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

[Betty Cunningham <bettyc@flyinggoat.com>]

Chris Campbell wrote:
> Betty Cunningham wrote:

> > > I don't see what the brain has to do with it; pack tactics can be
> > > practiced by such simple-minded animals as hammerhead sharks, so I don't
> > > think a bright therapod would have much trouble.
>> A pack of dogs or lions use a very different tactic in a VERY different
>> environment than sharks (singly or together) ever could.
>> It's IMPOSSIBLE to approach 'downwind' from a prey animal with sonar in
>> a completely featureless environment, for example.
> Naturally.  That's beside the point.  I'm talking about brains and
> coordination between predators, nothing more.  If we're going to charge
> Deinonychus with being too stupid to function in packs, animals with
> less brain material who do so are a good counter-example.

In the ocean, the environment does not lead to use of 'skills' to
improve a hunts chances of success.
Sharks are dumb.  Sharks kill whales.  Whales are smart.  Whales are
coordinated as a pod.  Sharks that eat whales when in groups are not
coordinated as a group.  It's a whole different kettle of fish and a
rather bad example either way-the environment being so very different.
 
>> The prey whale or dolphin KNOWS the shark's whereabouts at all times,
>> and not just via taste in the water (equivalent of terrestrial smell) or
>> sight.  There are no trees to hide behind.
> Sharks don't hunt whales or dolphins in packs.  They corral fish,
> essentially arranging themselves so that the fish who attempt to escape
> one shark run right into another.  Also, I've only heard of this in
> hammerheads, not sharks in general.

Can you quote a source for this hammerhead shark behavior?  
I haven't followed Hammerhead shark behaviors for hunting fish, are
these fish smaller than themselves?
-we have Great Whites locally as our dangerous shark that eat Grey
Whales.

>> With sharks, they bite something till they're fed, the thing may or may
>> not die by the time the shark begins digesting.  And this tactic is the
>> same whether it is one shark by itself or many sharks.
> True, but not what I'm talking about.

What are you talking about?  
The above is what I would regard as the simplest stategy possible of a
hunter of larger things than itself.

>> With lions and hyenas and dogs it's much more a testing measure of
>> whether this hunting group is ready to confront that prey group or
>> individual prey animal.  The animals seem to need reassurance they have
>> good chances of winning a confontation before they confront.
> Right, but also beside the point.

Besides what point?  
These animals have demonstrated less of an instinctual method of hunting
than a contemplative one.
I thought that was your point, defining the differences.

>> This difference in style seems to support the idea of instinctual
>> hunting of sharks vs. the contemplative hunting of terrestrial mammals.
> And why, exactly, could Deinonychus not employ simple strategies
> instinctively?  I see no reason.  All assumming the distinction between
> "instinctive" and "contemplative" means anything anymore, of course.
> I'm fairly convinced the terms are constructs and not much more.

What are 'simple strategies' if not those used by the shark in biting
things larger than itself until it's fed?

-Betty