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

["Larry Dunn" <larrydunn@hotmail.com>]

From: edels@email.msn.com

>    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.

This argument is becoming circular (ants are rearing their tiny heads 
again, for instance) so I'm not going to participate further except to 
summarize as follows:

I don't think it's responsible to entertain the least rational and 
reasonable possible analysis because it's not possible to conclusively 
disprove it.

It makes more sense to me to adopt the most rational and likely 
hypothesis.

The only evidence purportedly supporting the hypothesis that 
dromaeosaurs were pack hunters is a site with a tenontosaur and three 
dromaeosaurs preserved.  Is there any evidence that the animals were 
involved in a predatory event?  No.  Deinonychus teeth found with 
tenontosaurs prove only that Deinonychus ate Tenontosaurus, not that 
they were preying upon tenontosaurs.

In the lack of *any* proof, is it *likely* that Deinonychus actively 
preyed upon (or "predated", if you prefer!) Tenontosaurus?  Given 
present weight differentials between *mammalian* pack hunters and their 
prey, it seems very unlikely to say the least.

There is no evidence that dromaeosaurs were pack hunters.  We have to 
let go of that Bakker-inspired construction.  Because it's sexy does not 
mean that it's right.  

And let's leave hive insects and microbes out of this please!  They have 
precious little to say about vertebrate behavior.

Larry

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com