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

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

From: Jack <jconrad@lib.drury.edu>

>Indeed, but it also depends upon how you define rational and likely.  

I define it as "to be expected based on reasoning."  In the case of 
paleontology we have to rely on the fossil record and  to some degree on 
likely modern analogs to hypothesize about the behavior of these 
animals. 

The
>evidence does not give any conclusive proof that _Deinonychus_ preyed 
upon
>the _Tenontosaurus_, but there cannot be proof that it didn't.

I don't think we should have Deinonychus hopping on top of Tenontosaurus 
simply because we can't prove that it didn't happen.  I think we should 
look at extant animals of similar weight differentials and judge from 
that whether it's a likely scenario.  

Based on such a review, it's not.  Far from a perfect analysis,  to be 
sure, but it's the best we have unless something really good comes out 
of the ground, and in any event  better than "prove it didn't happen."

>  I just
>don't feel that it is healthy to completely disregard the idea.  

But this isn't an idea that everyone's keeping on the back burner as a 
remote possibility.  It's accepted as a fact by many: "Raptorman," able 
to leap tall herbivores in a single bound. 

>We find _T. rex_ teeth in ceratopsian bone as well, but
>there is currently no data supporting _T. rex_ as a predator of
>ceratopsians.  

Well, who knows if T. rex actively hunted ceratopsians?  Certainly not 
me.  But it's not unreasonabe to assume that an animal of T. rex's size 
and probable strength would be able to hunt and kill ceratopsians 
without enlisting it into a gang.

>If owls should happen to go extinct in the future and a
>paleontologist digs up owl coprolites with small mammals bones in them,
>there will be no _conclusive_ proof that owls preyed upon small 
mammals.
>(How could they without teeth?)

Vertebrates generally hunt prey smaller than themselves.  We're thus 
able to entertain the likely possibility that the owls were hunting the 
small mammals.

But if you brought the owl fossil to me and suggested that it hunted 
deer in packs by dive-bombing the deer and tearing at them with their 
talons,  I'd have to disagree, even if you also brought fossil owl 
pellets containing venison.  Owls being what they were and deer being 
what they were, I'd look for another explanation (a more rational and 
likely one!) for the presence of the venison.

>In several million years there may be no conclusive evidence that 
wolves
>or lions or hyenas are pack hunters either. 

Well, for the sake of discussion I'll agree, and then I'll push all of 
the other extant carnivores off the cliff too.  Are you saying that 
future paleontologists should then assume they were all pack hunters 
because there's no proof that they weren't?

> I took your little ruse about beetles and
>elephants (which I also interpreted as a joke) and applied it to a more
>broad sense.  I thought that was one way to keep this light-hearted, 
sorry
>for any inconvenience.  

No inconvenience at all.  I'm glad we're at last agreed that discussion 
of ant behavior has no place in this conversation!  Let us banish spunky 
little Formica from the discussion.

Larry


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