Re: What would Hitchcock have thought...?

[Adrienne Mayor <Afmayor@aol.com>]

Ok, good point. But if not teratorns, which other Ice Age birds of  
prey would be capable of picking up a small child (either in talons  
or beak)? Or should we reject the new interpretation of the evidence  
in South Africa, reported in Am J of Phys Anthropology, that large  
birds apparentlypreyed on human ancestors?

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:>

Patrick Norton wrote:

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