RE: Tyrannosaur numbers

[Dinosaur World <dinoworld@msn.com>]

I think the reverse is more the case. Because they were very efficient 
hunters, their eco-system would not allow large numbers of them. Larger 
numbers would have offset the balance between predator and prey.

G.B.

From: Benjamin Hughes <grombek1@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: grombek1@hotmail.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Tyrannosaur numbers
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:54:39 +1000


Hi all
I'm relatively new to the DML, certainly no expert like manyof you here, but 
jut thought I'd add my bit. I have ideas and if I'm wrong then I'm happy to 
hear why.
I have heard (coan't remember source, sorry) that there are very few 
Tyrannosaur fossils ever found. Whether this means that few have been found 
out of a large amount still undiscovered, that few of the animals ever 
happened to be fossilised in the first place, or that there were few 
Tyrannosaurs ever in existance at all, I am not sure.
My point is that if it were true that there were few Tyrannosaurs, then this 
would most likely mean that it was simply because they were innefective 
predators, too big and cumbersome to catch faster prey, or to compete with 
slightly smaller predators.
Is there any way of knowing without the actual fossils the number of 
Tyrannosaurs that existed?

~Ben


-~

The Australian Discworld Convention - www.ausdwcon.org