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

[Jack <jconrad@lib.drury.edu>]

On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Larry Dunn wrote:  = one >

> From: Chris Campbell <sankarah@ou.edu>  = two > >
> 
> You've glossed over some very real differences here, even assuming that 
> we look only at large mammalian predators as you've done.  Wild dogs 
> chase down their prey in a pack, catch them from behind, stop them, and 
> kill them.  Wolves encircle their prey in a pack.  Different strategies, 
> both requiring speed and endurance, requiring  forelimbs for sustained 
> running.  Lions are built for a quick burst of speed and generally take 
> on their prey individually, allowing AND requiring them to develop their 
> forelimbs to assist in dispatching their prey.  And so on and so on.  
> Surely you're not saying that cheetahs and wolves are basically the same 
> animals because they both suffocate their prey? 

I am going to step in here, if you don't mind.  There is a little glossing
over here as well.  Of course cheetahs and wolves don't employ the same
broad strategies, cheetahs rarely hunt in groups at all!  Even when they
hunt as more than individuals, they do so in pairs or, even more rarely,
groups of three.  Several lions or hunting dogs or wolves will attack
large prey at once.  I believe that that is closer to the original
analogy.  

> off.  And exactly what would just one such gash accomplish?  Probably 
> draw the attention of the tenontosaur so it could turn around and squash 
> the pipsquak who had such nerve as it fell off.  

One gash wouldn't do much.  However, we are discussing group behavior.
The prey animal's attention would be diverted to many attacking animals
(who would, incidentally be attacking) and the numerous animals would
create numerous wounds.  

jc