Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science Idle

How Do You Eat a Triceratops? Start By Ripping the Head Off 113

Posted by timothy from the steamed-with-beer-and-old-bay dept.
scibri writes "Once a Tyrannosaurus took down a Triceratops, how did it go about eating it? By looking at the bite marks on Triceratops fossils, a group of paleontologists have pieced together the steps, and created an illustrated guide. Step one? Pull off the head."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Do You Eat a Triceratops? Start By Ripping the Head Off More

How Do You Eat a Triceratops? Start By Ripping the Head Off

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds like (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:16PM (#41769309)

    Sounds like an afternoon on bath salts.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sounds like my ex-wife's Modus operandi

  • Ah Yes! Triceratops ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:20PM (#41769359)
    ... the "gummy bear" of dinosaurs.

  • Step 4 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:22PM (#41769395) Homepage

    Step four: feast on the delicacies beneath the frill.

    I am so making a T-shirt with these pictures and captions.

    • They're probably copyrighted, and you'd probably get sued.

      But, yes, that would be an awesome T-shirt ... probably pretty popular among the paleontologists.

      • If I go onto a place like zazzle and have a one off one made up that is not put up for sale I don't think there will be a problem. If I decided that I wanted to sell copies using their images and captions then it would be a problem.

        • Just saying, the other dinosaurs are always all over stuff like that. ;-)

          I think it would be an awesome t-shirt though, maybe the original authors would agree to using the images.

          • If I could get permission to use the images and captions I would pursue selling them as it seems a lot of people have a dark sense of humor much like mine and they probably would do fairly well.

        • Good luck getting them to print it...about two years ago I was trying to have shirts printed for a university club and I couldn't find a printer that would let us include the name of the university due to copyright fears. If they can find your image on Google, they're not gonna print it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Zordak ( 123132 )
            Pedantic and all, but the name of your university is not copyrighted. It's too minimal. But there may be trademark issues.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

            Good luck getting them to print it

            So print it yourself! A silkscreen is easy to construct. Anybody can print their own shirts.

            • So print it yourself! A silkscreen is easy to construct. Anybody can print their own shirts.

              Oh this is so not true. You need wood to build a frame, and tools to cut the wood. Then you need "silk", but is it real silk, or a special kind of silk? Are there different thread counts? Which one do you need? I know, buy several and try them out. You'll need a staple gun or something to attach the silk to the frame. Next you'll need to some how print the images onto the silk. Is there a photographic process for that? Need the chemicals, oh and a digital projector. That will need to be done in a d

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

                I've built silkscreens. No, you don't need real silk, a nylon scarf will do. If you're going from a photo you can cut the photo to lay out your pattern. Wikipedia probably has enough info for anyone to be able to make one; they're easy. It's not like building an Atlas rocket or anything, silkscreening is ancient and low-tech.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 )

        They're probably copyrighted, and you'd probably get sued.

        But, yes, that would be an awesome T-shirt ... probably pretty popular among the paleontologists.

        They'll send around their lawyers, indistinguisable from T. Rex, which will rip your head off.

        Really wondering if this was the case or the bite marks were the result of battle. Once you, as T. Rex, got around those horns and had a good grip, would you risk letting go? Seems more to me like T. Rex would have bull-dogged a Triceratops, attempt to break its neck or get it in a position of asphyxiation, unable to breath through a twisted windpipe.

        But I'm just a software developer, what do I know.

        • FTFA:

          they noted something important: none of the bones showed any signs of healing, indicating that the bites were inflicted on dead animals that were in the process of being eaten.

    • Step 5 polish the skull and mount it on your spaceship wall.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )

      The end that's closer to your mouth!

      Most predators I've seen go for the soft tissues, first. Liver, stomach, intestines, etc., muscle tissue usually eaten after it has "seasoned" a few days.

      As they are looking at fossils I'm wondering how they are determining the order in which feeding took place. Perhaps T. Rex hung around such a large kill for days, feeding until it was sated or felt like getting something fresh.

  • After tearing the head off, how much salt did the tyrannosaurus use to make it edible?

  • The Oatmeal is slacking (Score:5, Funny)

    by boristdog ( 133725 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:34PM (#41769569)

    The Oatmeal should have been all over this guide like...well, like a T-rex on a Triceratops.

  • Taking down a triceratops? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:35PM (#41769589) Journal
    "Once a Tyrannosaurus took down a Triceratops, how did it go about eating it?"

    I thought T-Rex was downgraded from a hunter/killer to a carcass plundering carrion eater, like a buzzard. Besides, didn't these Triceratopses have soft underbellies and such? Seems to me that the neck and face bits would be the LAST to go, not the first.

    • The soft underbellies were mostly organs and guts -- nutritious but not meaty. The meatiest parts of the triceratops were the huge neck muscles.

      It's not clear whether the T-Rex killed the triceratops himself, or found and ate already dead carcasses. But either way, the scientists have concluded from bite marks that this is how the feasting went.

      • I've always seen predators and scavengers start on the organy undersides. That's where most of the fats are, and also the parts that will rot the quickest. Seems like dinosaurs would need similar nutrition requirements to todays buzzards?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe after getting to a Triceratops and scaring away whatever was eating it, this was a way to get at 'still good' parts that weren't accessible to smaller dinosaurs yet...

    • I thought T-Rex was downgraded from a hunter/killer to a carcass plundering carrion eater, like a buzzard.

      Yeah, heard of that too. Something about their body structure being inappropriate for actual fighting. Their wee upper limbs, in particular.

      • Ah, but if the jaws are big enough then it doesn't need the arms (and there's some evidence that the jaws were powerful and teeth strong enough to be used for killing large prey). And one theory for why the arms are so small is to allow for such big jaws while staying balanced.

        Of course a predator as big as T-Rex would have still eaten carrion -- or just stole fresh kills from other, smaller predators since that's one of the advantages of being big. Like their modern cousins, the eagles.

        On a somewhat tang

    • Not necessarily, I think the pendulum has swung the other way again, more recently.. at least, some.
      And there's this, about their bite force, which suggests (but doesn't prove) predation:
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6593/abs/382706a0.html [nature.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      This has been debated by experts for over a century now. It's hard to get solid evidence about habits. The teeth of the T-Rex were strong enough to wrestle down live prey (to judge from bite strength, whihc can be determined from bite marks). Its seems likely it could run faster than its prey (to judge form biomechanics, but that doesn't speak to metabolism). T-rex certainly seems able to be a predator, whatever you want to read into that.

      I just assume they were like modern lions: not shy about taking c

    • That's the wonderful thing about science. It takes 'thought' and turns it upside down. Besides who are we puny humans to argue with a T-rex?

    • Re:Taking down a triceratops? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chuckstar ( 799005 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @05:39PM (#41771673)

      I thought T-Rex was downgraded from a hunter/killer to a carcass plundering carrion eater, like a buzzard.

      There's still debate on this subject, but IMHO there's really too much evidence to the contrary to believe that T.Rex was a scavenger specialist (although pretty much all predators will eat carrion when available). The most interesting evidence are fossil bones of T.Rex prey that have partially-healed tooth marks that could only have been made by T.Rex. This is evidence of an animal that survived a T.Rex attack long enough for bone to partially heal (months/years). That would be hard if T.Rex were only a carrion specialist.

      There was always a lot of skepticism of the scavenger hypothesis. Just looking at T.Rex would tend to create skepticism. T.Rex is big, muscular, has incredibly strong jaws, lots and lots of sharp piercing teeth... definitely was the scariest thing around at the time. The biggest, scariest meat eater in any ecosystem is rarely a scavenger specialist.

      Another problem with the scavenger specialization idea is that T.Rex would have had pretty good binocular vision. Very useful for a predator. Scavengers don't need it so much.

      We still don't have good evidence about T.Rex's hunting style, though. I think one of the reasons the scavenger specialist idea has been so intriguing is that people had a hard time figuring out how T.Rex could take down something like Triceratops, given it's pretty tough defenses. Also, there is some evidence that T.Rex would not have been a fast runner, so how did it chase down some of the prey that seems like it would have been fast runners?

      When they find the partially-healed T.Rex bite marks I mentioned above, however, they tend to be on the prey's back. This would be pretty standard for a failed take-down, even among today's predators. Was it in fact a fast runner catching up from behind? If so, how did it take down Triceratops, which would probably turn and defend itself. Perhaps T.Rex was an ambush hunter, like today's Komodo Dragons, coming out of large brush and attacking from the side. Maybe T.Rex was a social hunter and surrounded its prey. I like to imagine T.Rex could leap over Triceratops horns, get behind it, get a grip on it's back, and shake it to death... But I have NO evidence for that, it's just fun to imagine.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pkphilip ( 6861 )

        The most interesting evidence are fossil bones of T.Rex prey that have partially-healed tooth marks that could only have been made by T.Rex.

        How does one go about confirming that a specific mark on the vertebrae of an animal definitely came about because a T-Rex bit it? Couldn't it have been caused by a tree trunk falling on the animal or be caused by another animal other than a T-Rex? Even herbivorous animals fight with each other and can cause serious damage to each other.

        • How does one go about confirming that a specific mark on the vertebrae of an animal definitely came about because a T-Rex bit it?

          Cross sectional shape of the mark. Spacing and placement relative to other marks. etc. A falling tree isn't going to hit the animal and put a series of triangular puncture marks on opposite sides of the vertebrae, for example.

        • Trees are unlikely to leave grooves in bone that would be mistaken for T.Rex teeth marks. In fact, being hit with a tree tends to break bones, not scrape long puncture marks. We're talking about vertebra with 3-5 inch long grooves, which are pretty much perfect matches for the shape and spacing of T.Rex teeth. In the case of intra-species fighting, these herbivores simply don't have teeth or horns which could match such grooves.

          I guess it's possible there was another big predator out there at the time, b

      • That would be hard if T.Rex were only a carrion specialist.

        What if the dinosaur was asleep?

        • Asleep is not dead. If T.Rex was a scavenger-specialist, it would know the difference between a dead animal and a sleeping animal that might get up and fight back.

      • Perhaps T.Rex was an ambush hunter, like today's Komodo Dragons, coming out of large brush and attacking from the side. Maybe T.Rex was a social hunter and surrounded its prey.

        Clever Girl...

    • That's Horner's BS theory. There is no part of a T-Rex to hint at it being a scavenger. His claim is that an excellent sense of smell means scavenger. Most scavengers are small not oversized. His turkey vulture example is a poor one. Their size means they can cover more territory to find food. T-Rexs weren't built as long distant runners, they were built to fight by anyone's standards. They were likely short distance sprinters as in ambush hunters. You don't ambush stalk carrion. If they attacked Triceratop

      • What's funny about the turkey vulture comparison is that of (new world, at least) vultures, they're the only ones with a good sense of smell. I think it's a lot easier to find (non-avian) predators with excellent senses of smell.

        The point about soaring explaining the size of vultures is a good one, though size can still be use. Condors can more easily eat large and thick-hided carrion than the smaller vultures, and this could apply to t-rex. Also just like its size could scare off scavengers, it could al

    • One tactic T-rex might have used is the same as the giant lizard (komodo dragon), it rushes the prey, takes one septic bite, then trails the enemy till it dies.

      The hyena was considered a carrior eater but makes more kills then the lion who was considered a predator.

      And considering build, the Hyena seems closer to the T-rex then a buzzard. Powerful jaw and neck muscles that can deliver a massive traumatic bite to anything living or dead.

    • Besides, didn't these Triceratopses have soft underbellies and such? Seems to me that the neck and face bits would be the LAST to go, not the first.

      I kind of agree with you here. It looks to me like all they showed was what the T.Rex does when it's time to go after the head/neck region. It does not necessarily show that it ate those parts first. However, I haven't seen the detailed study. It is possible that there is evidence that the head was first to be consumed. Maybe T.Rex sometimes abandoned the prey after eating the head/neck region. In such cases, T.Rex marks would only show up on the head/neck, while other scavengers' teeth would show up

      • Or maybe there's other reason to believe they'd go for the head first. Maybe there's a lot of fat on the neck. Many large predators go for fat deposits first (calories), then organs (calories and micro-nutrients), then muscle (less-caloric macro-nutrients like protein).

        The only reason I can see for ripping the head off first is that maybe the body was needed intact to act as an anchor or a counterweight. Otherwise it would be far, far simpler to consume the organs and body muscles first, then concentrate on the harder to reach bits. Or maybe it was the second T-Rex that ripped the head off after the first one had gorged itself on steaks and kidneys.

  • Gone of the Head. (Score:3)

    by VortexCortex ( 1117377 ) <VortexCortex AT ... trograde DOT com> on Thursday October 25, 2012 @02:52PM (#41769839)

    It all seems familiar somehow.
    Step one: "Removing the head, or destroying the brain..."
    Let me guess, step two is: "You've got red on you.",
    and step three involves being "a bit bite-y."

    If that T-Rex is wielding a cricket bat it's proof what killed off the dinosaurs wasn't the asteroid -- It was the Zombies it caused.

  • Isn't this part of the Lake Wobegon effect? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect [wikipedia.org]

    It sure does sound like so.

  • "Once a Tyrannosaurus took down a Triceratops, how did it go about eating it?"

    Any way it wanted to, of course.

    I can just picture Miss manners telling it to place a napkin on it's lap and which fork to use...

    Then becoming one of the hors d'oeuvres

  • "Theirs was the immortal battle"
  • - Primordial Bath Salts

  • Triceratops (Score:5, Funny)

    by khr ( 708262 ) <kevinrubin@gmail.com> on Thursday October 25, 2012 @03:11PM (#41770153) Homepage

    Triceratops... It's what's for dinner!

  • Easy (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    I grab the triceatops by the hind legs, flip it on its back and rub its belly. This puts it in a trance and then its helpless

    Bon Apetite.

  • It's like the elephant joke...

    How do you eat an elephant?

    One bite at a time...

  • Wouldn't it remove the feathers first? Aren't dinosaurs supposed to be all feathered now?

  • Why didn't T. Rex just use it's hands to pull the head off? Oh wait.

  • What Wine Would You Serve? (Score:4, Funny)

    by avgjoe62 ( 558860 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @04:01PM (#41770729)
    White? Red? Or would you serve it with some fava beans and a fine chianti?

    • Poultry normally goes with whites, but the meat of large muscular birds such as ostrich more closely resemble beef than chicken. However, large sedentary reptiles’ meat is more “chickeny.” I don’t picture a Triceratops doing a whole lot of running around, but it’s hard to say whether it would be more akin to an ostrich or an alligator. A Zin (NOT white Zin, ever) should cover the bases if you don’t know what you’re getting into, although it probably wouldn’t b

  • Apparently just like a chocolate bunny (Score:3)

    by jbezorg ( 1263978 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @04:12PM (#41770857)

    / that's all I got...

  • The important question remains unanswered... (Score:3)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @04:33PM (#41771091) Homepage Journal

    Hot sauce or garlic butter?

    If the flavor is kind of just "meh", you break out the pepper sauce. If the taste is *nasty* you go for the garlic butter.

  • Where the rubber meets the road: (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    http://i.imgur.com/CsCxz.jpg

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Trilobite! Trilobites! Betcha can't eat the heads!
  • How the hell is this on /.??
  • This makes no sense, why would you start with the head, it's an animal that's in your diet you would know that the head and accompanying plate is the hardest part of the animal. When a lion kills a gazelle or zebra it doesn't start eating the head, it goes for the tender gut where there are fewer bones and more meat. They also don't start eating the animal until it's dead, it's just too dangerous for them to start chomping away. They will bite the neck to suffocate the animal. Perhaps these people are mista

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close