Re: T. rex the Licensed Hunter

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

Ralph Miller III wrote, in response:

>> In reference to the posting comparing toothed whales to Theropods, I
>can't
>> see the relation either.  The toothed whales (unless I am 
misinformed...
>> please correct me if so) do not use their teeth to eat. 

(snip)

> Sperm whales most probably do catch and
>wound large prey (such as the giant squid) with the help of their 
teeth,
>and I see no reason why tyrannosaurids wouldn't have done the same.  

At the risk of being annoying . . . 

My principal reason for giving a different perspective on this varied 
from the above poster's:  I wasn't so much concerned with whether P. 
catodon uses it's teeth to eat the squid, but rather with the comparison 
of terrestrial and marine predators itself. 

> the point is that a massive animal with large jaws
>and robust -- but not especially sharp -- teeth should be capable of
>grabbing hold of prey with the teeth, with or without the benefit of 
useful
>arms. 

But the physics of terrestrial and marine predation are so  different in 
virtually every respect that I questioned the usefulness of any analogy 
whatsoever.  

I'm just questioning the proposition that observed  characteristics 
useful for active marine predation can be used to determine that  
"similar" characteristics in a terrestrial animal also suggest (or 
defend the notion of) active predation. 
 
Translation: in my opinion, a big swimming head with lots of teeth (P. 
catodon) does not function similarly to a big walking/running head with 
lots of teeth (T. rex).  There are  significant differences in 
locomotion, presence (or lack) of a bow wave,  and a million other 
variables to consider. So  I don't think that the sperm whale, white 
shark or other marine hunters have any usefulness in refuting Horner's 
"no arms: no good" argument.

Larry

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