Re: Experts had thought only herbivores hunted in packs...

[christopher robert noto <crnoto@midway.uchicago.edu>]

I'm wondering here, how many individuals are we talking about?  Do we have
a ball-park estimate?  Certain scenarios will make more sense depending on
whether the number of animals was 4 or 40.  From the descriptions, it's
sounding like a large collection od tyrannosaurs together, wouldn't that
rule out something like a predator trap?  It's hadr fro me to imagine so
many predators converging on a few prey itmes *unless* what we are seeing
is a supertrap of predators, perhaps they need this many ino order to
bring down multiple members from a large herbivore herd which they corral
into the trap, where several adults await.  Then the parents can bring
some food back to baby.

Chris

On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Michael A. Turton wrote:

> >  it was pretty explicit about the point that
> > this was a single-species, mixed-age assemblage, and presented that as a
> > refutation of the flood-carried or tar trap scenarios and thus as the 
> > clincher
> > for Currie's theory.
> >
> > Alan
> 
> I just don't buy it as evidence of cooperative hunting.  Cooperative hunters
> spread out.  Cooperative ambushers drive the prey in the direction of
> the other animal, often on the other side of the target herd.  They aren't all
> bunched up
> -- it would defeat the whole purpose of working together.  It seems more 
> likely
> that this assemblage occurred for some other reason (like coincidently 
> scavenging
> the same carcass), and they all wound up dead in one place together for 
> reasons
> unrelated to hunting.
> 
> Michael Turton
>