RE: Ceratopsian Frills

[Mark Hallett <marksabercat@yahoo.com>]

--- "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