[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: T-Rex Arms race
Andrew Simpson wrote:
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.
Just to give some perspective on this. Obviously _T. rex_ did not use its
arms to the same degree as other, more longer-armed theropods such as
_Allosaurus_ or _Velociraptor_. What we are seeing is different predation
strategies at work. The reduction in size of the forelimbs in
tyrannosaurids certainly implies a reduction in function, and this is
correlated with changes to the craniodental anatomy. So the change in
forelimb size was probably functionally correlated with a larger role of the
head for grabbing and holding prey. _T. rex_ did not use its forelimbs to
grab prey - they were far too short (of course). But the forelimbs might
have been brought into play when the struggling prey didn't have much fight
left in it, courtesy of those powerful jaws.
Snakes and sharks (and all fish) get by without arms.
Their limbs are fully occupied swimming, just as it was for their ancestors.
They might have been a hinderence once in adulthood as They might have been
easy to rip off
and thus cause horrid wounds. Smaller limbed adults might have been more
successful and so the evolutionary change.
I would say that the reduction of the forelimb in tyrannosaurid forelimb
concerns a changeover in function rather than a total loss of function. If
the forelimbs were vestigial, why did the muscles or upper arm bones not
atrophy? The forelimbs were so short that they could probably be kept out
of the way when _T. rex_ was lunging ang seizing prey.
Mate grabbers if anything.
Mating claspers is one hypothesis, but as far as we can tell both sexes
retained forelimbs. Then again, maybe tyrannosaurs were sexually
adventurous. :-)
Cheers
Tim