[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Giant carnivorous geese



At 09:23 PM 8/18/2002 -0700, you wrote:

On Thursday, August 15, 2002, at 06:12 PM, Stephen Wroe wrote:

Sure - the takahe has very powerful jaws - as do many other herbivorous birds as you point out. So on this criterion alone your right to conclude that by themselves powerful jaws do not a carnivorous bird make. But the argument first posited for carnivorous Diatryma by Witmer & Rose - and later invoked re dromornithids by me does not rest on this premise. The reasoning goes as follows - birds do not process food in their mouths as do mammals - therefor their skull's need not be larger than necessary to acquire (not process) their food of choice. Based on this - the prediction is that as mostly herbivorous avian taxa get larger we would expect the skulls to become RELATIVELY smaller. This is certainly consistent with what we know of giant terrestrial birds that definitely eat mostly plant foods - emu - ostrich - cassowary - moa - elephant bird etc. So the point is not that dromornithids had large heads and powerful beaks - but that they were very BIG birds with RELATIVELY large heads and powerful beaks. Put another way - the Australian palm cockatoo has a large head the size of a man's fist and with this it can crack the largest of known Australian nuts. If we up-sized the palm cockatoo by a few hundred kg it would not be necessary for it to develop a head much larger than the one it has - in fact it would be gross energetic inefficiency to upscale the head at the same rate unless it's diet shifted to larger nuts. But in Australia there is no evidence of larger nuts in the past.

Its also worth noting that there are many species of largely carnivorous birds that lack hooked beaks or terrifying talons - although I'd agree that the most specialised typically do sport these features.
Roadrunners and marabou stork come to mind as pretty unspecialized, though they are sort of weirdos in being solo offshoots of noncarnivorous groups. Where larger clades exploit carnivory (excepting fish... fisheaters sometimes do, sometimes don't have a hooked beak), a strongly hooked beak seems to be the rule, e.g. Falconiformes, the New World Vultures (if they are a separate lineage... and wouldn't "The New World Vultures" be a cool name for a punk group?), owls; then the shrikes and skuas have a stronger development of this feature than their songbird and gull relatives.
The robusticity of the mandible still kinda bugs me. To my knowledge, carnivores don't show this kinda thing- eagles, hawks, owls, vultures, etc. all have mandibles which aren't exactly weak, but aren't exactly bone-crushers either. There's a phorushracid on p. 238 of Feduccia's book that looks fairly robust but its at an angle so is that the foreshortening?; _Phorusrhacos_ itself looks fairly eagle-like, i.e. not particularly robust.
Another thing is the eyes. Owls and eagles of course have enormous eyes because they are vision-based hunters, and phorusrhacids have pretty large eyes as well despite being so much larger. The eyes of _Diatrima_ and _Bullockornis_ are really tiny compared to the huge skull; and while the eyes are pretty big in some ratites (ostriches and rheas e.g.) in some others, such as moas and elephant birds, they are proportionately very small. A lot of theropods look to have very small eyes but that's at least in part an allometric function of having skulls up to four feet long. The smaller theropods all seem to show relatively large eyes.
Yeah the pinhead nature of most ratites does imply that Diatryma and Bullockornis wouldn't be doing the same thing, but I wonder if these things could represent a different type of herbivory. The takahe, Porphyrio mantelli, has a larger head than the swamphen P. porphyrio, despite its larger size. Swamphens I guess feed on reeds and grasses among other things; the larger head of the takahe presumably would allow more and tougher vegation to be taken. The still larger _Apterornis_ also has a relatively large head and a powerful beak. Is there anything else out there which is takahe-like in its ecology or form? These things sure are bizarre, interesting, perplexing critters.



>>>
Sorry Mike - I was contributing to the debate over diet in giant 'geese' (dromornithids). The presence of gastroliths has been forwarded as an argument against a carnivorous habit for these birds. In response I point out that this is anything but a watertight argument given the presence of gastroliths in some carnivorous dinosaurs.
<<<
Have they found any in unambiguous carnivores? I know they're seen in coelurosaurs like ornithomimids and Caudipteryx, but both of these guys look like herbivores to me- ornithomimids being really similar to ostriches, rheas and emus in a lot of respects, not to mention far and away more abundant than any of the other, unquestionably carnivorous theropods, and Caudipteryx is a relative of Oviraptorosauria which themselves are pretty likely to turn out to be herbivores or omnivores for a number of different reasons (for one thing, they are pretty abundant compared to other theropods in Mongolia).


Nick


Yup - you raise a couple of interesting points. Certainly I'd agree that the eyes of Bullockornis are not large when compared to modern raptors or phorusrhacoids - I'm not entirely sure with respect to Diatryma/Gastornis as I have not seen skulls first hand. I'd further point out that the eyes do not appear to be as forward facing in the dromornithid - although deformation of the only good skull prohibits a conclusive call on this. But a couple of issues need to be considered here - 1, most diurnal raptors are open-country predators - this also appears to be the general take on phorusrhacoids - Miocene dromornithids appear to have been closed forest denizens and acute vision is less likely to have been selected for under such conditions; 2, a number of faunivore/carnivore species do not have especially large or forwardly directed eyes - so either way - this is not a strong case against carnivory in these birds.

Re the presence of gastroliths - there have been a number of subsequent postings responding to your query so I won't bore you with too much needless repetition. But in short - true - some relevant non-avian theropods were likely herbivores or omnivores - but for Baryonx this seems improbable - even less so for T. bataar.

On one point I am in complete agreement - whatever these big birds were doing - be they carnivores, herbivores or anything in between - they did not slot comfortably within any extant guild. Further confounding the problem here is the natural tendency for polarisation of opinion. It is entirely possible - if not likely, that they were neither entirely carnivorous nor herbivorous. At present I don't reckon there's conclusive evidence for any hypothesis - I just get irritated by premature claims to have concluded the debate.

Despite the revelation that dromornithids were not ratites, that their cranial morphology was fundamentally different and that some of these differences were at least suggestive of carnivory - the original description of the Bullockornis skull did not entertain the possibility that the bird may have differed greatly in habitus from ratites. I'd just like to see the debate kept alive until something more convincing than present arguments (my own included) is put on the table.

Cheers,

Steve



Stephen Wroe - Homepage - http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/staff/swroe/swroe.htm