ever I find it > improbable in the extreme that T rex was an obligate scavenger. Hmm, try again. The argument is made that T-Rex was too likely to be injured to hunt at full adult body size. I was wondering if the dirty work was done by "teenagers" who could absorb the risk. For example if the juveniles chased prey towards waiting adults. As someone who is now limping with a sprained ankle I have a healthy respect for the argument that a five tonne biped without upper limbs does not want to trip. Go slow and safe and the prey escapes. Running near roots or rocks, or downhill would have been a terrible risk. How did they hunt actively, especially if solitary? >> Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that >> there was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > herds. That doesn't change the evidence that indicates that T rex was not > an obligate scavenger. If simple tripping injuries were frequent enough there would have been a steady supply of slow prey. Disease the same. But if those were not the case would not T-Rex starve? Does ambush hunting make sense? what do the bone beds tell? I don't mean the places where a single species was obviously drowned but the places where flash floods washed dry carcases into one spot. Do most of the bones show predation, eating by TR? > Now from what we know about healthy large animal ecosystems the large > herbivores do not die from natural causes all that often and that active [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ken >>>>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > prey escapes. Running near roots or rocks, or downhill would have been a > terrible risk. How did they hunt actively, especially if solitary? The computer models and the actual skeletons are at odds on the issue of T rex fragility. The two large complete specimens found in the last 20 years have extensive evidence for healed injuries that occurred after full growth was attained. I stand with the actual fossils. Note that the Edmontosaurus with the healed T rex bite matches the adult jaw shape not a smaller size. This is very strong supporting evidence that adult T rex hunted active adult hadrosaurs. >>>Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that >>>there was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > drowned but the places where flash floods washed dry carcases into one spot. > Do most of the bones show predation, eating by TR? If the hadrosaurs were this fragile we should see plenty of evidence of healed broken bones. We don't. Furthermore studies of modern predator/prey relationships indicates that at some parts of the year, end of the dry season or winter for instance, all the vulnerable members of the prey populations are dead and the predators must attempt to take healthy prey. Very few fossils show evidence of scavenging. This is almost certainly an artifact of how fossilization occurs. >>Now from what we know about healthy large animal ecosystems the large >>herbivores do not die from natural causes all that often and that active [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>Ken >>>>>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] >>> >>>Ken An excellent reply. I'm impressed. I guess the grey wolf model still applies. Too many dogs assumed to follow the client could be a problem. >>>>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > would have been a terrible risk. How did they hunt actively, especially if > solitary? The evidence suggests that they often weren't solitary. Sub adults would have played a role in hunts. With a stride of over 9 feet they could walk 25 or 30 mph and keep one foot on the ground. It is questionable if their pray could species could exceed that. >>> Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that >>> there was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > obviously drowned but the places where flash floods washed dry carcases > into one spot. Do most of the bones show predation, eating by TR? When you have a herd drowning containing thousands of animals nothing is going to be able to eat most of them before they spoil. Ambush hunting always makes sense. No matter how fleet you are the closer you get before they see you the shorter the chase. A point is that some beds look to contain T-Rex family groups or at least one such group. I'm not current. >> Now from what we know about healthy large animal ecosystems the large >> herbivores do not die from natural causes all that often and that active [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Ken >>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > T-Rex did the killing while hunting in family groups well enough that most > died at full adult size. Lions today come to mind. Where did you get the idea that adult lions don't hunt? Males will jack female kills but even then most males lack prides and would starve if they didn't hunt. Males will often lead attacks on the largest food animals when other food animals aren't handy. > Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that there > was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected 10-20 km [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Z >>>>>>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>>>>>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > didn't hunt. Males will often lead attacks on the largest food animals > when other food animals aren't handy. I forgot about single males. My bad. >> Also, what is to say about the mortality of the herbovores such that >> there was usually a supply of dead or dying meat that could be detected [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Z >"Ken Shaw" <none...@your.biz> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You are just not up with the current findings. There's nothing terribly current about the scavenger idea; it comes into and goes out of fashion every couple of years and has done since the '70s, but invariably fails to stand up to close scrutiny and subsequent findings. The most recent findings on the subject pretty much settled the matter once and for all - while the animal certainly would have scavenged when possible just like modern lions it was a fully capable hunter. >The optical area of his brain was too small >for good sight whereas his olfactory part of the brain was very large. CT scans of the brain suggest that T. rex had fairly good eyesight, but in any case I don't see the relevance since you concede it also had a very good sense of smell - would you say a dog is a poor predator? > The >bone structure to weight ratio and short useless arms would cause >broken bones on falling. Possible; this conclusion was suggested by studies of Allosaurus a few years ago, to be sure. Nonetheless there are T. rex specimens that have clearly survived potentially crippling injuries, including the famous Sue IIRC, so this need not have precluded the animal from hunting. Philip Bowles >>> T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>> It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You are just not up with the current findings. The leg bone configuration > is incorrect for a running animal. Neither is an elephant. They can only do about 25 mph walking. They can't run. That rex wasn't as fast as its smaller relatives is not much of an issue in some ways because the animals it hunted had the same problems relating to speed that it did. A rex is no worse designed for speed than the other three large meat eaters in its size range. >The optical area of his brain was too small for good sight whereas his >olfactory part of the brain was very large. You mean like dogs and cats? >The bone structure to weight ratio and short useless arms would cause >broken bones on falling. Still being formidable no killer would argue with >his stealing their prey. The only animal around for a rex to steal from anywhere near its size was another rex in most of its known range. If rex wasn't hunting the herds of horned and duck billed dinos over much of its range all you a left with is much smaller animals that could have only taken out the young and the very old. The bones of duckbills and horned dinosaurs show that lots of adult but by no means old animals were dieing. There isn't much evidence to suggest that many of these animals lived to be old. Any claim that rex wasn't hunting leaves an ecosystem with a huge hole in it for a large hunter. > T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. > It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it > couldn't catch anything. It only came along after the kill, drove off the > killers and ate what was left. It only had a great olfactory system like > vultures and could smell dead things for miles away. It was also very > prone to injury if it fell. A fall was probably the end for it. Seems to me you're trying to push the vision of T-Rex that Ringo Star portrayed in 'Caveman' These are not 'findings' and they're not particularly new. John Horner informally proposed T-Rex as a scavenger over ten years ago. And he did it with the candidly deliberate intention of fostering debate. The only evidence that even comes close to supporting it are findings that the visual lobe of it's was probably poorly deveoped. Still, If I were a fair-sized predator just about to sink my teeth into my latest kill, and a HUGE T-Rex, came charging and roaring at me - I'd probably run! >> T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >> It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Seems to me you're trying to push the vision of T-Rex that Ringo Star > portrayed in 'Caveman' Would that be the Jack Benny "Rex" theory? > These are not 'findings' and they're not particularly new. John Horner > informally proposed T-Rex as a scavenger over ten years ago. And he did [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > my latest kill, and a HUGE T-Rex, came charging and roaring at me - I'd > probably run! >>"Nog" <nog...@adelphia.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >evidence that even comes close to supporting it are findings that the visual >lobe of it's was probably poorly deveoped. Which is hardly compelling evidence for scavenging given that scavengers such as vultures frequently have exceptionally good eyesight. In any case, from what I remember the results from brain scans suggest that T. rex would have had perfectly adequate eyesight, it simply wasn't likely to be the primary sense. Philip Bowles >T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it >couldn't catch anything. It only came along after the kill, drove off the >killers and ate what was left. It only had a great olfactory system like >vultures and could smell dead things for miles away. It was also very prone >to injury if it fell. A fall was probably the end for it. Not that I care much, but I've always suspected that paleotologists tend sometimes to find more information in their fossils than actually exists. I suspect that an alien paleontologist living 50 million years from now and picking over the ruins of Earth would conclude that a Komodo dragon couldn't have caught anything that moves much faster than a cabbage (in reality they have been known to catch deer, pigs, and people). He/she/it would also probably be really sceptical about the theory that homo sapiens was bipedal. Pretty obviously, the optimal structure for a biped is to offset the heavy skull with a counterweighting tail that can be constantly moved to keep the center of gravity over the feet. Something like T Rex or a kangaroo. H Sapiens is clearly engineered all wrong for bipedal motion. >>T-rex was just an overgrown vulture without wings and with teeth. >>It couldn't run, it couldn't see well and didn't kill prey because it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of gravity over the feet. Something like T Rex or a kangaroo. H > Sapiens is clearly engineered all wrong for bipedal motion. This is factually incorrect. The fact is that homo sapiens is rather well adapted to bipedal locomotion. The Skull is located directly over a vertical vertebral column for balance; the obturator foramen is aligned relative to the vertebrae such that it not only keeps the skull so oriented, but allows the eyes to be situated approximately 90 degrees relative to the vertical skeletal axis. If you place a human skeleton in an orientation that doesn't allow for bipedalism (i.e., in a quadraped orientation), the eyes are then looking straight down to the ground. Not a good position for an animal with binocular vision to be in, since the muscles of the neck are not adequately developed to keep the head up in a position to see what is in front of it for any great length of time. In addition, the pelvis is oriented such that the weight of the torso is evenly distributed over the leg bones, as opposed to that of quadrapeds, where the pelvis is rotated relative to the torso. The scapula shows a similar rotation which allows the arms to hang down adjacent to the vertical torso. Quadrapeds have scapulas that are oriented such that they take the weight of the upper torso. Human scapulas are not so oriented. The human foot is also quite well adapted to bipedalism. It is oriented perpendicular to the leg, and allows one to stand in a stable, vertical position for en extended period of time. We lost our tails likely because there was no need for a counterbalance, since everything is balanced in a vertical position. The bipedal dinosaurs were not so vertically balanced, since their vertebral columns are not oriented in a vertical position, but at an relatively low incidental angle to the vertical. There are many other examples, but hopefully this will enlighten you to the fact that we are, in fact, quite well adapted to bipedalism. > We lost our tails likely because >there was no need for a counterbalance, since everything is balanced in a >vertical position. Small point on this one - chicken and egg. Dinosaurs and kangaroos both evolved from lineages with tails. Humans didn't; no ape has a tail. We would have evolved the vertical posture to offset the fact that we don't have tails rather than vice versa. Philip Bowles >> We lost our tails likely because >>there was no need for a counterbalance, since everything is balanced in a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Philip Bowles Ah, yes that is true. However, many species in the order primates (i.e., many species of monkeys) do have tails. And apes, from which we evolved, after all, evolved from monkeys. But your point is taken. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.