Most paleontologist agree that dromeasaurs(a.k.a. raptors) of Jurassic Park fame hunted in packs to bring down large prey. However, another theropod(meat-eating dinosaur) may have also hunted in packs. The dinosaur Allosaurus, which lived before the raptors may have hunted in packs.
Fossil beds of Late Jurassic Age where Allosaurs are found, contain bones of some of the largest and most formidiable animals to ever walk the earth. Large sauropods(brontosaurs) like Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Camasaurus, and Diplodocus, and armoured Stegosaurs were prey items for the allosaurs. However a solitary allosaur probabley could not most likely bring down a huge sauropod or stegosaur. These theropods may also relied on numbers to bring down the large sauropods and armed stegosaurs, much like a pack of wolves or African wild dogs do.
Possible fossil evidence for allosaur pack hunting, can be found at Cleveland Dinosaur Quarry in central Utah. Here vast numbers of allosaurs of all different ages were caught in death trap similar to the La Bera Tar Pits in Los Angeles. Along with them were bones of sauropods and stegosaurs, and the smaller camptosaurs. However, the allosaur bones are the most common fossil in the deposit. According to some paleontologist this is indeed good evidence for pack hunting for allosaurs. Similar fossil beds containing "packs" of raptors have been found in Montana, and Phil Currie a theropod expert from the Royal Tyrell Museum in Alberta. Has recently found a large bonebed containing what he thinks are a "pack" of tyrannosaurs known as Albertosaurus. What do you think? Could allosaurus very well have been a pack hunter? I look foward to reading your comments.
I like the theories of large theropod dinosaurs being Pack-Hunting animals. But I don't think Cleveland-Lloyd is an example of this. With Cleveland-Lloyd, you have a "tar-pit" situation with animals getting "stuck in the mud." Then of course the dead, dying, decaying animals will attrack predators. Then they get stuck too. So after a while, you'll have a skewed predator to prey ratio. With the majority of them being predators.
Now dromeosaurs seem likely pack hunters, the larger theropods don't nessesarily. But no concrete evidence does not put down the theory. I like the joke.... what's worse than a mad Tyrannosaur.... two Tyrannosaurs. Ha! But yeah, I'd think they'd pack hunt at times. If you've seen the Walking with Dino's Big Al special. It shows them as solitary hunters, but banding together when need to, then they go their separate ways. That's probably a good idea, especially with very large multi-ton predators that probably needed their "space." If large predators followed packs of prey, maybe. If they staked their claim in a certain area, I don't know how many large predators could be in the same area without "cleaning it out."
[Edited by Minnesota Jones on 05-02-2003 at 01:02 pm]
It does state "Paleontology" under the "Archeology" heading on the main page of The Raven, so I don't see why discussing Dinosaurs is a problem. If you don't wish to contribe to a "dinosaur thread," then don't post to it. Dinosaurs are a passion of mine and have been even before Indiana Jones. Don't forget, there was a Paperback Indy Novel called Indiana Jones and the Dinosaur Eggs....
Ok, first of all, that description was recently modified by my observation. When I originally made the comment, it said nothing about paleontology.
My original comment is warranted, whether you or a million other people on this site have a passion for dinosaurs. Paleontology is not archaeology - it's not even anthropology. It's a biological science whereas the other two are social sciences.
I am well aware that there was a book called Indiana Jones and the Dinosaur Eggs. But again, while it establishes a connection with Indy, dinosaur bones or eggs have nothing to do with man-made artifacts.
The moderators have every right to allow whatever discussion they wish on their forums, but I'm still mystified as to why and how paleontology began to be discussed on an archaeology board in the first place. Some of y'all are interested in dinosurs - there's nothing wrong with that - but why discuss them on a board that's supposed to be about a science concerning man-made remains? There must've been some interest to do so somewhere, or it wouldn't be in the forum description.
And for the record, I was simply asking a question, and that was my sole purpose for posting to the topic in the first place. I have every right to do that.
So, the formal inquiry: Why discuss dinosaurs on an archaeology board when there are plenty of paleontology boards around? It's not a question of whether you're allowed to, or that you want to, but WHY would you want to.
Not to be nasty, not to be picky, not to be a troll. Just, why?
Why would I want to? Simply because I love dinosaurs and if it's in the Topic title, I'll post. BYW, it wasn't my thread to begin with, just a reply by me.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Paleontology being "lumped in" with Archeology, or even Anthropology, since they're all dealing with the past. Even if one is "Earth's past" and the others deal with Human's past.