Comments on: For T. rex, Scavenging Was a Tough Gig http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/01/for-t-rex-scavenging-was-a-tough-gig/ Where Paleontology Meets Pop Culture Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:48:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: Michael http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/01/for-t-rex-scavenging-was-a-tough-gig/comment-page-1/#comment-3599 Michael Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:10:20 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=4777#comment-3599 The small animal in the picture is supposed to be a juvenile, not a different dinosaur. The small animal in the picture is supposed to be a juvenile, not a different dinosaur.

]]> By: Boesse http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/01/for-t-rex-scavenging-was-a-tough-gig/comment-page-1/#comment-3574 Boesse Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:17:25 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/?p=4777#comment-3574 I've been informed by some of the paleo students here that there are some serious, serious flaws with this study - the one that comes to mind is that Parasaurolophus is listed in the article as a contemporary of Tyrannosaurus, even though it's from the Dinosaur Park Fm., which is Campanian in age (i.e. not Maastrichtian). Anyway, the study is rife with mistakes of this sort, due to 1) overdependence upon the error-rich and woefully incomplete Paleobiology Database and 2) lack of familiarity with late Cretaceous dinosaur assemblages and late Cretaceous stratigraphy (both of which are extremely important to understand in order to establish a clear picture of dinosaur faunal relationships in the Maastrichtian. I'm also unclear as to why studies like this and the atrocious Lyson and Longrich (2010) made their way into Proceedings B in the first place, seeing as neither article seems to be terribly appropriate for a biological journal in the first place. I’ve been informed by some of the paleo students here that there are some serious, serious flaws with this study – the one that comes to mind is that Parasaurolophus is listed in the article as a contemporary of Tyrannosaurus, even though it’s from the Dinosaur Park Fm., which is Campanian in age (i.e. not Maastrichtian). Anyway, the study is rife with mistakes of this sort, due to 1) overdependence upon the error-rich and woefully incomplete Paleobiology Database and 2) lack of familiarity with late Cretaceous dinosaur assemblages and late Cretaceous stratigraphy (both of which are extremely important to understand in order to establish a clear picture of dinosaur faunal relationships in the Maastrichtian.

I’m also unclear as to why studies like this and the atrocious Lyson and Longrich (2010) made their way into Proceedings B in the first place, seeing as neither article seems to be terribly appropriate for a biological journal in the first place.

]]>