|
|
Post by neovenator08 on May 19, 2011 6:49:44 GMT
I saw this on BBC News. Apparently they know this because several skeletons were found together, and they've scanned the brain case.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on May 19, 2011 13:06:00 GMT
I saw this on BBC News. Apparently they know this because several skeletons were found together, and they've scanned the brain case. Any links? If true, its what we long suspected (ever since the discovery of a group of Albertosaurs that died together, not to mention the Allosauroid packs from Argentina.) |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 19, 2011 13:46:29 GMT
Just because predators died together doesn't mean they lived together. The question we should ask about things like this is, how do we know we're looking at a life group and not a predator trap? If the answer is "we don't know" or "we can't tell", then there's no reason to think they lived together, because that is the more extraordinary claim. It requires the burden of evidence for anybody reasonable to believe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on May 19, 2011 15:22:01 GMT
Just because predators died together doesn't mean they lived together. The question we should ask about things like this is, how do we know we're looking at a life group and not a predator trap? If the answer is "we don't know" or "we can't tell", then there's no reason to think they lived together, because that is the more extraordinary claim. It requires the burden of evidence for anybody reasonable to believe it. I think your last sentence is a bit too condescending and flat out inaccurate. If you want us to defer to your asserted inside knowledge (I seem to recall you are a scientist, possibly a paleontologist, you may want to refresh our memory), it is best that you do not insult your audience. P.S. If these were 'predator traps' as you suggest, where is the evidence of the prey a la La Brea? More likely they were a pride that was buried by a flash flood. I believe that was the speculation of the paleontologists who found the two (Giganotosaur and Mapusaur) mass burial sites. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 19, 2011 15:55:22 GMT
Sensationalism aside, i guess dinosaur sociality, like in today's animals, was different from species to species... There were probably solitary dinosaurs, others that lived in herds or family groups... Except for rare findings (like the Maiasaurus' nests in the '80s for example) we can't desume the behavior of dinosaurs lookin' just at the bones, which, sadly, are all is left of them.
Regarding Rexy i tend to think that they usually lived in family groups, but, hey, who knows!
|
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 19, 2011 18:20:02 GMT
Don't take my word for it, here's another person who sees this for what it is: Sensational hype with zero science behind it. blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/05/tarbosaurus-gangs-what-do-we-know/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+smithsonianmag%2FDinosaur+%28Dinosaur+Tracking%29I don't mean to be condescending. I'm just trying to inject some scientific thinking into the discussion. A monster fan would read this news and say, "Wow, that is cool! Now that's something I want to believe is true." A science fan will ask, "Where's the evidence?" then go read more or talk to others looking for some, If there is none, dismiss it as bogus until some turns up. Note that this "media event" is not even about T. rex, it's a bout Tarbosaurus. But all the news stories will talk about T. rex because it's cooler and more famous, or automatically apply the results to all tyrannosaurs for no good reason. I believe that was the speculation of the paleontologists who found the two (Giganotosaur and Mapusaur) mass burial sites. Note that all the claims about pack-hunting large theropods have all been from the same scientist: Phil currie. Nobody else so far has been convinced by the evidence. He's been making the same claim for over 15 years, and is now still treating it as if it's new and revolutionary, based on the same equivocal evidence. I'm not saying predator trap is the only explanation, but even if it were we don't know if any prey were also found in the quarry. Like Darwinius, they went right for the media blitz, TV show, etc. with no actual scientific paper to be found. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on May 19, 2011 18:29:09 GMT
Well, the linked blog actually serves to support the hypothesis, because Currie, who has discovered several of these mass burials, has been cautious to not make such a claim unequivocally - until now. So it implies (we'll have to wait and see) that there is something that distinguishes this Tarbosaurus site from the other sites discussed. Secondly, most people consider Tarbosaurus to be little different from TRex. They were essentially thought of as the same animal until recently. Occam's razor tells me that if one of them was a pack hunter, then so was the other. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on May 19, 2011 18:30:47 GMT
Well, the linked blog actually serves to support the hypothesis, because Currie, who has discovered several of these mass burials, has been cautious to NOT make such a claim - until now. Currie was making the same claim about Mapusaurus and his Albertosaurus bonebed since 1998. It says to in the article as well. The other problem here is equating "pack hunting" with "family group." We know Edmontosaurus and pigeons live in family groups but we don't describe them as pack hunters. No can Komodo dragons, which frequently mob prey in groups, be considered packs. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on May 19, 2011 18:46:28 GMT
Well, the linked blog actually serves to support the hypothesis, because Currie, who has discovered several of these mass burials, has been cautious to NOT make such a claim - until now. Currie was making the same claim about Mapusaurus and his Albertosaurus bonebed since 1998. It says to in the article as well. The other problem here is equating "pack hunting" with "family group." We know Edmontosaurus and pigeons live in family groups but we don't describe them as pack hunters. No can Komodo dragons, which frequently mob prey in groups, be considered packs. Fair points. But pack hunting would serve to explain a lot. There is no way Allosaurs could have hunted sauropods alone, for example. There would be advantages to TRexes from this behavior as well. Theropods are clearly related to birds, and birds often mate for life. I suppose we'll never know for certain ... |
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on May 19, 2011 19:57:21 GMT
You are implying Allosaurus took sauropods on.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on May 20, 2011 2:42:30 GMT
You are implying Allosaurus took sauropods on. Ummm ... yeah .... I don't believe that is a new concept.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on May 20, 2011 3:25:27 GMT
Occam's razor tells me that if one of them was a pack hunter, then so was the other. Sure, like how both lions and tigers of the genus Panthera are both pack hunters...oh, wait.  |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on May 20, 2011 6:24:56 GMT
I believe we had a small evidence which suggested at least a vague social behaviour (the healed injury in Sue´s leg?). They might live in couples and bring their juvenile offsprings with them to teach them the hunting basics. Once they became sub adults they could become loners until they find a partner and can fund their own family.
However I´m not sold with the organized pack hunting thing outside of a small family group. We are talking about a mammal trait after all...and the crowding of bodies in big carnosaurs could be caused by a flood.
|
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on May 21, 2011 1:49:30 GMT
Sure, like how both lions and tigers of the genus Panthera are both pack hunters...oh, wait. That got me thinking, lions hunt in prides because some of their prey is in large herds and needs separating or because the prey is dangerous. Tigers hunt prey that's usually in small groups, so they can do it alone. So, which "prey group" does Tarbosaurus (or for that matter Tyrannosaurus) hunt; dangerous game and/or in larger herds, or smaller less densely packed game. Some of their prey was large and heavily armed (ceratopsians & ankylosaurs), while others probably lived in large groups (hadrosaurs & maybe ceratopsians). Taking into account that tyrannosaurs were mostly larger than their prey (unlike lions), I would favor them hunting in small family groups. Not sure if that made sense... |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2011 2:55:21 GMT
Sure, like how both lions and tigers of the genus Panthera are both pack hunters...oh, wait. That got me thinking, lions hunt in prides because some of their prey is in large herds and needs separating or because the prey is dangerous. Tigers hunt prey that's usually in small groups, so they can do it alone. So, which "prey group" does Tarbosaurus (or for that matter Tyrannosaurus) hunt; dangerous game and/or in larger herds, or smaller less densely packed game. Some of their prey was large and heavily armed (ceratopsians & ankylosaurs), while others probably lived in large groups (hadrosaurs & maybe ceratopsians). Taking into account that tyrannosaurs were mostly larger than their prey (unlike lions), I would favor them hunting in small family groups. Not sure if that made sense... Lions hunt in prides because the presence of hyenas (by far the most numerous large predators in the same territory) forced them to (originally). At least that is the current theory. The ability to hunt very large prey is thought to have been a secondary/bonus benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on May 21, 2011 3:09:17 GMT
^Good point, no predators matched the size of those tyrannosaurs in their areas. The only thing that came close, as far as I know, was Alioramus and it was probably hunting smaller, faster game. I suppose you could also include "Nanotyrannus", but even if you did, it would probably be the same story.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon on May 21, 2011 7:00:02 GMT
Lions hunt in prides because the presence of hyenas (by far the most numerous large predators in the same territory) forced them to (originally). At least that is the current theory. The ability to hunt very large prey is thought to have been a secondary/bonus benefit. Taken to its extreme by the elephant-hunting lions of one particular nature preserve in Africa .. I recall seeing the show where about two dozen lions were hanging all over a full-grown elephant in the middle of the night. The elephant eventually tired and fell, and then the feast began ... |
|
|
|
Post by Pachyrhinosaurus on May 21, 2011 16:48:44 GMT
Just because predators died together doesn't mean they lived together. Right you are! What if a cannibalistic tyrannosaur lived in the area? I heard they turned on each other. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on May 21, 2011 21:52:21 GMT
;D T-rex didn't hunt in packs! They scavenged dead animals like vultures.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on May 21, 2011 22:39:23 GMT
;D T-rex didn't hunt in packs! They scavenged dead animals like vultures. But they can't see something if it isn't moving! ;D |
|
