preview

Tyrannosaur Social Behavior

Decent Essays

Social Behavior
Additional evidence of aggression is demonstrated by a tyrannosaur tooth embedded in a confamilar’s mandible. A Gorgosaurus or Daspletosaurus was attacked by another tyrannosaur. The tooth embedded matches the size and shape of a large, adult tyrannosaur. The lesion was unhealed, suggesting that the damage occurred either at the time of death or post mortem. This lack of healing indicates that the dinosaur either died during this attack or its corpse was later scavenged. It is not likely that this was fatal but may have inflicted enough damage to weaken the dinosaur. Neither the genus nor species of the attacker is known. Since it is only known that both dinosaurs were tyrannosaurs, this could be, at the very least, an instance …show more content…

However, some of these injuries do not match with the size and shape of a tooth. Another interpretation is that these lesions came from claws. Claws have not been thought to have caused these injuries because they are made of keratin, which is softer than bone. It would not seem likely then that claws would able to penetrate bone. This was disproved by testing whether tiger claws could damage bone. Tigers were provided an enrichment activity that only exposed their claws to bones bolted to a log. It was shown that tigers were able to scratch and puncture the bones. Substantial evidence of clawing is seen in the T. rex specimen “Peck” (MOR 980). A Tyrannosaurus claw aligns perfectly with the hole in this specimen’s mandible. The reexamination of these specimens indicate that these tyrannosaurs were not only attacked with manual claws but also pedal claws. This conclusion was established by comparing the size and shape of these holes to manual and pedal claws. Further evidence of aggression is supported by stress fractures in the metacarpal and phalanx of tyrannosaurs. These stress fractures may indicate that tyrannosaurs were frequently fighting with one another (Rothschild, …show more content…

Bones with little nutritional value, such as toe or feet bones, were likely not a result of predation or scavenging, since both of these behaviors should favor body areas with greater muscle or tissue. In addition, it has been found that there is seldom evidence of digestion of foot bones. As a result, tooth marks on these bones would not be evidence for feeding behaviors. Isolated bones with teeth marks have also been found, typically on bones with little nutritional value. These are found in sites that have no evidence of feeding. Feeding sites typically have splintered bones, spiral fractures and deep tooth marks in the surrounding bones. However, these attributes are not found with isolated bones, which suggests that there was no scavenging or predation at these sites. A suggestion for this phenomenon is that tyrannosaurs were playing with their food. There is no absolute definition of play that can be proven scientifically but this provides an alternate hypothesis to account for the markings on these bones. One example that may indicate this behavior is the tyrannosaur teeth markings found on the occipital condyle of a Triceratops. This bone has no nutritional value at all and is very hard. Since there were no shed teeth found at the site, it is not likely that the tyrannosaur was playing with food. This leads to the

Get Access