Re: REFUTING "PACK HUNTING" (LONG)

["Allan Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>]

Brian:

    First off, thank you for collecting all the references to all the
material that we have been beating each other up over.  It certainly
explains a lot.

    It does not alter my OPINION that _Deinonychus_ could have managed to
hunt and kill a _Tenontosaurus_, and MAY have done so in a fashion that
RESEMBLED pack hunting.  It does show me how flimsy the actual evidence for
this event is!!!

    I respect those who say we can't know for sure what happened (regarding
pack hunting), but I feel that keeping an open mind about the question is
the only honest response in the light of the evidence.

    Allan Edels


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Franczak <franczak@ntplx.net>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 3:15 AM
Subject: REFUTING "PACK HUNTING" (LONG)


>In the latest installment of this seemingly never-ending (but thoroughly
>enjoyable if somewhat vitriolic) thread, Chris Campbell wrote:
>

SNIP

>The "pack-hunting" scenario is too far-fetched an explanation for this
>site. A more realistic analysis rules this out, even if it doesn't supply
>an answer. Speculation is fine, up to a point, but I'm a firm believer that
>we need to be a bit more conservative.
>
SNIP

They are not incontrovertible evidence
>for "pack hunting"; the authors' bias towards that interpretation is
>evident, but even they admit that their theory is just one possible
>scenario.
>
>They finish with this sentence:
>
>"There is no way to disprove that the carnivores were only scavenging at
>both the YPM 64-75 and the MOR CL-103 sites, but it is our opinion that the
>evidence, even though circumstantial, supports active predatory behavior
>rather than scavenging."
>
>Active predatory behavior, sure. "Pack hunting", not so much...
>
>
>
>
>Brian (franczak@ntplx.net)
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2045/
>
>
>