Pack hunting dinosaurs

[CityRaptor]

Die Gegenwart ist der Schlüssel zur Vergangenheit. Yes.

[Himmapaan]

Die Gegenwart ist der Schlüssel zur Vergangenheit. Yes.

Ha, not quite what I was commenting on, but let's go with that. It's safer. 

[Gwangi]

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.

I didn't say "only Harris hawks up cooperatively" what I did say is only a couple birds such as the Harris hawk do it. They're just the example I used. Still though, there are far more species of birds than there are mammals and none live in a pack like those of wolves. The Harris hawk is about as sophisticated as it gets. If pack hunting is not a strictly mammalian trait I challenge you to give me an example of a hierarchical species that cooperates to take large game that is not a mammal.
You guys are misunderstanding me, I'm not saying that animals that don't hunt in packs are stupid, I know how smart birds are. But while we are on the subject even the smartest dinosaurs were only as smart as what we consider unintelligent birds. Dromaeosaurs were smart dinosaurs but compare their brain to a chicken and they don't even match that which means we can assume chickens are smarter than dromaeosaurs were. For mammal comparison sake I've often seen Troodon compaired to an opossum. Now tell me, do any of you really think an animal with less intelligence than a chicken or opossum can form packs like those of wolves? Keep in mind that wolves are among the smartest of all living animals. I doesn't match up, true pack hunting takes a special set of skills that I don't believe any dinosaur possessed.

[Gwangi]

For one, I don't have feathers.

Than you my friend are suffering some some terrible sort of mange and I feel sorry for you...as a dinosaur.

[CityRaptor]

Uh, my grandparents had chickens. Those were clearly not stupid. Always thinking of ways to get food.
As far as Dinosaurs go, I highly doubt that we can actually tell how intelligent they were. People have considered crocs stupid for centuries, but they are now known to be quite intelligent. And those are recent animals.
Therefore Dinosaurs, while obviously not being as smart as in Jurassic Park, might have been smarter than we might think. I also remember reading somewhere that a scientist, forgot who, compared a brain to a briefcase. Not the size matters, but what's inside.

[Gwangi]

Uh, my grandparents had chickens. Those were clearly not stupid. Always thinking of ways to get food.

I might as well bash my head against a wall. I never said chickens were stupid, I have chickens myself and have always had them, I love chickens. But lets face the facts here, chickens are not wolves nor are they ravens or parrots. That is just common sense. Don't equate "not as intelligent as" with "stupid", the two have very different meanings and I don't like words being put into my mouth. Chickens are great foragers but they are not pack hunters. I will never call an animal stupid with any kind of sincerity, every animal is as smart as it needs to be to survive. In the natural world stupid animals die. 

As far as Dinosaurs go, I highly doubt that we can actually tell how intelligent they were. People have considered crocs stupid for centuries, but they are now known to be quite intelligent. And those are recent animals.

Crocodiles are intelligent by reptile standards but again, they are not wolves. I imagine dinosaurs fall somewhere between crocodiles and birds, leaning more towards crocodiles in the intelligence department. This does not mean they were stupid but it does mean they probably couldn't hunt in coordinated packs.

I also remember reading somewhere that a scientist, forgot who, compared a brain to a briefcase. Not the size matters, but what's inside.

This is true to an extent. There are different parts of the brain that do different things. Looking at those specifically can give you a good idea as to an animals capabilities. The olfactory lobe on a tyrannosaur brain for example is quite large and so we know it had a good sense of smell. The Cerebrum is the part of the brain responsible for higher functions...like thinking.

This is a dog brain, the cerebrum is the larger part of the brain up front. This is what gives canines their ability to hunt in packs.


I like to bring this out during discussions like this. Note the "Gallus" brain on the far right...that is a chicken.


Again, dinosaurs were not dumb. They dominated the planet for 160 million years and suppressed the evolution of mammals. They did something right but modern mammals beat them in the brain department, there is no way around this. Dinosaurs were not mammals so while they were the most intelligent creatures of their time they probably didn't behave quite like mammals either. This includes pack hunting.

[Himmapaan]

For what it may be worth, Art, I have my own reservations about pack-hunting for all the reasons you've already given. Note they're reservations, there are no outright convictions from me here.

And I understand you with regard to intelligence relativity in animals. Nobody here ever said dinosaurs were 'stupid'. It always boggles me how the mere pointing out of such limitations gets one branded with calling them so.    And the same explanations and minute clarification of points need to be made over and again. Caricaturing an argument is unsound, ladies and gentlemen.  How often have we had a repeat of these issues?

As I said, plus ça change...   

[Gwangi]

For what it may be worth, Art, I have my own reservations about pack-hunting for all the reasons you've already given. Note they're reservations, there are no outright convictions from me here.

And I understand you with regard to intelligence relativity in animals. Nobody here ever said dinosaurs were 'stupid'. It always boggles me how the mere pointing out of such limitations gets one branded with calling them so.    And the same explanations and minute clarification of points need to be made over and again. Caricaturing an argument is unsound, ladies and gentlemen.  How often have we had a repeat of these issues?

As I said, plus ça change...   

Thanks Niroot, your input is always welcomed. I'm not certain that dinosaurs were not pack hunters but given the evidence and a little critical thinking that is my current stance on the issue. I would love to be shown otherwise because pack hunting dinosaurs is an awesome concept.

[Thagirion]

Than you my friend are suffering some some terrible sort of mange and I feel sorry for you...as a dinosaur.

Your feelings towards me are irrelavant. Don't forget you're supposed to be logical here as you previously stated.  This statement does not help your argument. And it's "Then" not "Than". Nor am I your friend. Be careful with those emotions now. 

I've said my piece [sic]

Yet you are still saying it. Seems you aren't done with all the pieces.

CityRaptor, you are right that chickens are not stupid and lots of people make that assumption because they look like they're another of those "all instinct" animals.  I even underestimated them because my background is working with parrots and other more intelligent birds.  I've had hens for two years now and they have really surprised me with things I didn't expect them to be able to do.  They still don't compare to my parrots but they're not stupid.  I have been meaning to bring up chickens as a good example of group cooperation actually, at least on the rooster's part. The rooster is the gentleman. He'll dig and find bugs then call for his hens to come over and eat first.  He is hunting for insects with his girls in mind. Not quite the same as dinosaurs taking down big prey but then birds aren't the dominant life forms for this to happen too often in our time.  There is one example I shall cite in a moment other than Harris Hawks.

Cranes travel in pairs or family groups of 3 or 4. Two chicks, usually one does not survive. They all look for bugs together while one stands look out. In a pair situation male and female take turns one watching while the other "hunts". It depends how you define a pack but since Metallisuchius mentioned a  minium of two then this works as cooperative hunting. After all you need to have at least two individuals for there to be any form of cooperation.

Then there's my favorite example. The awesome Kea parrot.  This is a bird that seems to be in a transitional form from herbivore to carnivore. I'm throwing the terms around loosely.  Most parrots are seed, grain and fruit eaters. Occasionally they take insects. Kea take what they can and are highly intelligent and have spread out to even feed on sheep.  Yes check out this amazing footage.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/552x2YFjsw0

Can we say, pack hunting parrots? Grant's quote comes to mind, "You are alive when they start to eat you."  Hehe.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/oAhzmULgoqI

At 9:10 a beautiful experiment where they have to use teamwork to get the treat. These are not pets but while birds.  I can easily see some modern bird behaviors transposed to  dinos.  No doubt.

EDIT: Having the same problem with embed that Malidicus did so I just made the videos links.

[Gwangi]

Your feelings towards me are irrelavant. Don't forget you're supposed to be logical here as you previously stated.

The comment was made in jest. I don't really want to debate the feather issue but dromaeosaurs had them, there is no valid argument to say otherwise no matter what your personal desires are. I'm being completely logical.

This statement does not help your argument. And it's "Then" not "Than". Nor am I your friend. Be careful with those emotions now.

I meant no offense. Thank you for the grammar correction though it was more of a slip than stupidity, I know the difference. Sorry I called you a friend, I now know otherwise but I was only trying to soften the impact of the comment...didn't realize you would take it like this.

I've said my piece [sic]Yet you are still saying it. Seems you aren't done with all the pieces.

You are doing what is called quote mining. What I actually said in full was "I've said my piece, if anyone wants to continue I assume they'll start a thread." Another thread was started and so I am here.

[Thagirion]

I don't really want to debate the feather issue but dromaeosaurs had them, there is no valid argument to say otherwise no matter what your personal desires are. I'm being completely logical.

"It's hardly a debate at all".  Please show me where I said they had no feathers. I dare you to find where I said that they had no feathers.    You do not like others putting words in your mouth? Well then do not do it as well. What I said was that  *I* *Me* *This* raptor typing (Hum, I guess I should have a name for my raptor self. Great more names to come up with hehe) does not have feathers. Yes the thread was split thank goodness and perhaps while you were fighting you missed the whole point where I said

Thanks, Gwangi.  Well I don't do feathers.     I know they were real and all... blah blah blah

Interesting that it was even addressed directly towards you. So yes you were being illogical trying to illicit a feeling based reaction jest intended or otherwise  when the point was This Fictional raptor has no feathers.

I meant no offense.

And none was taken again, I had no such reaction to your statement.  I just noted how unreasonable it was. 

Thank you for the grammar correction though it was more of a slip than stupidity, I know the difference. Sorry I called you a friend, I now know otherwise but I was only trying to soften the impact of the comment...didn't realize you would take it like this.

I'm glad to hear this. Everyone makes spelling errors. That's understandable but some grammar errors are just too much and this is one of my pet peeves.  And that's ok about calling me friend.  I just don't throw that word around so lightly as it has a strong meaning. 

You are doing what is called quote mining. What I actually said in full was "I've said my piece, if anyone wants to continue I assume they'll start a thread." Another thread was started and so I am here.

Is that what it is called? No, you are wrong again because that is not what I was doing.  you have included the full sentence for me. good. I shall explain further since it seems needed.  First another pet peeve. It's "Peace" not "Piece". Piece is a part of something like a "piece of pie". I like to remember that one because there's a Pie in Piece. Peace is like the opposite of War. "Peace on Earth".  The statement "I've said my Peace" means you've said all there is to say and you are done.  By stating that "if anyone wants to continue I assume they'll start a thread" you imply that you are leaving the fight in others's hands and you are done.  You did not mention anywhere that you would resume IF an new thread was started.  Also I pointed this out because I thought it was funny how you used "piece" and changed the meaning of what you were saying anyway.

Anyway, for all you other raptors (I'm using the term lightly again) out there, I drew this quick doodle because I found this all rather amusing.



Click for full size. And if you can't read my aweful raptor scratch just ask and I'll translate.

[Metallisuchus]

Gwangi - you believe them to be solitary hunters, and that's okay. We don't, and that's also okay. What's important is that we all must realize that we won't know for sure how they lived in every detail because they're gone.

I appreciate the fact that you've looked for possible reasons that may support them being solitary hunters because science should be unbiased. As for now though, I think we've all shared our opinions, and until further evidence to support either idea is found, then this is an open case.

This debate reminds me of the Horner vs. Bakker debate regarding Tyrannosaurus as either hunter or scavenger. I think in both debates, the true answer is likely "a little from column A, a little from column B".

[Gwangi]

"It's hardly a debate at all".  Please show me where I said they had no feathers. I dare you to find where I said that they had no feathers.    You do not like others putting words in your mouth? Well then do not do it as well. What I said was that  *I* *Me* *This* raptor typing (Hum, I guess I should have a name for my raptor self. Great more names to come up with hehe) does not have feathers. Yes the thread was split thank goodness and perhaps while you were fighting you missed the whole point where I said


Thanks, Gwangi.  Well I don't do feathers.     I know they were real and all... blah blah blah

Interesting that it was even addressed directly towards you. So yes you were being illogical trying to illicit a feeling based reaction jest intended or otherwise  when the point was This Fictional raptor has no feathers.

Well I guess you got me on that one but at least I'll admit it. I didn't remember your comment about knowing they had feathers, simple as that. It looks like you have pet peeves. Well you're not the only one. One of my pet peeves is naked dromaeosaurs, retro value aside I think they have no place in modern dinosaur reconstructions and to perpetrate them without feathers is to spread misinformation. I would no sooner illustrate a featherless bird or hairless tiger.

Is that what it is called? No, you are wrong again because that is not what I was doing.  you have included the full sentence for me. good. I shall explain further since it seems needed.  First another pet peeve. It's "Peace" not "Piece". Piece is a part of something like a "piece of pie". I like to remember that one because there's a Pie in Piece. Peace is like the opposite of War. "Peace on Earth".  The statement "I've said my Peace" means you've said all there is to say and you are done.  By stating that "if anyone wants to continue I assume they'll start a thread" you imply that you are leaving the fight in others's hands and you are done.  You did not mention anywhere that you would resume IF an new thread was started.  Also I pointed this out because I thought it was funny how you used "piece" and changed the meaning of what you were saying anyway.

Well you misinterpreted what I said and I corrected you. I cannot be bothered to argue about grammar on a dinosaur forum...I would join a grammar forum for that. I'm here to discuss dinosaurs and not much else. So that I may defend myself however, there is nothing wrong with the term "I've said my piece" it implies you've given forth a piece of your mind (like a piece of pie). So that particular pet peeve just does not make much sense. Go ahead and click on the provided link.

Now, can we continue the discussion at hand or must we start yet another thread on my apparently crappy grammar?

[Gwangi]

Gwangi - you believe them to be solitary hunters, and that's okay. We don't, and that's also okay. What's important is that we all must realize that we won't know for sure how they lived in every detail because they're gone.

I appreciate the fact that you've looked for possible reasons that may support them being solitary hunters because science should be unbiased. As for now though, I think we've all shared our opinions, and until further evidence to support either idea is found, then this is an open case.

This debate reminds me of the Horner vs. Bakker debate regarding Tyrannosaurus as either hunter or scavenger. I think in both debates, the true answer is likely "a little from column A, a little from column B".

I just don't think they were pack hunters to the extent they are portrayed (like wolves, I've used that analogy often) but that does not mean they were all solitary either. Piranhas are not solitary hunters but they aren't pack hunters either. And as I've also said before, they may have been pack hunters...I just need the evidence. I'm just trying to promote critical thinking. Horner actually promoted his scavenger theory for much the same reason I promote this one, to challenge the orthodoxy and think for ourselves. Everyone just assumes dromaeosaurs were pack hunters in much the same way that tyrannosaurs are assumed to be active predators. It just so happens that there is evidence to back up tyrannosaurs as active predators but even Horner knew this.

[Metallisuchus]

Well, we haven't found feather impressions on EVERY Dromie species, to be fair.

Anyway, we're all here for the same reason - we love dinosaur paleontology, and collecting figures. Let's not get out of hand here - we're all entitled to our opinions on these topics, and we should respect that. It's not like somebody said Tyrannosaurs were herbivores, lol.

"It's hardly a debate at all" - Dennis Nedry? haha

[Himmapaan]

Well, we haven't found feather impressions on EVERY Dromie species, to be fair.

Phylogenetic bracketing is key here. 

This is perhaps irrelevent, but since it was brought up, 'Said one's piece', rather than 'peace' is indeed the correct expression in this case.

But oh, dear, now I shall be guilty of leading the thread astray. That is especially reprehensible in a moderator. 

But to the matter at hand: forgive me folks, but the tone this thread has begun to take looks dangerous to me. There seems to be a deal of defensive hair-splitting which borders on the personal and bears little relation to the discussion. It does not bode well.  Please remain cordial, and by that I don't mean thinly veiled passive aggressive tactics.

[Gwangi]

Well, we haven't found feather impressions on EVERY Dromie species, to be fair.

Anyway, we're all here for the same reason - we love dinosaur paleontology, and collecting figures. Let's not get out of hand here - we're all entitled to our opinions on these topics, and we should respect that. It's not like somebody said Tyrannosaurs were herbivores, lol.

"It's hardly a debate at all" - Dennis Nedry? haha

Well we are all here for the same reason and for me at least one reason is to talk about dinosaurs, in every capacity. I love thoughtful debates and I don't mean any offense and seldom take offense from them. As long as things remain civil I see no reason why a discussion like this should be looked down upon. This is the only place I can talk about these things and to those that are willing I welcome the debate. Those who are not are free to leave the discussion at any time. 

Now as for feathered dromaeosaurs. For every skin impression found of a dromaeosaur there has been evidence of feathers, never a lack thereof. There is no dromaeosaur fossil that exists that suggests otherwise. Dromaeosaurs are among the closest relatives of birds, we've found evidence for feathers on many species and whats more they are within the larger group the coelurosaurs where feather evidence have been found for nearly every group within, even tyrannosaurs. There is no reason to think any dromaeosaur did not have feathers.

[Gryphoceratops]

At 9:10 a beautiful experiment where they have to use teamwork to get the treat. These are not pets but while birds.  I can easily see some modern bird behaviors transposed to  dinos.  No doubt.

U mean wild right?  There They're Their, Than Then, While Wild whats the diff lol.  Sorry I don't mean to troll I just find it funny how the person with the English pet peeve made a mistake in the next post.   

Again please don't take it harshly I kid I kid.  Everyone makes typos sometimes myself included. 

[Metallisuchus]

I agree Gwangi, I'd assume they likely all had feathers. Can we rename the thread "Pack hunting and feathered dinosaurs" to suit where this is all going? Haha. But there's my view of Dromies - packhunting feathered dinosaurs. I enjoy seeing them without feathers as well though.

[Thagirion]

I would no sooner illustrate a featherless bird or hairless tiger.

Hehe, now I should draw a hairless tiger.  That's what you wouldn't do but I do what I choose.

Metallisuchus -
"It's hardly a debate at all" - Dennis Nedry? haha

Yes. Glad you caught the quote.