Re: Ceratopsian Frills

[Mark Hallett <marksabercat@yahoo.com>]

Dear Cliff, I think it was very perceptive of you to
have thought of this `way back then. We always grew up
with the idea that a tyrannosaurid was like the
proverbial 500 lb. gorilla--that it could do anything
it wanted to, and that the only defense a ceratopsian
had against one of these was its horns. In reality,
even top predators can and often do receive disabling
and consequently fatal injuries from their intended
prey. A 6/12 -- 7 ton biped, even with 6" teeth, would
have had to be careful of that beak. --Mark Hallett
--- Cliff Green <dinonaut@emerytelcom.net> wrote:
> Dear Mark and list,
> 
>     It's funny you should mention Ceratopsians using
> thier beaks as weapons.
> I first mentioned this hypothesis several years ago,
> when I was doing
> research on horned dinosaurs for a Discovery channel
> commission, and my
> 1/35th scale line. I didn't receive alot of
> feedback. I am probably not the
> first person to come up with this idea in the
> hundred twenty plus years of
> ceratopsian study, but I didn't get the idea from
> someone else.
>     The jaw muscles on horned dinosaurs must have
> been emmense. Then take
> into account that the premax is still pointy, even
> in fossil form.Now
> imagine how crisp the edge of the keratin sheath on
> that premaxilla must
> have been. A six ton torosaur may have been able to
> nip small trees down. I
> can just visualize what it could do to the leg or
> exposed underbelly of an
> attacking tyrannosaur. Lawn shears through wet
> cardboard.
> 
> Lost in the Lance Cliff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Hallett" <marksabercat@yahoo.com>
> To: <rtravsky@uwyo.edu>
> Cc: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 9:12 PM
> Subject: RE: Ceratopsian Frills
> 
> 
> 
> --- "Richard W. Travsky" <rtravsky@uwyo.edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Andrew A. Farke wrote:
> > > > From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu
> > [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
> > > > Richard W. Travsky
> >
> > Thin and "porous". That frill practically goes
> back
> > to its butt. It looks
> > like it wouldn't be strong enough to hold up as a
> > barrier either.
> 
> I think that a relatively thin and porus shield (I
> prefer this term to "frill", since I think "shield"
> comes closer to what I consider to have been its
> intraspecific combat, anti-predator qualities) would
> have still been effective against tyrannosaurid
> predation. A downward or forwardly directed
> tyrannosaurid bite would inflict tremendous damage
> on
> a fleshy, especially a vertical, structure like the
> neck, trunk or spinal column, where the structure
> would be perpendicular to the angle of the occluding
> teeth; it would be less effective when brought to
> bear
> against a wide, hard curving surface (in the case of
> an adult Torosaurus)like the shield, that exceeded
> its
> gape and may have largely deflected the bite. The
> results would probably be similar to the T. rex
> attack
> on the Land Rover's sunroof in JP1: a frustrating
> inability to get its jaws around something. This at
> least could have bought some time to turn and stage
> a
> counterattack with the beak. I'm not implying that
> ceratopsian shields were only for defense, but I
> think
> Richard's horned toad hypothesis has merit.
> 
> --Mark Hallett
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for
> 25¢
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> 
> 



        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover