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

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

Jack wrote:

>> As to entertaining the possibilities: it's also possible that 
>> dromaeosaurs ate only each other, isn't it? 

(snip)

>Certainly.  Theropods are known to have attacked each other, there 
>are bones with wounds etc.

Remember that in my logic game I proposed that theropods *only* hunted 
each other, and scavenged herbivore carcasses.  Of course I do not 
believe this.  I think you'd find it hard to accept too.  

And why is that? Because there are certain preferences vertebrates 
follow regardless of their particular anatomy.  Why eat something 
configured to kill when you can eat something configured to graze?   

Exceptions?  Sure.  Among other instances, there are a few snakes that 
make a living eating only other snakes.  But there's a reason we call 
them "exceptions."

Likewise, why assume that a small animal was a pack hunter, when 
pack-hunting is counterintuitive, very much the exception pursued only 
by a few large mammals?

>  Dromie teeth are found with tenontosaur skeletons. 

(snip)

>This differs from the dromie killing the tenontosaur scenario where we
>have no conclusive evidence either way.  Therefore, the idea of dromies
>*possibly* hunting tenontosaurs should be entertained.  

But there's no evidence that they *hunted* large herbivores.   And 
there's no reason to assume they did.   We know that animals eat other 
animals all the time without having killed them.  Some even make a 
living out of it.  

So we can't really build a supportable hypothesis out of the presence of 
teeth.  Otherwise, if rodents threw teeth, we'd have to hypothesize that 
rats were pack hunters too!

>The original premise was that because we have evidence that future
>paleontologists will have no evidence that owls killed the small 
mammals
>discovered in their coprolites, just as we have no way to prove if
>_Deinonychus_ killed tenontosaurs.  

Exactly.  Say we find both venison and mouse remains in eagle pellets 
(identifiable as such, for the sake of argument).  What would you say is 
a reasonable hypothesis for the presence of the mouse remains?  For the 
deer remains?

Larry

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