Re: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)

["Allan Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>]

Larry et al:

    I have read several others follow-up posts, including a few of yours as
well, just so you understand that I am not just answering this post - but it
does serve my purposes to use it as the re-posting base.

    I agree that the construction is an elaborate one, however, an unusual
event has been preserved.  The construction is merely _one_ potiential
version of the event.

    If I substitute hyennas for _Deinonychus_, and water buffalo for
_Tenontosaurus_, then maybe it is possible for my scenario to work.  (But
you might object that hyennas don't go after water buffalo - I have seen
footage showing them do so [not being an international traveler and safari
participant - rely on footage shown on cable, etc.].  As you have pointed
out, these animals are unlikely to do this in normal conditions.  Perhaps
the conditions with the Tenontosaur et al, were not normal.)

    The association of large numbers of _Deinonychus_ teeth with
_Tenontosaurus_ skeletons, indicates that they most likely ate _T._ meat.
It seems to me (and here I will agree that it is a prejudice of my own
making), that _D._ were hunting animals, and their association with
carcasses of _T._, seems to indicate that _T._ was the favored prey.   I
agree that this is NOT conclusive evidence indicating predation, and merely
indicates a meal preference.

    Back to films and video that I have seen concerning pack animals:
Sometimes, there are 'outsiders' who temporarily join up with a pack, for
protection from the non-pack life dangers.  Sometimes they are tolerated or
even accepted.  Sometimes, they are disliked enough to be forced to be a
sacrificial victim when hunting very large prey.  I saw one film with a not
quite tolerated hyena (he was a sub-adult) that got caught in a squeeze play
between the hyenas and their prey (wildebeest) - he did not survive the
night.  (In other words, he was setup to die by the rest of the group).

    Concerning my comments about footprints at the site, if we had a good
footprint series that showed several _Deinonychus_ chasing, and bringing
down a _Tenontosaurus_, then we _might_ be able to say that the other _D._'s
at the site were brought down by the _T._.  Of course, we have no
unambiguous footprints at this site - or elsewhere that show predation in
any known carnivorous dinosaurs.

  My remark that is would be absurd to believe that this was a typical kill
site should be amended to say that: This is an _extraordinary occurance_ -
kill site, accidental deaths of associated animals, or death of several
_Deinonychus_'s while scavenging a _Tenontosaurus_, or whatever!   I would
be interested in hearing your interpretation of the reasons for the _D._ 's
being found together with the _T.

    One additional comment: Nathan Myhrvold touched on an idea when he
mentioned Army Ants, and their seeming intellegence when attacking much
larger prey.  I think the application of some Complexity Theory here might
prove useful (formerly known as Chaos Theory).  Groups of animals, etc.
exhibit complex behavior patterns based solely on the interactions of a few
simple behaviors that they all share - for example - flocking of geese and
how they fly around obstacles, is based on 3 very simple rules.  Perhaps
_Deinonychus_ functioned in a similar fashion - not really cooperative pack
hunters, but sufficiently social to allow these seemingly complex behaviors
to appear.


    Thanks,

        Allan Edels


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Dunn <larrydunn@hotmail.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 3:25 AM
Subject: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)


>From: "Allan Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>
>
>>    Concerning the comments about the 3 or 4 _Deinonychus_ found with a
>>_Tenontosaurus_:  It is not impossible that the _Tenontosaurus_ was
>unlucky
>>enough  to stumble onto a large pack of _Deinonychus_ - possibly 2 or
>three
>>competing packs - then it was brought down by all the packs - who then
>>fought over the possession of the carcass - This would be when the
>>_Deinonychus_'s died.
>
>This is too elaborate a construction for my taste.
>
>Subsititute modern animals for these and see how you feel about the
>scenario; let's use a moose for the tenontosaur and bobcats for the
>deinonychus.
>
>Try to imagine it.  Dozens of frenzied bobcats hurling themselves at
>the beseiged moose . . . only to turn on each other once they've
> brought the moose down.  I just can't see it.
>
>> The fact is - _Tenontosaurus_ meat seems to have been
>>a real favorite of _Deinonychus_ - and  a few other Dromeosaurs. (based
>on
>>teeth found associated with _Tenontosaurus_).
>
>But that doesn't prove anything about predation.  I'm sure there are
>species of carrion beetle that just love elephant flesh. But, to the
>best
>of my knowledge, no aggregation of intrepid beetles can bring
>down an elephant.
>
>>    The truth is that pack hunting animals often lose members of the
>pack
>>while hunting especially the young ones, just learning to hunt and
>kill.
>
>Why, I'd have to disagree.
>
>Pack hunting animals rarely lose a pack member because they are
>not suicidal.  There's plenty of flesh to sustain the pack or it
>wouldn't
> inhabit the econiche in the first place.  Plenty of small, manageable
> herbs.  Plenty of young of the bigger herbs.  Plenty of sick herbs. The
>occasional herb keels over -- free lunch.   If  those copious supplies
> run low,  then they may take a crack at a  larger healthy animal, but
>with great caution even when in extremis.  And "larger" still has a
>rational
>ceiling, even in  those extreme cases.  Meercats (cooperative
>hunters) will not attack a gazelle no matter how hungry
> they are.  Why?  Because they're not frigging nuts.
>
>Sometimes pack animals get killed trying to take down a prey
> animal. But three?  No way.  Usually it's more a matter of one
>animal getting injured and dying later. And, incidentally,  young
>animals very rarely  die in pack feeding events.  They work
>their way into an active slot *very* gradually, another example
>of the pack's playing very cautiously with its own numbers.
>
>>And - we certainly will never know if other _Tenontosaurus_'s were
>involved
>>without lots of footprints from the same site (which I assume were not
>>found).
>
>I don't understand the point.
>
>>  The absurdity would be to assume that this was a typical kill site,
>>and not some extraordinary occurance.
>
>The absurdity is to assume that this is a kill site at all.
>
>Larry
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>