Pack hunting dinosaurs

[Metallisuchus]

[/quote]I disagree, all it shows it that they ate from the same dead animal. There are lots of animals that do that. Crocodiles and vultures are the first two extant archosaurs that come to mind. Regardless, the pack hunting notion is certainly more appealing.[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there more evidence than just multiple Deinonychus' feeding off the same carcass? Wasn't there evidence of the struggle itself? Deinonychus' that had suffered mortal wounds caused by the Tenontosaurus found at the same site? There was actually a good t.v. show on maybe 2 years ago that focused on this - I forget the name of the show, maybe it was an episode of "Jurassic Fight Club" or something. Perhaps some of their use of artistic license was misconstrued as fact, but I thought there was pretty hard evidence of what happened.

Either way, if there's a hole in that story, I'd still bet my life that Deinonychus often hunted bigger prey in packs. It just makes perfect sense.

[Gryphoceratops]

Okay!  Lets nip this budding ugly debate before it gets worse since the exact same conversation went down about a year ago haha. 

Yes it was Jurassic Fight Club that dedicated an entire episode to the tenontosaurus vs deinonychus thing.  Some people love that show, some people hate it.  Bottom line is its a show that illustrates what could have happened based on fossil evidence.  A lot of the scenarios are speculation with regards to behavior and what not.  Some people tend to take this too literally and judge the show unfairly bladiblah we know where this is going.  I personally like the show I think its interesting and different plus I know the creator, hes a nice guy, knows his stuff so I'm sorta biased about it I guess. 

There were indeed deinonycus carcasses found alongside the tenonto along with deinonychus teeth marks on the bones. 

1) Many think this does indeed show the deinonychus attacked the plant eater as a pack and some didn't make it.   
2) Some think the deinonychus attacked it together but not really as a pack more like unorganized mobbing.
3) Some think the deinonychus were scavenging an already dead animal and fought amongst themselves resulting in dead deinonychus as well. 

Nobody knows for a fact.  Lets not get into it too much though it never ends well. 

[Metallisuchus]

Haha, well yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. We don't know for a fact, but I'd say it's highly likely and very probable that Deinonychus was a pack hunter. I think most meat-eating dinosaurs likely hunted in at least pairs when they had to take down big or dangerous prey, from time to time.

And yeah, I know there's a ton of speculation for a show like that - I was just saying that I wasn't sure where the line was drawn between speculation and actual fossil evidence (tooth marks, etc.).

[Gwangi]

Haha, well yeah that's pretty much what I'm saying. We don't know for a fact, but I'd say it's highly likely and very probable that Deinonychus was a pack hunter. I think most meat-eating dinosaurs likely hunted in at least pairs when they had to take down big or dangerous prey, from time to time.

What makes you come to that conclusion? Movies and the media? Do you just want them to be pack hunters? All I'm saying is that there is no real evidence that these animals or any dinosaur hunted in packs. Pack hunting tends to be a mammalian trait. Other animals are social, other animals feed together but few aside from some mammals hunt together cooperatively like wolves do. Wolves are not a good analogy for dromaeosaurs. Birds are better analogies and only a couple birds hunt cooperatively in pairs such as the Harris hawk. Birds of prey are also in all likelihood more intelligent than dinosaurs were. That is not to say they weren't social...live, travel, nest and feed together but hunted large game together? I doubt it. There isn't even good evidence that dromaeosaurs hunted large game. I know why people buy into it. It is a sexy idea perpetrated by movies like Jurassic Park but there is no clear evidence that they behaved like that and I think by looking at modern animals we can speculate that it wasn't likely.

[Metallisuchus]

Modern animals? What modern animals can you compare dinosaurs to? To some degree, birds and crocodiles, yes, but it's a completely different world now. There are no flightless, toothed birds 30 feet long, no fern-devouring "tanks" like Ankylosaurus, so predator/prey relationships today are very different.

It's not just some "sexy idea" cooked up by media and films. Paleontologists influenced films like "Jurassic Park" in the first place.

If carnivores didn't hunt in packs, they wouldn't be nearly as threatening to large herbivores. Sure, a single Tyrannosaurus would be a very serious threat to just about anything, but they likely were very rare in proportion to large herbivores or small carnivores. What I'm getting at, is that large (or armored) herbivorous dinosaurs were in abundance, and depended on their horns, spikes, size, and social skills to ward off predators. They wouldn't need to be THAT serious about protection because of a single Deinonychus, or the rare encounter with a  Tyrannosaur. These things were equipped to deal with predators - large and small - on a very regular basis, and they would usually be dealing with not-so-giant predators. Smaller predators aren't much of a threat to larger prey by themselves.

And yes, I took small prey (mammals, large insects, etc.) into account. I just don't see Deinonychus hunting Mesozoic rats every day - I see them taking down much larger prey when easy meals become scarce, and to do so, they would've depended on each other.

[Gwangi]

Modern animals? What modern animals can you compare dinosaurs to? To some degree, birds and crocodiles, yes, but it's a completely different world now. There are no flightless, toothed birds 30 feet long, no fern-devouring "tanks" like Ankylosaurus, so predator/prey relationships today are very different.

The players change but the game stays the same. The animals I'm specifically comparing to dinosaurs are the thousands of diapsid species they are related to, not highly intelligent mammalian canines. I don't want to indulge in fantasy, I want to understand these animals the best I can through science and to me at least the science suggests these animals were not highly coordinated pack hunters. In the case of dromaeosaurs they were most certainly very much like birds and there is no better analogies. I dare go so far as to say they were birds.

It's not just some "sexy idea" cooked up by media and films. Paleontologists influenced films like "Jurassic Park" in the first place.

Going on the evidence I've seen I'm not convinced and I'm fairly certain there are many scientists who aren't either aside from some high profile individuals like Currie and Bakker (and they're high profile because of their sexy theories). I didn't say it was an idea cooked up by the media, I said it was perpetuated by it. Dinosaurs were not the sluggish animals of days gone by but they weren't quite the hyper smart super animals portrayed after the birth of the Dinosaur Renaissance either.

If carnivores didn't hunt in packs, they wouldn't be nearly as threatening to large herbivores.

So? Who is to say they even hunted adult herbivores?

Sure, a single Tyrannosaurus would be a very serious threat to just about anything, but they likely were very rare in proportion to large herbivores or small carnivores. What I'm getting at, is that large (or armored) herbivorous dinosaurs were in abundance, and depended on their horns, spikes, size, and social skills to ward off predators. They wouldn't need to be THAT serious about protection because of a single Deinonychus, or the rare encounter with a  Tyrannosaur.
These things were equipped to deal with predators - large and small - on a very regular basis, and they would usually be dealing with not-so-giant predators. Smaller predators aren't much of a threat to larger prey by themselves.

I don't understand your argument. Protection from predators is always a good thing regardless of the likelihood of attack. By having all that armor ankylosaurs were that much less likely to be attacked by anything pack hunting or not. It is a worthy investment regardless of who the predators were or how they behaved.

And yes, I took small prey (mammals, large insects, etc.) into account. I just don't see Deinonychus hunting Mesozoic rats every day - I see them taking down much larger prey when easy meals become scarce, and to do so, they would've depended on each other.

Mammals and insects? There were plenty of other small animals to feed on as well. All the animal groups today had small representatives and lets no forget about small dinosaurs. Dinosaurs like Ornithomimus, Hypsilophodon, Protoceratops were all equal to or smaller than dromaeosaurs in terms of size. Lets also not forget the most overlooked prey items...baby dinosaurs. All dinosaurs started out small and most hatched from large clutches of eggs, there must have been tons of baby dinosaurs walking around and some probably without parental care. In fact, a recent study suggests young dinosaurs were the primary prey of even the largest of predators. I doubt many adult dinosaurs such as sauropods even had to worry about predation.

EDIT: I'm not saying they didn't hunt in packs, I'm just skeptical. Being skeptical is a good thing in science.

[Metallisuchus]

I get that hawks and eagles are very dromaeosaur-like, but everything's changed, so in this case, there aren't exactly good comparisons at least in terms of predation behavior. Believe me, I'm not trying to indulge in fantasy either.

You're absolutely right - dinosaurs aren't the sluggish big lizards of the 50's, nor are they the exaggerated super-predator Einsteins as portrayed by many people. Well, I shouldn't say you're right (because we don't know), but I'm with you on this.

There's obvious evidence of an evolutionary arms race, and herbivorous dinosaurs wouldn't have been that prepared to deal with predators if they didn't need to be. My point - if predators didn't hunt in packs, the threat level to an herbivore would have decreased immensely, therefore, it is likely to conclude that herbivores wouldn't have been equipped so well if the threat level wasn't maxed out. I hope I'm getting my point across on this well, as I'm having a hard time explaining my thought process here.

Of course there were a lot more types of small prey - I just thought that I probably shouldn't bother naming everything. And don't underestimate a creature like Protoceratops - I think it was very well capable of defending itself. Sure it's not big, but it's bite must've been devastating to a Velociraptor. It would have been a dangerous attempt for a lone raptor.

Yes, being skeptical is a GREAT thing in science. I'm skeptical too - just on the opposite side of the fence.

But look, let's clear the whole thing up - do either of us actually know? Absolutely not. Your educated guess may be 100% correct, but I get the feeling that you are accusing me of "romanticizing the velociraptor", so to speak, and I'm not. I'm just looking at the environments during the Mesozoic, comparing predators to prey, and seeing that nature is perfectly balanced. If nature gave plant eaters either great weaponry or advanced social skills (adapting w/o obvious weapons by means of social behavior) or intellect, then I can imagine how hostile life must have been for them, and I see pack-hunting as a likely cause for that hostility. It just makes too much sense to me. But I accept that I could be wrong about this, just as you could.

Either way, wouldn't you just love to travel back in time and see what it must've been like?

[DinoFan45]

Guys, seriously, if you really feel the need to discuss this in-depth, start a new topic about it in the dinosaur section, it doesn't involve what dinosaur you are directly. I just don't want this to get into a huge mess.

[Metallisuchus]

Yeah, I did realize after posting that we've gotten off-topic. I apologize to everyone else for that. You know how it goes - one comment leads to a discussion, and before you realize it, you've got this long debate.

But yeah, I picked Utahraptor because it's simply the one dinosaur I'd be the most in fear of.

[Gwangi]

Guys, seriously, if you really feel the need to discuss this in-depth, start a new topic about it in the dinosaur section, it doesn't involve what dinosaur you are directly. I just don't want this to get into a huge mess.

It does involve what dinosaur we are directly; a pack hunting or non-pack hunting dinosaur.  I've said my piece, if anyone wants to continue I assume they'll start a thread. I realize my opinion is in the minority but that's the point. It is all about thinking critically about what you've been told.

[Metallisuchus]

Lol Gwangi. Speaking of which, Irritator - great pick.

[Gwangi]

Lol Gwangi. Speaking of which, Irritator - great pick.

I picked it for a reason, I know I'm a PITA.

[Thagirion]

It does involve what dinosaur we are directly; a pack hunting or non-pack hunting dinosaur

No it doesn't. I can choose to do what the rest of my species doesn't.  For one, I don't have feathers.  Dinofan is right.

Metallisuchus, wanna be in my pack?

[Gryphoceratops]

Just to add its not just Harris Hawks that engage in cooperative hunting behavior.  Golden Eagles do it as well as MANY fish eating birds like pelicans swimming in V-formation to herd fish and Gannets and boobies and such.  I'm not saying this is proof dromies did the same I'm just saying pack hunting isn't strictly a mammal trait. 

[Sharptooth]

Just to add its not just Harris Hawks that engage in cooperative hunting behavior.  Golden Eagles do it as well as MANY fish eating birds like pelicans swimming in V-formation to herd fish and Gannets and boobies and such.  I'm not saying this is proof dromies did the same I'm just saying pack hunting isn't strictly a mammal trait.

That's it!

Many of the so-called "typical mammal behaviors" are not so typical at all... Parental care, play, complex communication, feelings, all of those things and many other features that once ethologists believed exclusive to mammals, man included, appear in an humongous amount of animals (obviously with differences between the species), from shrimps to whales.
Take birds for example; parrots and ravens can actually learn our language, and, among the other kickass stuff these modern dinosaurs can do, crows build friggin' tools... Oh, and don't get me started on gardener birds which actually PAINT their lairs to attract the females; yeah, they paint 'em, almost like our ancestors painted their caves (with obvious cultural differences, of course).

Soooo... If modern dinos are so complex n' intelligent, what about their ancestors? Could a dromie had the mental capacity to form a pack and go hunting?
Entirely possible, IMHO, even if we don't still have a real proof of it. But afterall, a behavior can fossilize? I bet that, if beavers would have been prehistoric and we'd found their bones, we'd never guessed what great builders they were! 

[Metallisuchus]

Sure Thag ; )

Gryph - thank you.

Anyway, I don't have much more to say regarding this debate. I can respect the fact that Gwangi & Gryph don't believe that Dromies hunted in packs (if that's what you truly believe and aren't debating for the sake of debating) - we can agree to disagree, but don't act as if the idea of Dromies (or any other dinosaurs) hunting in packs is absurd.

Sharptooth - great points there, and I forgot to mention that behavior doesn't fossilize - it only leaves clues in fossils for us to make educated assumptions.

Gwangi - what's a PITA?

[CityRaptor]

PITA = Pain in the Ass.

Talking about Reptiles. Wasn't it just recently that Crocs were found out to be far more intelligent than previously thought? Komodo Dragons are also now considered far more intelligent than previously thought.

[Metallisuchus]

I haven't heard anything recently about the intelligence of crocs or komodo dragons. Crocodiles seem a bit exceptional to me though, when it comes to reptiles. They just don't seem as "brain-dead" as other reptiles do.

[Thagirion]

I didn't now what that was either. Hehe, I thought it was a type of bread.

Yes, I remember our Gator Land Zoo in Florida discovered that gators were learning to associate their own names, so they could actually call individuals out of a group for specific feedings and have it be more controled than tossing chicken into the pond and letting them have a free for all. Each one would get to eat this way.  They discovered it on accident when they would call them for the gator jumping shows and realized they were coming when their names were called without any food being around.  That's rather amazing.  Nothing like bird intelligence of course but still a surprise to what was thought to be an all instinct animal not capable of learning more complex actions like this.  I've had the pleasure of working with some of these guys  at a local zoo.

[Himmapaan]

Heh. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...