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

[Jonathon Woolf <jwoolf@erinet.com>]

Chris Campbell (sankarah@ou.edu) wrote:

> Jonathon Woolf wrote:
> > No, _not_ the same.  Chris, you're arguing in generalities.  Just look at 
> > the > animals, OK?
>
> Yes, I am arguing in generalities, because dromaeosaurs differ from
> modern predators in even the most general means imaginable.  Compared to
> a dromaeosaur, cats and dogs have an awful lot in common -- that was my
> only point.

Physiologically, yes -- ecologically, no.  Dogs are omnivorous, ground-bound 
chase hunters that
kill their prey by swarming it and inflicting so much damage that it dies of 
massive tissue injury
and blood loss.  Cats are tree-capable, purely carnivorous ambush hunters, 
which kill either by
breaking the neck or by suffocation.  If you want to find a modern analog for 
packhunting
dromaeosaurs, you could do a lot worse than wolves and African hunting dogs.

> > > > The tactics that work against a cat that can only run a hundred meters
> > > > before dropping don't work against a predator that can dog the prey's
> > > > heels for miles, until the prey animal finally tires and falls.
> > >
> > > Depends.  Horns work pretty well regardless.
> >
> > Most large mammalian herbivores have no horns, or their horns are not 
> > usable as
> > weapons.
>
> Bison?  Buffalo?  Elk?  Moose?  Wildebeest?  These are our large
> mammalian predators, andthey allhave either horns or antlers (and all
> use them in defense).

Wildebeest, use their horns in defense?  I think if you look carefully, you'll 
find that they use
their _mass_ in defense, especially that great blocky head, and the horns just 
happen to go where
the head goes.  Like most of the smaller antelope, their primary defense is 
RLH.  Once a gnu is
cornered and surrounded, it's had it unless the attackers decide to give up.  
As for elk and moose
-- I did say _most_, didn't I? <g>  Elk and moose both belong to the Cervidae.  
Many cervids have
antlers that are usable in defense.

> Which, again, is why I said "perhaps" and "might".  We don't know, and
> that means theories of pack hunting and preferred prey should not be
> dismissed out of turn because we can't find a modern analog.  We simply
> have no idea.

As I said, if you want a modern analog for packhunting theropods, start with 
wolves or wild dogs.
Other than the intelligence question, there's nothing inherently impractical or 
implausible about
packhunting theropods.  I _do_ have a problem with the jumping on and off 
scenario somebody
proposed -- I don't think the big foot claw was used that way.  Matter of fact, 
I'm not convinced
the foot claw had any practical use at all.

-- JSW