Re: Die Me, Dichotomy (was For you T. Rex addicts out there! - Part 2)

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Tommy Bradley wrote:

> The debate over HOW T-rex obtained its food will never end, and neither 
> side will give in and end the
>  discussion.  For every case supporting predation, there is a counter 
> argument supporting a scavenger lifestyle.

The caudal vertebra of an _Edmontosaurus_ skeleton in Denver shows a scar 
most likely inflicted by a _Tyrannosaurus_.  The wound shows signs of 
healing, indicating that the edmontosaur was alive before and after the 
attack.

This discovery directly refutes the argument that _Tyrannosaurus_ was an 
obligately scavenger.  There are alternative scenarios more consistent with 
an exclusively scavenging tyrannosaur, but I think these are less plausible:

1. The hadrosaur was putting on a very convincing display of "playing dead", 
which attracted a carcass-seeking _Tyrannosaurus_.

2. The tyrannosaur tripped, and collided with a hapless hadrosaur.


> This seems like the Paleontological Civil War.

A fairly one-sided one.  Apart from Dr John Horner, what other vertebrate 
paleontologists regard _Tyrannosaurus_ as an obligate scavenger?




Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail