Mammals Preyed on Dinosaurs?

Anonymous Howard writes "Nature is just one of many sites reporting that 130 million-year-old fossils unearthed in China suggest that contrary to conventional wisdom, some early mammals were large enough to prey on dinosaurs. Evidence? How about the fossil of a large badger-like animal with the bones of an entire baby dino in its gut?"

Comments

Blurb a little misleading...

[mOoZik]

..as it makes it seem the mammals were larger than the dinosaurs people typically think of, like the T-Rex or others, who are very, very large. But according to New Scientist, they were only around a meter long (and smaller) and would prey on very small dinos.

Alternate interpretation

[crow]

So the mammal died, and the dinosaur was feeding on it, but died while inside it. Or it crawled inside the carcass after some other predator had fed on it, possibly simply for warmth (explaining it if it were a vegetarian).

Granted, the first interpretation is probably correct, but they need to have reasons for rejecting the alternatives.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Tyreth]

I don't think they need to explain. It's quite obvious that it being eaten is the simplest explanation. You said yourself the first interpretation is probably correct - so the reasons for rejecting the others are clear to everyone.

What instead should be asked is how you can base a new cultural tendency (mammals ate dinosours) to just a single piece of evidence. Perhaps this mammal was unusual in its eating habits. Perhaps starvation led it to steal food it would never otherwise consider. Perhaps it is normally the prey, but was fortunate enough to chance upon a wounded baby dinosaur.

I think those are more interesting points - one baby dinosaur in a mammal's stomach does not indicate anything much.