The Other Ology's

[old_pop2000]

I started a geology thread for the budding or frustrated geologists on the forum, so why not finish off the other ologies Like Paleontology, archeology, biology, ecology, astronomy, etc.

I will start with something from Evolutionary Biology. You know, Darwinian stuff. Seems the origin of the domestic chicken is a little more complicated than Darwin figured:cool:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uu-dww022908.php

[Kyle Holgate]

I started a geology thread for the budding or frustrated geologists on the forum, so why not finish off the other ologies Like Paleontology, archeology, biology, ecology, astronomy, etc.

I will start with something from Evolutionary Biology. You know, Darwinian stuff. Seems the origin of the domestic chicken is a little more complicated than Darwin figured:cool:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uu-dww022908.php

They still don't know why it crossed the road though...:D

[old_pop2000]

That's true or even why the heck he wanted to get there in the first place.

[Kyle Holgate]

Did anyone see the Nova about the 4 winged "bird/dinosaur"? I still find it interesting feeding the birds on my back balcony and thinking that they may be evolved dinosaurs. It's a tough image with the Chickadees but when the odd hawk comes to grab one of the doves, I find it easier to imagine.

[old_pop2000]

Did anyone see the Nova about the 4 winged "bird/dinosaur"? I still find it interesting feeding the birds on my back balcony and thinking that they may be evolved dinosaurs. It's a tough image with the Chickadees but when the odd hawk comes to grab one of the doves, I find it easier to imagine.
I saw something along those lines on Discovery Channel and read some articles on the theory. Hard to believe the little finches that gobble up the sunflower seeds we put out, came from T Rex. However, the way they eat, it makes sense. Same goes with our red-tailed or red-shouldered hawks or black birds.

[Kyle Holgate]

The thing that buggs me about many of the dinosaur specials - walking with dinosaurs, etc is that the creators apparently can't get it through their heads to have the critters act like real animals, not monsters.
T-rexes for example are always shown roaring - even when hunting sometimes. Lions wouldn't survive too long as a species if they advertised they were there to all their prey animals! My point is that big meat eating - or even little ones should generally be quiet and probably hunt much like birds - silent stalking probably and a mad rush to the kill. Then don't roar "I made a kill, bigger dinosaurs, here I am come take it away from me". Even lions don't roar at their kills - the Hyenas will show up soon enough even without telling them all about it.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The thing that buggs me about many of the dinosaur specials - walking with dinosaurs, etc is that the creators apparently can't get it through their heads to have the critters act like real animals, not monsters.
T-rexes for example are always shown roaring - even when hunting sometimes. Lions wouldn't survive too long as a species if they advertised they were there to all their prey animals! My point is that big meat eating - or even little ones should generally be quiet and probably hunt much like birds - silent stalking probably and a mad rush to the kill. Then don't roar "I made a kill, bigger dinosaurs, here I am come take it away from me". Even lions don't roar at their kills - the Hyenas will show up soon enough even without telling them all about it.

Kyle:

That's a very good point. I have an interest in prehistoric life that predates my love of naval history. Both of my sons like it too, but my youngest is the real fanatic. Whenever I would to him about dinosaurs, it struck me as interesting as to just how many of these creatures could occupy a given area. Considering how much even a small herd of say Brotosaurs could eat in a day, the stress on the eco system must have been huge. Of course with the weather always warm, you would have a constant growing season sprinkled with just enough big carnosaurs to keep the population under control.

[old_pop2000]

The thing that buggs me about many of the dinosaur specials - walking with dinosaurs, etc is that the creators apparently can't get it through their heads to have the critters act like real animals, not monsters.
T-rexes for example are always shown roaring - even when hunting sometimes. Lions wouldn't survive too long as a species if they advertised they were there to all their prey animals! My point is that big meat eating - or even little ones should generally be quiet and probably hunt much like birds - silent stalking probably and a mad rush to the kill. Then don't roar "I made a kill, bigger dinosaurs, here I am come take it away from me". Even lions don't roar at their kills - the Hyenas will show up soon enough even without telling them all about it.
The real issue is whether they were predators or scavengers. It makes a difference. Recent discoveries show they may not have been predators. If not, then the roaring was mainly used to scare off any unwanted guests for dinner. But, anyway, if you are that big, I doubt your roar is going to give you away, before the crashing of brush and trees as you sneak up on your prey. I mean really, they are not exactly the epitome of the stealth dinosaur.

[john964]

The thing that buggs me about many of the dinosaur specials - walking with dinosaurs, etc is that the creators apparently can't get it through their heads to have the critters act like real animals, not monsters.
T-rexes for example are always shown roaring - even when hunting sometimes. Lions wouldn't survive too long as a species if they advertised they were there to all their prey animals! My point is that big meat eating - or even little ones should generally be quiet and probably hunt much like birds - silent stalking probably and a mad rush to the kill. Then don't roar "I made a kill, bigger dinosaurs, here I am come take it away from me". Even lions don't roar at their kills - the Hyenas will show up soon enough even without telling them all about it.
Most of the info you are stating has mostly been debunked over the last 10-15 years but a lot of older palentologest dont want to change there carefuly thought out theries.

[Mart]

Most of the info you are stating has mostly been debunked over the last 10-15 years but a lot of older palentologest dont want to change there carefuly thought out theries.

Hi John
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean "debunked" as in the Theory of Natural Selection, and of evolution in general, as evidenced in the fossil record, dating and stratigraphy. Or - do you mean that some of the initial presumptions (about a wide range of fossil species, and issues like "how did flight arise", or how fossil species are related to each other, and to modern species, and so on) have had to be continually modified over, probably, the last 150 years or so.

If you mean the latter, then I'd agree. This is within the realm of discussion within evolutionary biologists, and paleo-biologists. If you mean the former then I think we're into a BIG disagreement. Before I was medically retired, I was a Probation Officer for 25 years. However, before that I had been an evolutionary biologist for 6 years. After I retired as a PO, my biology credential were still significantly in credit, thanks to a PhD supervisor, once young, and now famous, and I was given a Visiting Research Fellowship in the Dept. of Geology at Leicester. I didn't stay too long, as my brain continued to hurt, and I decided to stop, of my own volition.

But it's a subject I remain passionate, and informed about, and if you want to argue for Intelligent Design, then either this thread is gong to turn into a war, or I am just going to have to give the discussion a miss.

I don't always word things well. I don't mean to plough in with all guns blazing, but I know how big the ID movement is in the US. If I've misread things, I really apologise. It's just that I think it's such a dangerous idea, both intellectually, and for the world at large.

Martin

P.S. I read this all wrong; didn't I? Hopefully :o

[john964]

Hi John
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean "debunked" as in the Theory of Natural Selection, and of evolution in general, as evidenced in the fossil record, dating and stratigraphy. Or - do you mean that some of the initial presumptions (about a wide range of fossil species, and issues like "how did flight arise", or how fossil species are related to each other, and to modern species, and so on) have had to be continually modified over, probably, the last 150 years or so.

If you mean the latter, then I'd agree. This is within the realm of discussion within evolutionary biologists, and paleo-biologists. If you mean the former then I think we're into a BIG disagreement. Before I was medically retired, I was a Probation Officer for 25 years. However, before that I had been an evolutionary biologist for 6 years. After I retired as a PO, my biology credential were still significantly in credit, thanks to a PhD supervisor, once young, and now famous, and I was given a Visiting Research Fellowship in the Dept. of Geology at Leicester. I didn't stay too long, as my brain continued to hurt, and I decided to stop, of my own volition.

But it's a subject I remain passionate, and informed about, and if you want to argue for Intelligent Design, then either this thread is gong to turn into a war, or I am just going to have to give the discussion a miss.

I don't always word things well. I don't mean to plough in with all guns blazing, but I know how big the ID movement is in the US. If I've misread things, I really apologise. It's just that I think it's such a dangerous idea, both intellectually, and for the world at large.

Martin

P.S. I read this all wrong; didn't I? Hopefully :o
Martin, I am no fan of ID some of the stuff they talk about is so stupid just trying to understand it gives me a headache. No I was refering to how dinosarus like the T-Rex where thought of as tail draggers when the walked/ran but are now thought to walk/run with the tail level with the spine. Or how scinentist first thought that dinosarus were relateted to lizards when they now think they are closer to birds

[Mart]

Martin, I am no fan of ID some of the stuff they talk about is so stupid just trying to understand it gives me a headache. No I was refering to how dinosarus like the T-Rex where thought of as tail draggers when the walked/ran but are now thought to walk/run with the tail level with the spine. Or how scinentist first thought that dinosarus were relateted to lizards when they now think they are closer to birds

Hi John

Phew!

That's a relief! I agree with you totally. I am also still absolutely fascinated by all things evolution. Recently on the BBC Science News website (it's accessible from the News main Page.) they had some evidence that birds didn't evolve flight by gliding, or tree climbing. It's always up for grabs, but it seems that the movement of birds wings are identical to the movements they make when trying to get a bit of extra "lift" when they are running up gradients (or something like that). If that were true,the theory of how dinosaurs developed flight in the branch that led to birds would be completely the reverse of what was thought.

I have also been watching with interest, the to and fro of the arguments about Flores Man. For me, if they aren't human, it's a biggie! They must have had speech, as getting across those straits needs a sophisticated boat. People tried it a year or so ago and nearly got killed. If they had speech, and were evolved from Homo Erectus, then I guess it's back to the drawing board for every physical anthropologist on the planet :eek:

Sorry for being a bit bullish in my earlier post

Martin :)

[Kyle Holgate]

As for the T-rex. It was fairly recent when most thought that Lions were primary predators and Hyenas were scavengers. Now it turns out that in many cases the opposite is true - the lions are stealing kills from other animals.
This arguing about the T-rex is amusing in some ways - in the real world they'd be opportunists almost certainly. If they can drive an animal away from its' kill fine, if they find a meal still alive an I'm sure they'd be able to kill it.
Unless they are like vultures - which almost never kill anything, the T-rex was - I'd bet - a canivour that ate what it could find OR catch.

[john964]

As for the T-rex. It was fairly recent when most thought that Lions were primary predators and Hyenas were scavengers. Now it turns out that in many cases the opposite is true - the lions are stealing kills from other animals.
This arguing about the T-rex is amusing in some ways - in the real world they'd be opportunists almost certainly. If they can drive an animal away from its' kill fine, if they find a meal still alive an I'm sure they'd be able to kill it.
Unless they are like vultures - which almost never kill anything, the T-rex was - I'd bet - a canivour that ate what it could find OR catch.
Even today some predators are equal opertunity scavangers.

[Mart]

The predator/scavenger thing is a good example of the hype that goes on. It gave the graceful lion a good name (despite the tendency of roaming brother males to take over other prides, rape the females and kill all their cubs - before happy family life starts again - just with new fathers!) and the poor old Hyena a name that has become a term of abuse. When I was but a wee lad Hans Kruuk produced the first full monograph on Hyenas called (wait to be impressed - "The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social Behavior" Published 1972 by University of Chicago Press.) He was one of the first to document their highly social and organised predatory behaviour. "Scavenging" just a sideline, as mentioned earlier. Any predator would rather pick up a freshly killed piece of meat by chasing others off. There IS such a thing as a free meal, but only the biggest guys at the table get it.

Strangely, in the same series of monographs, George Schaller (the first person to really study Mountain Gorillas - years before Diane Fossey), published a volume about the Lions in the same region. The other famous one in the series, for those Canadians among you, was a study of Mountain Sheep in the Canadian Rockies, by Valerius Geist. Schaller and Geist were straight from memory so they must have had an impact. They were among the first really big, professional field studies of large mammals which had a strong evolutionary analysis. They were such important works that they, and a few similar ones, set the tone for years to come.

See - it IS possible for someone to know nothing about naval warfare, and be completely stark-raving mad, and STILL remember the truly important things in life! :rolleyes:

Martin

OK - it was irrelevant. But I don't have much to shout about these days. :confused:

[Lancer]

All aside, my biggest beef is Cellular Evolution vs. Adam and Eve (How irresponsible to place an apple tree there to begin with). One, we aren't made of dirt, as it will be toxic... In my opinion, religion likely came from early humans trying to reason the physical world around them, which science is now answering. No need to worship a sun god, we now know its just a ball of detonating hydrogen.

[Kyle Holgate]

All aside, my biggest beef is Cellular Evolution vs. Adam and Eve (How irresponsible to place an apple tree there to begin with). One, we aren't made of dirt, as it will be toxic... In my opinion, religion likely came from early humans trying to reason the physical world around them, which science is now answering. No need to worship a sun god, we now know its just a ball of detonating hydrogen.

Technically we are made of star stuff - everything in us has been in a star at one point or another except possibly some of the hydrogen. Our Iron was made in heavy stars that blew up in supernova explosions. So - yeah, we're kinda made of dirt - or stardust if you want to make it sound a lot cooler!

[Lancer]

Technically we are made of star stuff - everything in us has been in a star at one point or another except possibly some of the hydrogen. Our Iron was made in heavy stars that blew up in supernova explosions. So - yeah, we're kinda made of dirt - or stardust if you want to make it sound a lot cooler!

True, thats where those elements are conceived, I was thinking more along the lines of Silicon. Carbon is naturally rare in the ground though a big component of air (CO2). If you classify all solid elements as being dirt, with all respect, I hope you like "dirt" since we are what we eat. LOL I'm still curious why radical muslims are forcing others to abide by lifestyles in the 7th Century. Doing the devils (fictional character to me) work in God's (Ditto, but respect everyone's beliefs) name is the most #$%&$^% reasoning I've ever heard.

[Kyle Holgate]

Let's be careful here. The forums in general have a rule against delving into the realm of politics to far but none yet about talking religeon. That being said I think maybe we shouldn't talk religion either as it's a very touchy subject capable of flaming some really hot feelings. It's not officially a no-no subject yet, but I bet it could quickly become one. Let's self police here and go back to less controversial stuff before the cops show up and shut the party down.


Now, back to T-rex...
Last I have read is that the latest thought is that it was unable to run very fast, mostly due to the fact that if it fell while running it was so heavy that it would probably fatally hurt itself. It seems though that it was able to move fairly fast though.

Ok, a Cheetah if it trips while running has a very big chance of breaking a leg or worse too - as to horses, Gazelle and other fast runners.
It still seems like many palientologists live too much with their bones and not enough looking out their windows and thinking about what currently living critters are like.
Some arguements made toward the scavenger side do seem fairly well supported but I'm far from being convinced that it was a pure scavenger and largely unable to hunt.
The points used by the scavenger side: Superb sense of smell, crushing jaws, inability sustain a fall while running quickly.
I give you the Grizzly bear. Huge, great sense of smell, very powerful jaws. Opportunist - hunts and eats carrion ( and berries and bugs and such, probably not on the t-rex diet).

[Lancer]

Let's self police here and go back to less controversial stuff before the cops show up and shut the party down.
.

Agree, tried to keep it low key and friendly. I made my point, so I think I'll shut it from this point. LOL

[Warship NWS]

Hi guys.. the "religious and political" only post I had to delete.. sorry. As Kyle mentioned, religious topics and political debates are not permitted on our forums.

[Kyle Holgate]

Agree, tried to keep it low key and friendly. I made my point, so I think I'll shut it from this point. LOL

No problem with you at all, just felt we'd better stop playing with matches - so to speak. People can get really emotional quickly with certain subjects - Relgion and politics being two of the most volitile I know of.

[old_pop2000]

It would seem to me, that the first problem is to determine whether T-rex was a predator or scavenger. A predator should be stealthful, and fast. A scavenger does not require these traits, just a big mouth and nasty looking teeth. This last description fits the T-rex exactly. Now, could it move fast? Probably, but it did not appear to be the most stealthful predator. Utah raptor was a far more lethal predator than T-rex, so my bet is that T-rex was just a big bully with a big mouth, nasty features and a lousy temper. He was probably hungry all the time. Sounds like the traits of a scavenger to me.

[Kyle Holgate]

It would seem to me, that the first problem is to determine whether T-rex was a predator or scavenger. A predator should be stealthful, and fast. A scavenger does not require these traits, just a big mouth and nasty looking teeth. This last description fits the T-rex exactly. Now, could it move fast? Probably, but it did not appear to be the most stealthful predator. Utah raptor was a far more lethal predator than T-rex, so my bet is that T-rex was just a big bully with a big mouth, nasty features and a lousy temper. He was probably hungry all the time. Sounds like the traits of a scavenger to me.

what was T-rex trying to catch? I know of the various duckbills that were probably high on the list, and we know of T-rex tooth marks in Triceritops bones. Could it catch a duckbill?

How would it hunt. Stealthy sneak then rush (like a Tiger or Leopard)? Sneak as far as you can then run the prey down with a burst of speed (Cheetah)? Ambush (Leopard sometimes, Crocodile)? How fast (or slow) was the prey compared to the predator?

I agree, it does seem to me that running around chasing raptors away from THEIR kills would be less effort. Eagles grab fish from osprey and lions grab prey from other animals. Lions also hunt in packs - and there is some indication that younger T-rexes may have done this. Maybe they start out hunting more then as they age they turn more and more to scavenger mode?

[Mart]

Hi guys.. the "religious and political" only post I had to delete.. sorry. As Kyle mentioned, religious topics and political debates are not permitted on our forums.

Just for the record; it was my post Chris chopped out, and I agree with him. A slip on my part I'm afraid. No R & P makes for a happy forum of friends.

Cheers

Martin :)

[john964]

what was T-rex trying to catch? I know of the various duckbills that were probably high on the list, and we know of T-rex tooth marks in Triceritops bones. Could it catch a duckbill?

How would it hunt. Stealthy sneak then rush (like a Tiger or Leopard)? Sneak as far as you can then run the prey down with a burst of speed (Cheetah)? Ambush (Leopard sometimes, Crocodile)? How fast (or slow) was the prey compared to the predator?

I agree, it does seem to me that running around chasing raptors away from THEIR kills would be less effort. Eagles grab fish from osprey and lions grab prey from other animals. Lions also hunt in packs - and there is some indication that younger T-rexes may have done this. Maybe they start out hunting more then as they age they turn more and more to scavenger mode?

Most if not all predators today hunt the young, the old, the sick and the lame. The reaon why is these are the easest to catch. This is true today and is probably true way back when.

[Kyle Holgate]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080310-mm-grb-us.html

Gamma ray bursts now - sigh. The sky really is falling!:eek:

[old_pop2000]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080310-mm-grb-us.html

Gamma ray bursts now - sigh. The sky really is falling!:eek:
It's another plot to scare us...... and y'know, its working.:eek:

[Mart]

Most if not all predators today hunt the young, the old, the sick and the lame. The reaon why is these are the easest to catch. This is true today and is probably true way back when.

I think that's right John. It comes back to the fact that the difference between a scavenger and a predator is, in many cases, very little. I'm sure there are many cases of scavenger-only animals, but I doubt there are many predator-only animals. Even a vulture, would, I imagine, take a crack at a severely injured animal, if it was able to see it from height. recent research suggests, I think, that avian visual acuity is at least 4 times that of people. It's not beyond the possibility that a "scavenger bird" would home in on the near-dead.
That said, the "norm" is probably still that the top predator singles out and kills the prey, and is able to keep other predators off the carcass. Then the likes of hyenas are able to keep vultures at bay, and so forth. The jaw bones of hyenas are already suggestive of the probability that they are specialized to go for the left-overs (bones, basically)
What I would like to know is what happens when African Hunting Dogs make a kill. They REALLY are sophisticated, and coordinated, but they're not big. I'm sure a wandering cheetah wouldn't want to mix it with them, but a bunch of Lions or Hyenas might be a different thing. My guess would be that they would be choosy where they made the kill, and then scoffed as much as possible, for themselves and their pups,and then scarpered.
I'd be interested to know if anybody knows about this stuff.
There is one other little twist. Vulture flight is a complicated business. I doubt that taking to flight with a full stomach is a very easy operation. which would suggest they don't gorge themselves.

Sorry - I garbled on again

Marrtin

[old_pop2000]

I think that's right John. It comes back to the fact that the difference between a scavenger and a predator is, in many cases, very little. I'm sure there are many cases of scavenger-only animals, but I doubt there are many predator-only animals. Even a vulture, would, I imagine, take a crack at a severely injured animal, if it was able to see it from height. recent research suggests, I think, that avian visual acuity is at least 4 times that of people. It's not beyond the possibility that a "scavenger bird" would home in on the near-dead.
That said, the "norm" is probably still that the top predator singles out and kills the prey, and is able to keep other predators off the carcass. Then the likes of hyenas are able to keep vultures at bay, and so forth. The jaw bones of hyenas are already suggestive of the probability that they are specialized to go for the left-overs (bones, basically)
What I would like to know is what happens when African Hunting Dogs make a kill. They REALLY are sophisticated, and coordinated, but they're not big. I'm sure a wandering cheetah wouldn't want to mix it with them, but a bunch of Lions or Hyenas might be a different thing. My guess would be that they would be choosy where they made the kill, and then scoffed as much as possible, for themselves and their pups,and then scarpered.
I'd be interested to know if anybody knows about this stuff.
There is one other little twist. Vulture flight is a complicated business. I doubt that taking to flight with a full stomach is a very easy operation. which would suggest they don't gorge themselves.

Sorry - I garbled on again

Marrtin
T-rex might have been an opportunistic eater. If he could get a carcass, he would eat that. His eyesight and sense of smell, along with the powerful legs but possible moderate speed seems to indicate that he would use predatory only as a fall back. If he could not find a carcass, he would then go into the predatory mode. I think it depends on his circumstances. Animals are like humans, they are lazy. Why go out and hunt for food, if a dead carcass is available.

[Ed Rotondaro]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080310-mm-grb-us.html

Gamma ray bursts now - sigh. The sky really is falling!:eek:

Kyle:

No where in the article did they mention it would take 8,000 years for the gamma rays to reach earth. Kind of reminds me of sci-fi author Larry Niven's exploding galactic core.

[Kyle Holgate]

African hunting dogs are extemely efficient and succeed in hunts more than any other predator in Africa I think (going of memory here).
I know they are subject to having their kills stolen by Hyenas and Lions so they really, REALLY eat fast when they bring down prey and can eat a lot for their size.

I find it interesting that like a T-rex the Hyena has very powerful, bone cracking jaws and a superb sense of smell - and isn't necessarily that fast compared to other meat eating critters. I'm not going to suggest that the T-rex killed and the various types of Raptors scavenged but it turned out that Hyenas are primary hunters too - not just the big cats and hunting dogs do it.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think that's right John. It comes back to the fact that the difference between a scavenger and a predator is, in many cases, very little. I'm sure there are many cases of scavenger-only animals, but I doubt there are many predator-only animals. Even a vulture, would, I imagine, take a crack at a severely injured animal, if it was able to see it from height. recent research suggests, I think, that avian visual acuity is at least 4 times that of people. It's not beyond the possibility that a "scavenger bird" would home in on the near-dead.
That said, the "norm" is probably still that the top predator singles out and kills the prey, and is able to keep other predators off the carcass. Then the likes of hyenas are able to keep vultures at bay, and so forth. The jaw bones of hyenas are already suggestive of the probability that they are specialized to go for the left-overs (bones, basically)
What I would like to know is what happens when African Hunting Dogs make a kill. They REALLY are sophisticated, and coordinated, but they're not big. I'm sure a wandering cheetah wouldn't want to mix it with them, but a bunch of Lions or Hyenas might be a different thing. My guess would be that they would be choosy where they made the kill, and then scoffed as much as possible, for themselves and their pups,and then scarpered.
I'd be interested to know if anybody knows about this stuff.
There is one other little twist. Vulture flight is a complicated business. I doubt that taking to flight with a full stomach is a very easy operation. which would suggest they don't gorge themselves.

Sorry - I garbled on again

Marrtin

Martin:

Aren't vultures reputed to have one of the keenest senses of smell of any animal?

[john964]

African hunting dogs are extemely efficient and succeed in hunts more than any other predator in Africa I think (going of memory here).
I know they are subject to having their kills stolen by Hyenas and Lions so they really, REALLY eat fast when they bring down prey and can eat a lot for their size.

I find it interesting that like a T-rex the Hyena has very powerful, bone cracking jaws and a superb sense of smell - and isn't necessarily that fast compared to other meat eating critters. I'm not going to suggest that the T-rex killed and the various types of Raptors scavenged but it turned out that Hyenas are primary hunters too - not just the big cats and hunting dogs do it.

African Hunting Dogs hunt in multiple small packs 3-5 dogs in stages with the over all pack of 30-40 dogs. The lead pack would seperate out an animal and chase it away from the herd untill the first pack got tired and another pack would continue the chase untill that pack got tired and another pack would continue, this would go on untill the target animal would drop from exaustion and then the whole pack minus pups would eat.

[Mart]

African Hunting Dogs hunt in multiple small packs 3-5 dogs in stages with the over all pack of 30-40 dogs. The lead pack would seperate out an animal and chase it away from the herd untill the first pack got tired and another pack would continue the chase untill that pack got tired and another pack would continue, this would go on untill the target animal would drop from exaustion and then the whole pack minus pups would eat.


Can't remember who mentioned the vultures sense of smell, but it doesn't matter, as I have no idea :p

How good is everybody's evolutionary biology - kin selection etc?

This stuff makes a lot of difference when it comes to the sort of things we've been discussing. For those that don't know what kin selection is, the greatest quote is by Haldane (who had the original idea, along with Hamilton) - "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins". The Professor of the Dept, where I was doing research, before I "strayed", and became a Probation Officer, was the great (but recently deceased) John Maynard Smith who developed the theory enormously, in an attempt to establish how sexual reproduction could evolve, under Natural Selection, given that each animal was throwing away half it's chromosomes. He was also the first person to really utilize Game Theory in evolutionary biology, which is again a very important aspect to all this hunting/agression debate.

I've never seen a hunt in opertion, but I have watched feral horses fight until one of them was eventually killed. It was the father who killed his son, in order to protect his access to the females. In this particular sub-population, there was only room for one alpha male, and all the sons were kicked out as soon as they reached maturity. The poor things formed a small "bachelor herd" and would occasionally make "forays" into the female herd, at night, in the hope of a quick insemination before they wer spotted. To my knowledge, they never managed it. Their dad was too strong and alert. All the animals were referred to by a letter, for yer of bit=rth, and a numnber, for sequence withn that year. The herd stallion did get given a name, "Darius", which I soupose was fitting.

I have heard that it can sometimes be different in mustangs, and brumbies, as well as zebras and the like.

Cheers,

Martin

[Kyle Holgate]

Can't remember who mentioned the vultures sense of smell, but it doesn't matter, as I have no idea :p

How good is everybody's evolutionary biology - kin selection etc?

This stuff makes a lot of difference when it comes to the sort of things we've been discussing. For those that don't know what kin selection is, the greatest quote is by Haldane (who had the original idea, along with Hamilton) - "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins". The Professor of the Dept, where I was doing research, before I "strayed", and became a Probation Officer, was the great (but recently deceased) John Maynard Smith who developed the theory enormously, in an attempt to establish how sexual reproduction could evolve, under Natural Selection, given that each animal was throwing away half it's chromosomes. He was also the first person to really utilize Game Theory in evolutionary biology, which is again a very important aspect to all this hunting/agression debate.

I've never seen a hunt in opertion, but I have watched feral horses fight until one of them was eventually killed. It was the father who killed his son, in order to protect his access to the females. In this particular sub-population, there was only room for one alpha male, and all the sons were kicked out as soon as they reached maturity. The poor things formed a small "bachelor herd" and would occasionally make "forays" into the female herd, at night, in the hope of a quick insemination before they wer spotted. To my knowledge, they never managed it. Their dad was too strong and alert. All the animals were referred to by a letter, for yer of bit=rth, and a numnber, for sequence withn that year. The herd stallion did get given a name, "Darius", which I soupose was fitting.

I have heard that it can sometimes be different in mustangs, and brumbies, as well as zebras and the like.

Cheers,

Martin

Turkey vultures - one of the 3 north american vultures (the others being the black vulture and the California Condor) are known to have an extremely sensitive sense of smell. I don't think the so called old world vultures do - I believe they hunt by sight. I know in Africa they do at least, and vultures keep an eye on each other so that when one heads down to feed the others will usually spot it and come to join the feast.

[Kyle Holgate]

African Hunting Dogs hunt in multiple small packs 3-5 dogs in stages with the over all pack of 30-40 dogs. The lead pack would seperate out an animal and chase it away from the herd untill the first pack got tired and another pack would continue the chase untill that pack got tired and another pack would continue, this would go on untill the target animal would drop from exaustion and then the whole pack minus pups would eat.

I recall wathing something on National Geographic or some other special not too long ago. They had a Helo with one of those ultra long range cameras on it and were able to watch things from far enough away so as not to disturb the critter being watched. They followed a hunt of roughly 8 dogs going after Impala or Gazelle. Their coordination and methods were amazing with some flushing the prey and others manuvering ahead of the prey - out of sight - in order to ambush it as it runs towards them. How they kept track of what's going on was beyond me (and the crew that filmed them). Like wolves, I know they have incredible stamina and can run for hours - previously to seeing this show I had been under the impression that they ran down prey by exhausting it. Not that TV special = accurate scientific facts - but it's kinda hard to dispute it when you watch it in action!

[old_pop2000]

I recall wathing something on National Geographic or some other special not too long ago. They had a Helo with one of those ultra long range cameras on it and were able to watch things from far enough away so as not to disturb the critter being watched. They followed a hunt of roughly 8 dogs going after Impala or Gazelle. Their coordination and methods were amazing with some flushing the prey and others manuvering ahead of the prey - out of sight - in order to ambush it as it runs towards them. How they kept track of what's going on was beyond me (and the crew that filmed them). Like wolves, I know they have incredible stamina and can run for hours - previously to seeing this show I had been under the impression that they ran down prey by exhausting it. Not that TV special = accurate scientific facts - but it's kinda hard to dispute it when you watch it in action!

Pathologist say that Felids and Canids hunt and kill differently. Canids hunt in packs and disable their opponents by slowing them down with attacks on the distal limbs. There is also little visual damage to the skins, except for lesions. Felids hunt singly, except for the African lion. They kill by lunging on the back of their prey and killing with a bite to the cervical spine. I suspect that T-rex might have been more like the Felids than the Canids, when it did act as a predator. I subscribe to the group that believes it was an opportunistic eater. Its great eyes and sense of smell would have benefitted both types of eaters. There is not enough evidence available in the fossil record to prove either one of the three possibilities.

[Kyle Holgate]

Pathologist say that Felids and Canids hunt and kill differently. Canids hunt in packs and disable their opponents by slowing them down with attacks on the distal limbs. There is also little visual damage to the skins, except for lesions. Felids hunt singly, except for the African lion. They kill by lunging on the back of their prey and killing with a bite to the cervical spine. I suspect that T-rex might have been more like the Felids than the Canids, when it did act as a predator. I subscribe to the group that believes it was an opportunistic eater. Its great eyes and sense of smell would have benefitted both types of eaters. There is not enough evidence available in the fossil record to prove either one of the three possibilities.

The way Lions and Tigers kill large animals is often to bite their muzzle so as to suffocate them - just adding to the "how they kill" part.

Komodo dragons and sharks - some of these take a big damaging bite and then let their prey die before tracking it down (by smell) and then eating. This sounds possible considering the dental tools of the T-rex!

[Ed Rotondaro]

The way Lions and Tigers kill large animals is often to bite their muzzle so as to suffocate them - just adding to the "how they kill" part.

Komodo dragons and sharks - some of these take a big damaging bite and then let their prey die before tracking it down (by smell) and then eating. This sounds possible considering the dental tools of the T-rex!

Kyle:

I believe that the big cats often lock their jaws around the throat and asphixiate their prey as well as the spinal strike.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

I believe that the big cats often lock their jaws around the throat and asphixiate their prey as well as the spinal strike.

Yep, that's another one. I've watched a LOT of Wild Kingdom and what not over the years!

[Mart]

Yep, that's another one. I've watched a LOT of Wild Kingdom and what not over the years!

Hi Kyle

I don't think they could keep it up on one animal for years. They'd get lock-jaw! :rolleyes:


Martin

[Ed Rotondaro]

Yep, that's another one. I've watched a LOT of Wild Kingdom and what not over the years!

Kyle:

I used to love that show! Every Sunday night that's what we would watch then off to bed.

[john964]

I remember watching a show on History Channel? were they would computer sim various animals and also test how powerful the various traits of the animals like bite streingth or swating power by building robotic equalivalents. IIRC some of the fights were Kodiak vs Polar Bear, Grizzly vs African Lion, Hippo vs Bull Shark, Bengal Tiger vs Grizzly and several others.

[Kyle Holgate]

Hi Kyle

I don't think they could keep it up on one animal for years. They'd get lock-jaw! :rolleyes:


Martin

I am not sure you deserve a response or not... guess this is one so I guess you do/did deserve one. But still...:p

[old_pop2000]

Interesting article on new information about the Jet Stream

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320181838.htm

[Ed Rotondaro]

Interesting article on new information about the Jet Stream

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320181838.htm

Dennis:

Discovery channel has a interesting series on dinosaurs and the changing environment for each of the major periods (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretacious). I don't like notion of the shrieking dinosaurs, but the commentary by various Paleontologists is quite interesting.

[Mart]

Dennis:

Discovery channel has a interesting series on dinosaurs and the changing environment for each of the major periods (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretacious). I don't like notion of the shrieking dinosaurs, but the commentary by various Paleontologists is quite interesting.

It's the hyped-up shrieking palaeontologists that do my head in! :eek:


Martin