Re: What would Hitchcock have thought...?

[Patrick Norton <ptnorton@suscom-maine.net>]

Adrienne Mayor wrote:

> We're talking about the possibility that Ice Age teratorns were capable of 
> picking up a small human child in its beak (not talons), much like what was 
> reported in the news item from South Africa that began this discussion. 
> Argentavis magnificens was huge, over 5 ft tall weighing 170 pounds,  etc. 
> But it lived in the Late Miocene, and never interacted with North American 
> Indians, so it's not relevant to what I am suggesting:>

It is relevant to your comment that teratorns picked up prey with "strong 
beaks" and your belief that they "could pick up a small child".  I used _A. 
magnificens_ as an example, since it was the largest of the known teratorns 
and therefore the most likely, if possible at all, of carrying off 
child-sized prey.  The structurally weak and highly kinetic skulls (and the 
resultant inability to kill or dismember large prey) I mentioned are found 
in all the large teratorns, including _Teratornis merriami_ and _Teratornis 
incredibilis_, both of which survived into the late Pleistocene. This 
evidence argues against teratorns preying on child-sized prey or being able 
to pick up prey of that size using their beak (or the feet for that matter).

PTN