Re: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)

["Allan Edels" <edels@email.msn.com>]

Larry, et al:

    I have been unable to respond for a few days.  I noticed that you
(Larry) skimmed through my prior message, responded to one point, and drew
offense at mentions of other things that were not the root of my message,
merely window dressing.

    One major point of mine was that the discovery of a _Tenontosaurus_
specimen and 3 (or 4) _Deinonychus_ specimens in the same matrix and
location was an UNUSUAL EVENT.  This is true no matter what view you have on
their predatory abilities or habits.

    I would be interested to hear what your interpretation of the fossil
assemblage is.

    In general, I agree with most of your points!!!!  I merely have an
admitted preference to believe that these animals (_D._) were predatory -
probably grasping with the forelimbs, and kicking and tearing with the
hindlimbs.  I, for one, will not rule out the _possibility_ that a group of
_D._'s might be able to bring a medium sized _T._.

    One other point that I tried to inject into this thread, was that of
complexity theory.  As you may know, this would infer that several complex
behavior
patterns (as viewed by we anthropomorphic humans) are, in fact, the
interaction of a few very simple behavior patterns and 'rules'.  This MIGHT
allow _D._ to act as a pack hunter, yet not employ all the advantages of
advanced mammalian pack hunters - such as planning, and specific roles for
each member of the group.

    Last point (today      :-)):  It is _nearly_ impossible for any of us to
know for sure that any animal preyed upon any other, without witnessing the
attack.  (Yes, we can reconstruct some aspects - based on extant animals,
which we already have some behavioral knowledge).  The biggest problem is,
we don't know the food web - like the simplistic way that some people have
been taught about dinosaur extinction - Plants died out, plant-eating
dinosaurs died out, meat-eating dinosaurs died out (because there wasn't any
plant-eating dinosaurs left!!!).  We don't know what _Allosaurus_ ate
(besides - maybe a small sauropod), or _T. rex_ ate (besides maybe young
_Triceratops_).  WHAT ELSE DID THEY EAT?????? (this applies to all animals).
In some unusual cases, we know precisely what some extant animals eat -
because they eat only one item  (Koalas -> eucalyptus; Pandas -> Bamboo).
In general, most animals eat all sorts of different foods.  Plant eaters
even chew on bones and eat insects for the added protein.  Most carnivores
do not eat only one kind of meat or animal.  Several carnivores eat
vegetation on a regular basis - to help keep them regular (we assume).

    Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Stanford <starsong@prodigy.net>
To: larrydunn@hotmail.com <larrydunn@hotmail.com>; dinosaur@usc.edu
<dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)


>Larry Dunn wrote [Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 1:03 AM
>Subject: Re: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)]:
>
>
>>...There isn't any terrestrial
>>vertebrate that regularly preys upon another terrestrial vertebrate
>>thirty times it's weight, even in a pack.  Why should it?  There's other
>>prey to be had.  Why assume that extinct vertebrates did when extant
>>vertebrates don't?
>
>    Give Chris Campbell a break!  One extant terrestrial vertebrate even
>does it singly (or in multiples):  The vampire bat, a terrestrial,
mammalian
>vertebrate).
>
>    I had a friend in Peru who kept his donkey inside one room of his home
>at night, afraid that a rabid vambire bat would prey upon it.  I'll bet an
>adult donkey weighes at least a few hundred times what the heftiest vampire
>bat weighs!
>
>    If a vambire bat sucking your blood isn't 'preying upon' you (or the
>donkey, if you prefer), then summon "Fluke Man" out of the X-files!  ;-)
>
>    Of course, then, if you're in certain South American rivers, there are
>schools of Piranha  (vertebrate, but aguatic) to make your swim
interesting,
>even though you are well over thirty times the weight of one of these fish.
>
>    Pleasant dreams!
>
>    Ray Stanford
>
>
>
>
>
>
>