On Monday, June 27, 2005, at 08:19 PM, Andrew Simpson wrote:
I think it's a resonable concept that they used those arms when the were young. If you look at a rendering of a full grown T-Rex and try to imagine full usable arms they suddenly seem awkward. It's also another few hundred pounds of bulk to support that may have little real useful application if the mouth can do what it needs to do. Snakes and sharks (and all fish) get by without arms.
They might have been a hinderence once in adulthood as they might have been easy to rip off and thus cause horrid wounds.As well because the jaws, though, eventually the strongest ever conceived, would've been nowhere near AS capable of dismembering prey alone. In this regard, we could regard them as "training wheels" of a sort.
Mate grabbers if anything.No problems there.
IF said tyrannosaur was trying to stand completely still doing so. This stress could be greatly reduced by moving said struggling prey, especially if further advancing towards prey, to the effect of impaling said prey and thereby getting even better control on pinpointing those massive bites. In this theory, I'm citing the straightness of the manual claws, as opposed to most theropods more strongly recurved ones.
--- Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Tim Williams wrote:probably were not worthSure, a skinny Hollywood actress may have slipped through his fingers (andeating), but the forelimbs of _T. rex_ wereprobably useful for embracing*something*. Maybe they served as grapplingdevices, to help secure largeprey that was held by the powerful jaws. Likehadrosaurs, or eventitanosaurs (in the American SW, anyway).
I have trouble with this use for the forelimbs. I don't care how strong the forelimb muscles of a 'rex were - surely trying to hold back a struggling multi-tonne hadrosaur (or worse, a sauropod!) would rip an arm from its socket?