|
|
Post by pylraster on Sept 28, 2011 4:18:27 GMT
I'm not sure if there's much evidence supporting this, but Alamosaurus was known to have co-existed with T.Rex as this research shows: www.jstor.org/pss/4524461. Is T.Rex is capable of hunting sauropods too? Phil Currie suggests that large tyrannosaurs may have hunted in packs, so in my opinion, think there's a chance that Rex may have preyed on Alamosaurus. Well, what do you guys think? |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Sept 28, 2011 15:38:39 GMT
Well...who knows? Given that Tyrannosaurus was elephant-sized, why not? It probably would have gone after at least subadult individuals. Pack-hunting might have occurred, too, although I'd lean towards mobbing being more likely (if they did hunt together at all). There's little evidence of co-operative or group hunting in Tyrannosaurus and a lot of evidence of intraspecific combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Sept 28, 2011 15:45:54 GMT
I don't see why not. They lived at the same time in roughly the same area.
|
|
|
|
Post by eriorguez on Sept 30, 2011 6:13:39 GMT
The fact that Alamosaurus reached Argentinosaur sizes, along with the fact that Tyrannosaurs didn't have the "bite and retreat" techs of Allosauroids, pretty much means they'd be better off after weak hadrosaurs and ceratopsians.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2011 9:20:41 GMT
This doesn't debunk the fact that one or more T.rexes could have hunted younger (=smaller) sauropods  |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 1, 2011 4:50:27 GMT
The fact that Alamosaurus reached Argentinosaur sizes, along with the fact that Tyrannosaurs didn't have the "bite and retreat" techs of Allosauroids, pretty much means they'd be better off after weak hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. Eh thats sort of a rash statement considering we are talking about animals nobody has ever seen alive before. |
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Oct 1, 2011 5:33:34 GMT
If they did co-exist, which I believe is not known for certain at the moment, I would imagine that Tyrannosaurus would hunt Alamosaurus on occassions. True, T.rex evolved to hunt armoured Ceratopsians, Ankylosaurus and of course the Hadrosaurus, but when you've got a bite than can remove a chunk of flesh and bone about the size of a sheep from your victim I don't think the effects are too prey-specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 1, 2011 12:49:32 GMT
The fact that Alamosaurus reached Argentinosaur sizes, along with the fact that Tyrannosaurs didn't have the "bite and retreat" techs of Allosauroids, pretty much means they'd be better off after weak hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. That make sense. In the worst scenario, a T. rex still could manage to kill an adult Edmontosaur or triceratops with one lucky bite, but same could be unlikely with an adult or even inmature Alamosaurus. The juveniles could be an ocasional and rare target though, if they grew up segregated from the adult herds. |
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 1, 2011 13:01:01 GMT
The fact that Alamosaurus reached Argentinosaur sizes, along with the fact that Tyrannosaurs didn't have the "bite and retreat" techs of Allosauroids, pretty much means they'd be better off after weak hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. Eh thats sort of a rash statement considering we are talking about animals nobody has ever seen alive before. I don't think there is anything rash about it. We have a good idea what Tyrannosaurs hunted and how it hunted them, same for the Allosaurs. Sounds like a well thought out statement to me. I wouldn't rule out Alamosaur hunting completely but it would probably have to be small juveniles. |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Oct 1, 2011 14:43:44 GMT
Yeah but who's to say a Tyrannosaurus couldn't "bite and retreat" or whos to say carnosaurids did exactly that? The statement talks like the animals have been documented.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 1, 2011 15:00:37 GMT
Yeah but who's to say a Tyrannosaurus couldn't "bite and retreat" or whos to say carnosaurids did exactly that? The statement talks like the animals have been documented. Well you have to hypothesis something about their behavior by studying their bones otherwise what is the point? The design of Tyrannosaur jaws and dentition suggests that it used sheer bone crushing strength to take down it's prey. Tyrannosaurus has teeth designed like railroad spikes, something used to penetrate muscle and bone, not tear flesh. Allosaurs on the other hand have slicing teeth perfect for a hit and run style of hunting. They could gouge out deep cutting wounds and simply wait for the prey animal to die. I think of Allosaurids hunting Sauropods like a Komodo dragon hunting a buffalo or a white shark attacking an elephant seal. This does not rule out sauropod hunting Tyrannosaurs completely...something must have ate them and Tyrannosaurs were the dominate large predator of that time and place. All we can do is put forth out best guesses based on the evidence we have and the evidence seems to point to Tyrannosaurs engaging in a particular style of hunting not conducive with a hit and run approach. |
|
|
|
Post by dinoguy2 on Oct 1, 2011 18:19:56 GMT
Yeah but who's to say a Tyrannosaurus couldn't "bite and retreat" or whos to say carnosaurids did exactly that? The statement talks like the animals have been documented. Well you have to hypothesis something about their behavior by studying their bones otherwise what is the point? Some people prefer to dismiss science altogether because it never gives 100% definitive answers, so it allows them to say "ultimately, we know nothing, so let our imagination run wild." That's more like fantasy than science. The fact is nothing is certain, but a scientific thinker will use parsimony and logic to deduce what is most likely given our current knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 1, 2011 18:29:21 GMT
^
Agreed. Too bad some people dont give much credit to logic, specially when the conclusions threaten their personal preferences and the Rule of Cool on extinct dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 1, 2011 21:39:42 GMT
That's sure as heck not my case! It's by logic indeed that i say what i say ;D
Let me explain: i'm not dismissing the scientific method behind these theories, instead i criticize the almost dogmatic view some people, especially among paleo-fans, have regarding said theories; a true scientist would never say "that's the truth", he would always search new evidence to strenghten or debunk his theory; that's what most paleontologists do. Yet some people i think misunderstand this modus operandi and take every new theory, even the ones with few to none evidence to strenghten it, as gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krissy on Oct 1, 2011 23:15:47 GMT
Hell, you can go ahead and call me a wild fantasist if I sometimes believe dinosaurs might have been capable of more complex or impressive behaviour than the limited fossils we have today would indicate.
I happen to believe that if we studied just the bones of modern day animals without ever having witnessed them in the wild, we'd seriously underestimate what most of them are capable of.
|
|
|
|
Post by rfdelgado on Oct 2, 2011 0:40:32 GMT
Well-stated, Krissy.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 2, 2011 0:56:11 GMT
I happen to believe that if we studied just the bones of modern day animals without ever having witnessed them in the wild, we'd seriously underestimate what most of them are capable of. Agreed, which is why in the Nano-T thread I brought up the skeletal similarity of the big cats (Panthera). They all look nearly identical but their life styles are all very different. If lions were extinct we would assume no cat lived a pack-like lifestyle because the rest of them don't. A bit of an imagination is needed when you're trying to figure out how extinct animals behaved. That said, the best we have to go by is the very limited evidence we have and I'm all in favor of going where the science takes us..but with an open mind and a degree of flexible thinking. Dinosaur science changed daily, there are no absolutes. That is part of what makes it so fascinating. It does seem that people cling too much to the dogma surrounding dinosaurs, recent or otherwise. That is part of what has made the idea of birds being dinosaurs and the whole Dinosaur Renaissance so difficult to grasp for so long. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Oct 2, 2011 1:42:18 GMT
Well, I agree. The current dogma is that dinosaurs where all equal to modern mammals in terms of intelligence and behaviour, extremely agile, extremely complex and cooler than modern animals in all senses (and thus capable of everything extant vertebrates can do and more). Wathever theory suggesting otherwise is an heresy or a very doubtful speculation, despiting the amount of evidence and parsimony used to build such theory. M. Martinyuk (dinoguy2) explained it very well, but I´m afraid it was in vain. We´re obviously in need of another Renaissance.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwangi on Oct 2, 2011 2:01:52 GMT
Well, I agree. The current dogma is that dinosaurs where all equal to modern mammals in terms of intelligence and behaviour, extremely agile, extremely complex and cooler than modern animals in all senses (and thus capable of everything extant vertebrates can do and more). Wathever theory suggesting otherwise is an heresy or a very doubtful speculation, despiting the amount of evidence and parsimony used to build such theory. M. Martinyuk (dinoguy2) explained it very well, but I´m afraid it was in vain. We´re obviously in need of another Renaissance. I don't think that is the case. Initially when the Renaissance caught on perhaps but things have certainly toned down since than. People are starting to realize dromaeosaurs weren't super intelligent, Tyrannosaurs weren't fast runners, some dinosaurs did not care for their young. These things are starting to catch on in the popular media as well as programs like "Planet Dinosaur" show. Sure, they had "pack hunting" Tyrannosaurs but they acknowledged that it was an uncoordinated attack which is not so unbelievable. The general public has just gotten over the notion of dinosaurs being slow and dumb...it took decades for them to realize what scientists already knew. I'm just glad all that is behind us, if people want to think of dinosaurs as mammal intelligent than so be it. At least they have a better grasp of what they were like even if not 100% accurate, the truth is they probably don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by simon on Oct 2, 2011 2:51:38 GMT
Here's my 2 cents worth on this: TRex was the best equipped and most powerful land predator in the history of life on this planet (that we know of). If sauropods were in its ecosystem, you bet your bottom dollar it hunted them. One bite on the neck and the fight was over. Taking a huge chunk of flesh, tendon and bone from a tail/shoulder/back would be as effective, if not more so, as the "slash and run" technique probably employed by the more lightly armed Allosauroids (that's a cool word, BTW - but is it paleontologically accurate I wonder?) I mean, its not like the TRex would be "stuck" if it bit into a sauropod's side; its bite was powerful enough to crush through an Ankylosaur's armor; it would have made quicker work of an Alamosaurus' soft sides. Naturally, the TRex would not attack a fully grown adult Alamosaur any more than it would have attacked a "Triceratops Maximus" (ie a Trike in the 8+ ton range.) However the more vulnerable youngsters/ill/old individuals would have been dead meat. On another note, I am fairly sure that the skeletons indicate that TRexes had stronger legs than the giant Allosauroids (there's that word again ) ... so the bite and run strategy may well have been employed by TRex as well when attacking a large Alamosaur - with the exception that each bite would be doing far more damage to the prey than, say, an Acrocanthosaur's bite would have done ... |
|
