Re: Carnotaurus

["Rob Gay" <rob_redwing@hotmail.com>]

> Let's assume that the _Carnotaurus sastrei_ has had his horns nothing more 
> than an exhibitional add to its head...<snip>...Somehow, I think that 
> _Carnotaurus sastrei_ did not needed that much of his arms than his legs, 
> but that means he could be, in a possible future, evolved into a dinosaur 
> which arms had disappeared, according to some affirmations. Am I wrong?<
Just a personal thought, but I don't know how much use an animal would have 
for hands that basically sprung from its body, with radii and ulnae shorter 
than the manus. If the arms of tyrannosaurids in general were "useless", I 
would expect then to begin demonstrating the same hypertrophied state seen 
in _Carnotaurus_. Instead, as HP Irmis has stated, the arms apparently bare 
numerious muscle scars, indicating a heavily muscled forelimb.
As for the differences in arm size between _Tyrannosaurus_ and the 
spinosaurids, I would think that since spinosaurids were catching fish with 
their forelimbs (theoretically), they would need to retain their large size. 
_Tyrannosaurus_, be it either an ambush predator or a long distance stalker 
(probably both, IMHO. What you can do is limited by your habitat), 
apparently was using its skull for the most part. Therefor, while the arms 
of tyrannosaurids probably have some function, it probably did not have to 
do with actively catching prey, but they were still useful in order to be 
selected against, as in _Carnotaurus_. Hope this makes sense to more than I.
Peace,
Rob

Student of Geology
Northern Arizona University
P.O. Box 20840
Flagstaff, Az. 86011
AIM: TarryAGoat
"A _Coelophysis_ with feathers?"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com