Slashdot Mirror
Pack-Hunting Dinosaurs Found As Large As T-Rex
1369IC writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the recently unearthed Mapusaurus roseae was as large as a T-Rex and may have hunted in packs. The fossils were found in Patagonia, in Argentina, though not enough were found to reconstruct an entire specimen. The meat-eaters probably lived in the same time and place as the 125-foot-long Argentinosaurus, the largest known dinosaur." From the article: "T. rex was equipped to attack and destroy animals its own size, Currie said, but Mapusaurs perhaps could 'go in, strike, pull and see what to do next,' a strategy that could work against larger animals, especially if the predators attacked together -- the prehistoric equivalent of a pack of wolves cornering a bison."
Yeah, blame capitalism. This wouldn't even have been discovered without it. I am sure this is the first time, ever, something was named after a person. Ever.
Speaking of science, it is nice how these folks can find a collection of bones from seven or eight animals and create a whole set of hunting behaviors and lifestyles. The scientists admit this is conjecture, but fortunately, the reporters and editors writing these stories don't let a little science get in the way of just writing the juicy bits.
If the scientists of the future still have any brains left, they will look at all the teeth and be able to say that the Elephant was a herbivore... Those tusks were probably for defense.
Granted, you may be right about the fossils found together: it may have been a dino-graveyard. It may however also have been a pack of dinos that were caught together in an earth-slide. In the end, we will never know for sure.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Here's a fact: Lions hunt in packs. Tigers hunt alone.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I doubt there is any way you can tell that from looking at their skeletons, or even a dead body.
Animal fossils can tell us a lot about past species. But there is also a lot they can't possibly tell us.
Yeah, it's an idea, but there is some evidence for it. It is based on the co-occurrence of 7 individuals of the same species. There are alternative explanations for such accumulations besides herding behaviour, but it is an interesting observation. There aren't that many discoveries of large carnivorous dinosaurs all in one spot like this.
Was the T. rex a vicious predator or a lumbering scavenger? You seem quite confident with your position, but at the same time you forget about the facts that point to the other direction.
Arms? I don't need no steenking arms to be a predator! If small arms == scavenger, most of the big theropod dinosaurs would have been scavengers. Not likely. Sight? The brain of T. rex seems to indicate it had an excellent sense of sight. Smell and sense of balance, too. Feet? Yeah, T. rex probably wasn't a sprinter. But it was very heavily built, which could mean a position as a top predator that took on the biggest, slowest and heaviest herbivores. As you already mentioned yourself, it may not have needed to be quick. It's neck is as strong as anything found in dinosaurs, but apparently at the same time it was able to make very fast and coordinated movements. Predators can also get big to be able to hunt big prey, and dinosaur prey-predator ecology was very likely to be different from its mammalian equivalent. Yes, T. rex was around right up until the KT extinction, but it wasn't there since the dawn of dinosaurs. It was actually one of the last dinosaur species known to have evolved, along with the likes of Triceratops and other late Cretaceous dinosaurs.
So, make of these facts what you will. The only true fact, though, is that T. rex could have been an active predator or a scavenger. We simply don't and cannot know for sure. My take is it was probably both. A carnivore that big should have eaten tonnes of dead meat regularly to stay alive, and I find it unlikely that dead dinosaurs big enough to satisfy a T. rex's hunger were lying around in that large numbers. Just like lions today, it would be happy with a carcass in case such was easily available. As for pack hunting, that's mostly pure speculation.
Oh, and the carnivorous fossil elephants of tomorrow. As it was already pointed out in another reply, the future paleontologists would look at the molars of the elephants and make the right conclusion that the animal was a herbivore. Size doesn't make animals carnivores, neither elephants nor dinosaurs.
Honestly, dinosaurs are great stuff for the imagination and for science. I think funding for physical sciences benefits from stories about MassiveTeethOSaurus. I agree that many conjectures, assumptions, and claims (in articles like these) tend to be very imaginative compared to the hard facts known.
With all that said, dinosaurs have always been really interesting to me. (Often) big, different, not around any more, lack of details (the mystery), (did I mention many of the cool ones were BIG? Well, maybe compys are pretty cool, too...) - all good ingredients for imaginative fuel. I digress. Sorry...
I always take news releases and articles like these with a grain of salt. Much of the publicized (read: made more interesting and made less dry) aspects of dig findings are generally lots of intelligent conjecture. That's OK with me, provided that folks don't assign the gloss (of the articles) to be factual. Did they hunt in packs? Did they hunt or scavenge? Were they gray or were they colorful? Some things we may never know... but for now, discoveries like these are just like candy - lots of fun.
A Passionate Independent Musician
Ever since Linnaeus came up with the modern taxonomical system, it's been one of the rewards of research to get to name a new species anything you want. That motivation drove a good many gentlemen science hobbyists in the 19th century to seek out and classify new animals at home and across the world for the pleasure of getting to name it whatever they felt like. The only frowned upon thing is to name if after yourself.
If the researcher who did this felt enough gratitude to his sponsor to name it after her, then good for him. It's not like anyone's making him do it. It's a sincere way of saying thanks.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").