Jurassic World Movies

Tyrannosaur feeding traces on Deinocheirus (Theropoda:?Ornithomimosauria) remains from the Nemegt Formation (Late Cretac

1055 Views14 Replies
Forum Topic

Carnosaur

MemberCompsognathusMar-06-2015 2:34 PM

has any one read Tyrannosaur feeding traces on Deinocheirus (Theropoda:?Ornithomimosauria) remains from the Nemegt Formation (Late Cretaceous), Mongolia (Bell et. al 2012)?

Just me?

well, anyway, you can look it up if you feel so inclined, it's a readily available paper.

I'll post some interesting sections, and y'all can leave your thoughts on it :D

In 2008, members of the Korea-Mongolia International Dinosaur Project relocated and reopened the holotype quarry of D. mirificus. Systematic examination of the quarry and spoil piles left from the original excavation, uncovered hundreds of bone fragments and several nearly complete gastralia. Visual inspection of the newlycollected material for evidence of biomodification led to the discovery of several bite marks on two gastralia fragments. Tanke and Currie (2000) subdivided tooth marks into five categories: (1) punctures; (2) gouges, scores, or tooth drag marks; (3) small-scale parallel striae; (4) combinations of the aforementioned categories; and (5) embedded teeth or tooth fragments. Types 3 and 5 are important as they often permit identification of the animal responsible for the bite; however, specimens in the latter category are exceedingly rare (Currie and Jacobsen, 1995; Jacobsen, 1998; Buffetaut et al., 2004; Bell and Currie, 2010; Xing et al., 2012). Small-scale parallel striae (type 3; Tanke and Currie, 2000) are produced when the serrated edge of the tooth is dragged across the surface of the bone leaving an impression of the denticles. The resulting impressions can be matched to the teeth of particular theropods based on size, shape, and spacing of the grooves (Jacobsen, 1995, 1998). Although bite marks are not uncommon in the fossil record, tooth-marked theropod bone is particularly rare, constituting approximately 2% of theropod feeding traces (Jacobsen, 2001). Bite marks are particularly notable on the bones of Deinocheirus as they offer insight into the diet of Nemegt tyrannosaurs and the taphonomy of the only known specimen of this exceptionally rare and enigmatic species."

 - Description of bite marks

"Two gastralia fragments (MPC-D 100/126) recovered from the holotype quarry of Deinocheirus mirificus preserve parallel striae and score marks. The bones themselves are gently bowed, subcircular to elliptical in cross-section but otherwise featureless.* One fragment is 62 mm in length and shows distinct small-scale parallel striae (type 3 markings of Tanke and Currie, 2000) that extend for half of the length of the specimen (Fig. 2A). Individual striae are broadly U-shaped in cross-section and measure 0.5 mm in diameter. At one end of the bone fragment, a series of five parallel striae form a gentle arc approximately 4 mm long. Immediately adjacent to this, a series of 7e10 parallel striae extend approximately 11 mm oblique to the long axis of the element. The latter grouping of striae are separated by a strip of unmarked bone (1 mm wide) from a second set of seven parallel striae that extend approximately 15 mm in length (Fig. 2B). The striae of both groups are parallel to one another. A second gastralia fragment measuring 74 mm in length (Fig. 2C, D) preserves three score marks (type 2 of Tanke and Currie, 2000) transverse to the long axis. Two occur at about the midpoint of the element; the largest mark is 5.5 mm long and up to 1.2 mm in diameter and is an uneven V-shape in cross-section. The second mark is shallower and less well-defined than the first, and measures 3.5 mm long. A third score measuring 3.4 mm long is preserved at one end on the opposite face of the gastralia"

* having observed these bite marks before ever coming across these papers, i suspected that they were evident of tyrannosaur bites -- hence the semi elliptical cross sections. At least to me, that equalled a dead give away. I went to school with a guy that thought they were made by a large undescribed megalosaurid (lol)

-Discussion

"The large size (2 D p/2 mm) and U-shaped cross-section of the denticle scours on MPC-D 100/126 most closely matches the maxillary and dentary teeth of tyrannosaurs (Currie et al., 1990; Abler, 1992; Hurum and Sabath, 2003). Denticle counts are too small to match those of known dromaeosaur, therizinosaur, and troodontid teeth from the Nemegt Formation. Denticle basal lengths of 0.5 mm are only seen in tyrannosaurids (including Tarbosaurus) and the North American troodontid, Troodon (Farlow et al., 1991); however, the U-shaped morphology of the grooves is inconsistent with the V-shaped marked produced by troodontids (Jacobsen, 1998). Moreover, Zanabazar, the only well-known troodontid from the Nemegt Formation, has a denticle count approaching twice that of Troodon and the denticle scours on MPCD 100/126. Farlow et al. (1991), who included Tarbosaurus in their study of theropod teeth, observed that serration size increases linearly with tooth size among theropod dinosaurs. Assuming the type 3 marks on MPC-D 100/126 were made by denticles on the posterior (distal) carina, we can use the regression, serration basal length ¼ [0.0119 * FABL] þ 0.187, given by Farlow et al. (1991) to estimate the fore-aft basal length (FABL) of theropod teeth (exclusive of Troodon and Spinosaurus). From this, we determine the FABL of the tooth that delivered the bite on MPC-D 100/126 to be 26.3 mm. Alternatively, if the marks were created by denticles on the anterior (mesial) carina, using the regression, serration basal length ¼ [0.0150 * FABL] þ 0.126, we determine the FABL to be 24.9 mm. The estimated large size of the tooth responsible for the marks on MPC-D 100/126 is representative only of tyrannosaurids. Among Nemegt tyrannosauroids, only Tarbosaurus bataar has teeth that match these dimensions. The relatively small size of the dentary teeth of Bagaraatan (max. FABL ¼ 9 mm; Osmólska, 1996) and Alioramus (max. FABL ¼ 18 mm; Brusatte et al., 2012), disagree with the larger values obtained for MPC-D 100/126. The taxonomic assignment of type 2 marks on the larger gastralia fragment are more ambiguous; however, type 3 bite marks described here can be confidently assigned to Tarbosaurus. Although no systematic study has been carried out on theropod bite marks on the bones of Nemegt dinosaur fauna (see Jacobsen, 1998, for a North American example), large theropod (presumably Tarbosaurus) bite marks are not uncommon on isolated hadrosaur and sauropod elements from that formation (PB, pers. obs.); however, tooth-marked theropod bone is exceedingly rare (2% of tooth-marked bone is theropod from the Dinosaur Park Formation; Jacobsen, 2001). MPC-D 100/126 therefore captures an exceptional moment of behaviour and interaction between the largest predator and one of the rarest species in the Nemegt ecosystem. Based on the absence of reactive bone growth on the gastralia (that would be suggestive of healing), the bites took place post-mortem (or perhaps less likely, peri-mortem) and are therefore indicative of scavenging/feeding behaviour rather than an interspecific display of aggression (Tanke and Currie, 2000; Bell and Currie, 2010). The inclusion of large theropods such as Deinocheirus in the diet of Tarbosaurus is consistent with the diverse and opportunistic diet seen in North American tyrannosaurs (Chin et al., 1998; Jacobsen, 1998, 2001; Varricchio, 2001). Indeed, evidence suggests that tyrannosaurs were capable of cannibalism (Longrich et al., 2010). Although we were not able to inspect visually the holotype (ZPAL MgD-I/6), Osmólska and Roniewicz (1970) did not note bite marks on the pectoral girdle, forelimbs or vertebrae they described. Based on the available material, bite marks reported here on the gastralia suggest bites were focused around the gut, perhaps to gain access to the viscera as is common with extant mammalian carnivores (Haynes, 1982; Blumenschine, 1986). Similarly, given the location of the bites on the ventral underside of the body, it is most likely that the bites took place after the animal was lying prone as would be expected of bites inflicted during feeding (Blumenschine, 1986). The disarticulated state of the skeleton (Osmólska and Roniewicz, 1970, fig. 1) and the presence of bite marks on at least two gastralia further suggest that scavenging/ feeding by one or more Tarbosaurus played a role in dismemberment of the giant carcass of the only known specimen of Deinochierus."

Do note that these findings were before we had what we do of D. mirificus now.

if you are not familiar with these new findings, or you just relied on the media reporting on it to figure out what the bloody hell deinocheirus actually was, i'll leave a citation below, as well as some of my own thoughts on tarbosaurus predation on this bizarre creature.

oh, and also the description of the material that was discovered in 2014, cuz you know that may or may not be of interest.

- Description

"Bivariate comparisons of the skull (1024 mm from premaxilla to occipital condyle)*with thefemur show that the cranium (Fig. 2) is low and narrow like other ornithomimosaurs, but that the antorbital region is more elongate than in other members of this clade. The premaxillae and dentaries expand anterolaterally to form a spatulate beak; the external nares open dorsally. In lateral view, the buccal edges of the premaxilla, maxilla and dentary slope anteroventrally. Pitting of the anterior surfaces indicates the presence of keratinous rhamphotheca in life. The nasal is a narrow strap-like bone extending from the anterior third of the internarial bar to above the orbits. Similar to Gallimimus, the jugal and quadratojugal form an extensive posteroventral lobe that closed off the lower part of the infratemporal fenestra . The pneumatic fossa of the quadrate is particularly large, about 30% the height of the bone. The outside diameter of the sclerotic ring (84 mm) is relatively small compared with skull length (Extended Data Fig. 1), which suggests that Deinocheirus was probably diurnal6 . The edentulous lower jaw is strikingly massive and deep in lateral view in comparison with the slender, low edentulous maxilla. It scales with tyrannosaurids in the depth of the jaw, rather than ornithomimids Each of the ten cervical vertebrae is low and long. Posteriorly the centra become progressively shorter and more trapezoidal in outline; this produces a more strongly S-curved neck (to support the relatively larger skull) than in other ornithomimosaurs. Twelve dorsal vertebrae have distinctive configurations; the neural spines of anterior dorsals are low, but increase progressively to that of the last dorsal, which is 8.5 times taller than its centrum height; it almost attains the highest ratio of Spinosaurus. Because of the presence of an intricate system of interspinous ligaments, they were probably specialized to support the abdomen from the hips and hind limbs in a manner similar to an asymmetrical cable-stayed bridge. The elongate spines might also have served in display. Dorsal vertebrae have numerous laminae forming basal webbing with associated fossae, and the degree of pneumaticity is comparable with that of a sauropod. All six sacral neural spines are tall and highly pneumatic, extending up to 170% of ilium height. Except for the first sacral, the tops of the sacral neural spines are fused into a midline plate of bone, the dorsal margin of which is straight in lateral view. An accessory spinodiapophyseal lamina is developed anterior to the spinodiapophyseal lamina in each of the third to fifth sacrals. These two laminae meet at the diapophysis to form a unique V-shape in lateral view (Fig. 3). The first caudal neural spine curves anteriorly in lateral view, and is distinctly shorter than that of the final sacral. The tall anterior caudal neural spines have strong anterior and posterior rugosities with many small foramina for the interarcual ligaments. The end of the tail is represented by at least two vertebrae that were fused together as in oviraptorosaur and therizinosauroid pygostyles8,9. The presence of a pygostyle suggests the possibility that ornithomimosaurs, which are known to have pennaceous feathers10, also had fans of feathers at the ends of their tails for display purposes11. Honeycombed camellate pneumatic systems are present in all Deinocheirus vertebrae except for the atlas and the distal caudals. Camellate internal structure is also in the parts of the ilium, pubis and ischium that are adjacent to the sacrals. Vertebral pneumaticity correlates with gigantism12. A U-shaped furcula with a hypocleidium was recovered for the first time in ornithomimosaurs. The triangular acromial process of the capulocoracoid prominently projects at an angle of about 50ufrom the scapular blade. This feature cannot be seen in the holotype due to damage. The ilium appears distinctive because regions of the typical ornithomimosaur pelvis are hypertrophied to support the animal’s great weight. The rounded preacetabular ala is taller but anteroposteriorly shorter than the postacetabular ala, which has a concave dorsal margin. The robust supraacetabular crest overhangs the anterodorsal margin of the acetabulum; because the crest was normally directly above the head of the femur, the ilium was tilted posteroventrally in life. The ischium is as long as the pubis. Thefemur is longer than the tibia, as expectedfor such a large animal13. In dorsal view, the medial edge of thefemoral head has a prominent hook on the posteromedial corner, and a dome-like tubercle on the anterior edge that has never been reported, to our knowledge, in any other dinosaur. Thefemoral head is twisted 15u anteromedially to thefemoral shaft. The robust cnemial crest of the tibia projects above the level of the proximal articular surface as inBeishanlong14 andGarudimimus15. The baseline condition of a relatively short, non-arctometatarsalian metatarsus is present as inmost other theropods16. However, the outline of the proximal end of the third metatarsal in Deinocheirus is quadrangular, rather than triangular as in basal ornithomimosaurs. The foot is as short in the relative lengths of digit III to metatarsal III as it is in Garudimimus. Each pedal ungual has a unique shape that has never been reported, to our knowledge, in any other theropod dinosaur, with the distal end bluntly truncated rather than tapered (Extended Data Fig. 5). Deinocheirus was coded into a theropod data matrix that incorporated a comprehensive analysisfor Ornithomimosauria17 (Extended Data Fig. 6). It was recovered as a sister taxon of Garudimimus within the Ornithomimosauria (Fig. 4). This comprehensive phylogeny suggests that basal ornithomimosaurs separated into two lineages (Deinocheiridae and Ornithomimidae) in the EarlyCretaceous. The Deinocheiridae consists ofDeinocheirus,Garudimimus, and the older Beishanlong.Deinocheirus (MPC-D 100/127) had a body length of 11 m and an estimated body weight of 6,358 kg, and is the largest known ornithomimosaur"

* 1024mm translates to roughly 3.3ft long, it is indeed a large skulled ornithomimian.

Clicky clicky here for the paper:

https://geology.kangwon.ac.kr:40864/korean/files/______-36_5___.pdf

Now, onto predation by T. bataar.

According to this new information, D. mirificus would weigh ~6.6 tons. While elsewhere on this forum i've shown that the largest T. bataar specimens were in the 4 - 4.5 ton range. Tyrannosaurids were thought to be capable of taking large, "dangerous" prey animals, so keeping this in mind. here's a section from Bell et a.(2012)

"Based on the available material, bite marks reported here on the gastralia suggest bites were focused around the gut, perhaps to gain access to the viscera as is common with extant mammalian carnivores (Haynes, 1982; Blumenschine, 1986). Similarly, given the location of the bites on the ventral underside of the body, it is most likely that the bites took place after the animal was lying prone as would be expected of bites inflicted during feeding (Blumenschine, 1986). The disarticulated state of the skeleton (Osmólska and Roniewicz, 1970, fig. 1) and the presence of bite marks on at least two gastralia further suggest that scavenging/ feeding by one or more Tarbosaurus played a role in dismemberment of the giant carcass of the only known specimen of Deinochierus."

This doesn't necessarily mean the Tyrannosaur killed the ornithomimian, but simply the bite marks left on gastralia were made after the animal had fallen. So, two things are (obviously) likely

- The giant theropod was dead and had been scavenged by the tyrannosaur

- Ambush had been deployed, and the tyrannosaur was sucessful in predation

one thing is certain now, though, Deinocheirus was on the menu of the big asian tyrannosaur.

Do you think Tarbosaurus was capable of taking down fully grown Deinocheirus? or do you think it could only take smaller, immature ones?

leave your thoughts down below!

 

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

14 Replies

Tyrant king

MemberCompsognathusMar-06-2015 2:50 PM

???????????????????? was my reaction when I saw how much was posted.

but yes, I have heard of this. thabks for sharing!!

Something Real

MemberTyrannosaurus RexMar-06-2015 2:50 PM

CARNOSAUR - How very interesting! The depth into which you have delved while presenting this extremely compelling information is exceptional; I have read this post two times already and I keep finding something new that I originally missed! This is very fun! I am so pleased that you chose to return with such an engaging bit of input! Thank so very much for presenting this to us! :)

Tyrant king

MemberCompsognathusMar-06-2015 2:52 PM

my emojis were blocked:(

Carnosaur

MemberCompsognathusMar-06-2015 3:00 PM

glad you guys liked it!  i missed posting these articles on here sorta :P

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Sci-Fi King25

MemberAllosaurusMar-06-2015 7:05 PM

Maybe a Tarbosaurus pair took it down. Still, scavenging is the most likely option to me.

“Banana oil.”- George Takei, Gigantis: The Fire Monster

Primal King

MemberCompsognathusMar-07-2015 11:45 AM

I actually have read this paper, and I believe a Tarbosaur or Zuchengosaur would be capable, but also pretty lucky.

"If you can't see it... It's already too late."

-Jurassic Apocalypse (by Paden)

Peter Zanetti

MemberCompsognathusMar-09-2015 6:49 AM

More than likely scavanged.

In the wilds of Africa...no carcass goes without being scavanged. Every predator from miles around is drawn in for a bite. Even Lions that are voracious hunters will not pass up a chance for a bite at a carcass. All active predators are opportunistic feeders.

Deinochirus is an unlikely prey for Tarbosaurus.

brego

MemberCompsognathusMar-19-2015 11:09 PM

All carvivores, even today, will actively hunt and or scavange. I think the closest we have to the behavior of Dinosaur carnivores is the Komodo Dragon. Carnivores tend to pick off the weak and sick. As (like the Komodo Dragon) most Carnivorous dinosaurs probably had a mouth full of deadly bacteria, one bite would all it would take. The Carnivore then simply needs to follow the prey until the bacteria weakens them to the point of helplessness. Then it's all over and a sometimes massive feast is on the buffet. Komodo Dragons can take down half tonne water buffalo using this method.

Peter Zanetti

MemberCompsognathusMar-20-2015 9:13 AM

BREGO - good points. In the case of the Komodo Dragon, their bacteria-laden bite evolved to assist them in bringing down large mammals. Since the Dragon is cold blooded, it lacks the stamina to pursue large mammals...but it must feed on them, as small mammals are even quicker, and the Dragon itself is quite large (in size and appetite). 

Therapod dinosaurs, we can assume, lived different lifestyles than the Komodo. They were not cold blooded animals that lacked the ability to pursue fast-moving prey. They were built for speed, tenacity, and visciousness. They were equally capable and inclined to scavange a meal as they were to bring down prey.

While it is anyone's guess if any particular species of dinosaur had "special features" like today's Komodo Dragon, or the Cobra...we can't assume anything along those lines. And we don't need to. Therapod dinosaurs do not leave us scratching our heads as to how they got by. It is reasonably understood (by any scientist not purposely trying to create controversy) that Therapod dinosaurs were both hunters and scavangers, much like a Lion.

Conversely, if we only had the fossil record of Komodo Dragon, and found the contents of Water Buffalo in their stomach...we'd be theorizing like crazy how a sluggish cold blooded oversized monitor lizard that hugs the ground, ever managed to prey on Water Buffalo.

brego

MemberCompsognathusMar-21-2015 11:47 PM

All very true Peter. Some scientists believe that most dinosaurs had both warm blooded organs as well as those modern reptiless live with. BTW a Komodo Dragon can sprint for short distances to run down smaller prey. Also they can swallow things bigger than their head!

Spartacus Rex

MemberCompsognathusMar-22-2015 3:51 PM

Although not as advanced and powerful as Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus could easily be given a second place in that rank after the Rex. Which still makes it pretty powerful and capable of delivering a lot of damage. The big "but" in this is the fact that Deinocheirus "slap in the face" can be if not deadly, at least extremely painful and can inflict serious wounds that could injur the predator so badly, that could give a negative effect on it's chance of successful hunting in the future. And we all know that a predator that cannot hunt is much less likely to survive. Physically I have no doubt that a single Tarb is able to take it down, but it might just not risk it, since getting past that formidable defence will be too hard.

Having said that, I have following ideas:

1. Could have been a pair of Tarbs, since Deinocheirus wouldn't be able to defend from both of them at the same time.

2. Just scavenging.

3. A very lucky ambush from a single Tarb, which ended in a perfectly delivered on-target fatal bite. 

brego

MemberCompsognathusMar-22-2015 11:59 PM

Most modern, super active carnivores like Lions, Bears, Tigers are indeed able to deal instant death with one bite into the back of the neck, severing bone and spinal cord. I imagine if the larger Carnivorous theropods could catch prey on the run and get hold of the neck, all over red rover. This was my biggest issue with the stupid Spino/Rex battle in 3. Rexy with the most powerful bite of any land animal got a good whole neck bite on Spino and yet, not a mark left or even any blood. Totally stupid. I think the larger carnivores would probably have used ther weight to know prey over on the run them bite frantically. Raptors etc I think hunted like wolves. Running prey down, hacking and slashing till the prey collapsed.

Peter Zanetti

MemberCompsognathusMar-24-2015 10:15 AM

BREGO - Lions and Tigers do not kill prey by dealing an "instant death bite to the neck". Their goal is to latch on to the windpipe of prey and squeeze it shut. Most prey of Lions and Tigers die of asphixiation, and it is not always quick. Depending on the grip that they get, if it is not true enough, it can take quite a while for the prey to finally die.

brego

MemberCompsognathusMar-25-2015 1:14 AM

Peter I think if you do some research you will find that Lions use both methods, but Tigers and Leopards go for the back of the neck. Much quicker and if not instant death, instant Quadroplesia...

Add A Reply
Sign In Required
Sign in using your Scified Account to access this feature!
Email
Password
Latest Images
Jurassic Park/World Jurassic Park Fandom
Jurassic World Movies Forums
Jurassic World Fan Artwork
Jurassic World Fan Artwork Share your Jurassic World fan art here
Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs Talk About Dinosaurs
Jurassic World
Jurassic World Discuss Jurassic World Here
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park Discuss Jurassic Park 1 - 3
Jurassic Park Games
Jurassic Park Games Talk About Jurassic Park Games
Jurassic World Merchandise
Jurassic World Merchandise Discuss Jurassic World merchandise here
Hot Forum Topics
New Forum Topics
Highest Forum Ranks Unlocked
ThatOneInGenWorker
ThatOneInGenWorker » Compsognathus
10% To Next Rank
Latest Jurassic Fandom Activity
Member
Shobin50 just posted a new review for Godzilla Minus One and rated the film 5 out of 5. See why they rated Godzilla Minus One this way, by reading their full review!

JurassicWorld-Movies.com is a fan website dedicated to all things Jurassic Park and Jurassic World! This website was developed, created and is maintained by Jurassic Park fans and is not officially affiliated with Universal Pictures, Amblin Entertainment or any other respective owners of Jurassic World IP.

© 2024 Scified.com
Sign in
Use your Scified Account to sign in


Log in to view your personalized notifications across Scified!

Transport To Communities
Alien Hosted Community
Cloverfield Hosted Community
Godzilla Hosted Community
Jurassic World Hosted Community
Predator Hosted Community
Aliens vs. Predator Hosted Community
Latest Activity
Forums
Search Scified
Trending Articles
Blogs & Editorials