quote: At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.
Okay -- how can they know it actually hunted and killed the dinosaur? It may have eaten one that it found that was already dead. Many carnivores eat dead things they come across, you know.
I think there is a lot of dramatization and supposition in this piece..
Besides, the article says this particular mammal species died out a long time ago -- so it couldn't possibly have been one of your ancestors, or you wouldn't exist!
Mine were. My ancestors figured it was silly to expend all that energy hunting when there were others willing to do the killing for you. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, from what they found in the one's stomach, it would seem that they ate juvenile dinosaurs rather than adults. And of course, not all dinosaurs were huge.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sure, it doesn't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it's certainly sugestive. I'd guess that predation is probably the number one killer of young in most species today, and I don't see a reason why the pattern would have been different back then. Is there a reason to think that it was a scavanger rather than a predator, or are you just floating this as a possiblity?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
