Re: Evolution of tyrannosauroid bite power

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

Don Ohmes wrote:

> However, Carpenter, et al, have definitely shown that the arms of the big 
> old thing were such that they would have been more useful to "T. rex the 
> predator", than to "T.rex the scavenger". <

Carpenter's 2001 paper was a nice piece of work as far as evaluating the 
strength of T. rex arms, but with all due respect I suggest that his 
conclusion that T. rex was therefore predator does not logically follow from 
his findings.  I mentioned the "carcass lifting" hypothesis earlier because 
it offers an explanation that is consistent with all the evidence but does 
not require predation or prey grappling as a premise. Let me say that I have 
no idea if T. rex engaged in carcass lifting or not, but in principle it can 
not be ruled out on the evidence and is therefore an equally plausible 
explanation of forelimb function.

> So anyhow, on to my main question -- for those that _do_ accept that 
> Carpenter, et al, has supplied definitive proof of a predatory lifestyle; 
> can Carnotaurus and others with extremely-dinky-and-also-very-weak arms 
> now be safely accused of being 'dumpster-divers'? <

Before speculating about other types of dinosaurs, those folks must first 
explain how the premise that an animal possessing a M. biceps capable of 
generating a force of 1955.3N compels the conclusion that that animal was a 
predator.

PTJN