Re: Rugops, a scavenger?

[Andrew McDonald <equinox28@msn.com>]

If Sereno is proposing that the reduced teeth of Rugops mean that it was a 
scavenger, by the same token, must not Majungatholus, Rajasaurus, 
Carnotaurus, Aucasaurus, and perhaps Abelisaurus and Indosuchus fall into 
that category?  Besides the robust structure of abelisaurid skulls, this is 
my primary point of resistance.  Unless there are some big, late 
carcharodontosaurids still undiscovered in the Allen, Lameta, and Maevarano 
Formations (and there may be, who knows?), the largest carnivores, the only 
ones capable of taking down adult titanosaurs, were the abelisaurids.  Thus, 
given our current knowledge of the aforementioned formations, it does not 
seem ecologically sound for the abelisaurids, including Rugops, to be 
scavengers.  Now, perhaps Rugops was more compelled to live off of carrion 
than other abelisaurids; is there any evidence of Carcharodontosaurus in the 
Echkar Formation?

-Andrew McDonald