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

Re: rex scavenge (was: DROMAEOSAUR "SICKLE" CLAWS)

To: martz@holly.ColoState.EDU
Subject: Re: rex scavenge (was: DROMAEOSAUR "SICKLE" CLAWS)
From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 20:05:39 -0700
Cc: Kevin James Dracon <jconrad@lib.drury.edu>, Chris Campbell <sankarah@ou.edu>, dinosaur@usc.edu
In-reply-to: <Pine.A41.3.95.970912115528.139614F-100000@holly.ColoState. EDU>
References: <Pine.A32.3.96.970912124447.28318A-100000@lib.drury.edu>
Reply-to: sarima@ix.netcom.com
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

At 12:00 PM 9/12/97 -0600, Jeffrey Martz wrote:
>     This is certianyl useful, but is it neccessary?  If the carcass 
>is within feasably walking distance, and the T.rex gets a full belly
>(complete energy refund), what difference does it make?

The issue is one of required rates.  At the vultures low search costs, it
can get by on meager pickings.  A T. rex, with its higher search *requires*
more just to get by.

This difference in the break-even point is the key problem with a primarily
scavenging T. rex.  The cost/benefit ratio for ground scavenging is too
high for T. rex to be able to rely on that source.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
                                          sfriesen@netlock.com

References:
- rex scavenge (was: DROMAEOSAUR "SICKLE" CLAWS)
  - From: Kevin James Dracon <jconrad@lib.drury.edu>

Prev by Date: Dunkleosteus model kit review
Next by Date: Re: Semper Die(again)
Previous by thread: Re: rex scavenge
Next by thread: Re: DROMAEOSAUR "SICKLE" CLAWS
Indexes: