Pack hunting dinosaurs

[Gryphoceratops]

Oh boy somebody dropped the "moral code" bomb.  Is this going to become a debate about morality now? 

[DinoFan45]

I think he might be. Just because we have developed a civilization doesn't mean that we are the only one with rules, and hierarchy. Wolves have pack leaders, elephants have matriarchs, and great apes usually have a head honcho.

My personal theory on the pack hunting of dromaosaurs is that some might have pack hunted, some may have been single hunters, espicially ones that lived in harsh environments, like deserts. Deinonychus, in my head were usually mated pairs living together. They would ocasionally meet in groups to take down bigger prey, but separate when they were finished.

[Arioch]

Oh boy somebody dropped the "moral code" bomb.  Is this going to become a debate about morality now?

Is this an actual issue?  Didn´t know Disney movies were meant to be taken seriously.

Please, lets focus on science.

[Sharptooth]

Learning from experiences, moral codes, cultural differences between groups of the same species, these are big parts of many animals' lives,

Is this serious? sorry, can´t tell.

Yep, i'm pretty serious.

Of course other animals do NOT absolutely have human-like morality or culture, believing it would be antrophomorfism at its worst (it only works in fiction  ), but, as i said, there's not only instinct in them... And if you're still skeptical, well, try to read the books of the following authors:

- Mark Bekoff
- Hope Ryden
- Elizabeth Marshall Thomas
- Jane Goodall
- Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson
- Danilo Mainardi
- Giorgio Celli

Hope it helps, and, yes, that's science.

[Arioch]

Every human feeling itself is driven by instinct or chemistry. Our moral codes are just a weak attempt to rationalize or even control  them.

I have heard of this theories regarding animals, but the terminology is a bit odd and can lead to confusion. I understand the purpose behind it, but animals don´t care about what is "good" or "bad"  as long it doesn´t help to perpetuate its genes in a long or short term.

[Sharptooth]

I'm not entirely convinced that animals (us included) are totally controlled by DNA and won't do something more than that; many times animals do stuff that doesn't help AT ALL their genes, but maybe because they think in their own view that's the right thing to do... How could it benefit a certain animal "fitness" (as Dawkins would say) helping a weaker member of its group, or even adopting a member of a different species (even if it doesn't usually ends well, at least in the wild)?

I'm not sayin' that, at the core, all behaviors don't have chemical/biologic/whatever origins, but this doesn't deny the reality of emotions, abstract thinking and such 


And why the terminology used by Bekoff & co. would lead to confusion? Instead it makes the things simpler by applying, terms like "morality" and "culture" to all the animal kingdom... It's not antrophomorfism, just using common sense.

[DinoToyForum]

How could it benefit a certain animal "fitness" (as Dawkins would say) helping a weaker member of its group, or even adopting a member of a different species (even if it doesn't usually ends well, at least in the wild)?

If you think of it from the perspective of the genes, it does make sense. Dawkins would more likely refer to 'gene survival' rather than 'animal "fitness"'.  In your example, the weaker (a highly subjective term) member still shares genes with the rest of the group, so it is in their best interest, or rather, in the interest of the future survival of their shared genes, to adopt altruistic behavior.

As for adopting a member of a different species, innate gene programing can be easily hijacked or manipulated. An example from nature is brood parasitism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite

Interesting topic. But let's not get too hot under the collar, let's keep our heads please.

[Metallisuchus]

Why not ? they´re the closest relatives, and the best we have of such comparison. Most of any animals behaviour is determined by the genes.

Pack hunting is any kind of social hunting, regardless of the complexity. The technical definition is as loose as it gets.

Because dinosaurs are not exactly crocodiles or birds as we know them today. Their world was so different. I thought that's why we're all interested in them? I'm sorry, but you can't compare a Velociraptor to a Sparrow in every single way. I would imagine dinosaur behavior to have a lot of similarities to that of birds or crocodiles, yes, but they have their differences as well.

The reason I brought up "definition" (regarding pack hunting) is because some people here have different ideas of what it implies. I'm only implying the most basic concept of it, while others separate "mob attacks" from "coordinated hunting & cooperative sharing of a kill", etc.

[Gwangi]

Why not ? they´re the closest relatives, and the best we have of such comparison. Most of any animals behaviour is determined by the genes.

Pack hunting is any kind of social hunting, regardless of the complexity. The technical definition is as loose as it gets.

Because dinosaurs are not exactly crocodiles or birds as we know them today. Their world was so different. I thought that's why we're all interested in them? I'm sorry, but you can't compare a Velociraptor to a Sparrow in every single way. I would imagine dinosaur behavior to have a lot of similarities to that of birds or crocodiles, yes, but they have their differences as well.

The reason I brought up "definition" (regarding pack hunting) is because some people here have different ideas of what it implies. I'm only implying the most basic concept of it, while others separate "mob attacks" from "coordinated hunting & cooperative sharing of a kill", etc.

Nearly every behavior we have found that we thought was unique to birds originated with dinosaurs. Birds are the best animals to look to for learning about dinosaurs because they are dinosaurs. A sparrow is basically a small flying dromaeosaur. It is far more appropriate to look to them or their next closest living relatives (crocodiles and other reptiles) than it is to look to mammals. Why should we assume dinosaurs behaved anything like mammals when modern day dinosaur relatives don't? I'm speaking specifically of course about pack hunting. Read the paper I linked to, it is quite eye opening and makes much more sense than the more popular alternative.
I'm sure there were behaviors unique to dinosaurs that we'll never know about and some may have been mammal-like but in the quest to understand these animals I find it far more productive to use actual science instead of fantasy and wild speculation. There is no good evidence that any dinosaur hunted in packs ergo we're doing them an injustice by depicting them as such until such evidence is found. I'm getting a bit fed up with the way dinosaurs are depicted, almost as much so as we all were with the old view of them. Dinosaurs were reptiles, cousins of crocodiles and ancestors of birds...they should be depicted as such. I suppose that is the difference between people who want to understand dinosaurs on a scientific level and those who are content to use their imagination.

[Metallisuchus]

I'd hesitate to consider dinosaurs reptiles. They've evolved from reptiles, yes but... Well you get the drill.

I'm not saying modern day mammals make a better model for behavior than birds or crocs, I'm just saying (as you just said) that they likely had some behavioral traits specific to themselves.

Would you assume a Triceratops would behave like a crocodile or a bird? Their design is much different.

And I understand where you're coming from - I feel that we're entering a new era in paleontology, and believe me, I've been questioning everything about what I consider "The Stage 2 View". I'm not clinging to "Jurassic Park science" - I was always irked by some of their inaccuracies, actually.

By the way, you DO realize that this whole thing stemmed from myself saying that Utahraptor was probably less likely to depend on hunting in packs than Deinonychus right?

[Gwangi]

I'd hesitate to consider dinosaurs reptiles. They've evolved from reptiles, yes but... Well you get the drill.

As long as crocodiles are considered reptiles so too should dinosaurs. They evolved from animals we generally regard as reptiles and you cannot evolve out of a group. Just as birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are reptiles. If it is the word reptile that bothers you opt out for Sauropsida instead. However you classify dinosaurs they are what they are and the evidence is in the bones.

I'm not saying modern day mammals make a better model for behavior than birds or crocs, I'm just saying (as you just said) that they likely had some behavioral traits specific to themselves.

But until there is evidence for a specific behavior we should assume that they behaved like their living relatives. It is fun to fantasize about them but for a realistic picture on how they lived we need to be careful to separate science from fantasy.

Would you assume a Triceratops would behave like a crocodile or a bird? Their design is much different.

Ummm...yes, I would. Triceratops was likely a social animal with a heavy emphasis on display and hierarchy within the social group and probably cared for their young in a way similar to extant archosaurs. The design would make no difference in this regard. They may look like mammals but they certainly behaved like archosaurs...because that is what they are.

And I understand where you're coming from - I feel that we're entering a new era in paleontology, and believe me, I've been questioning everything about what I consider "The Stage 2 View". I'm not clinging to "Jurassic Park science" - I was always irked by some of their inaccuracies, actually.

The "Stage 2" view as you call it represents to me the opposite extreme from the "Stage 1". Chances are dinosaurs were in between the two extremes. I agree that I feel things are calming down a bit and I'm glad to see you're on board with this.

By the way, you DO realize that this whole thing stemmed from myself saying that Utahraptor was probably less likely to depend on hunting in packs than Deinonychus right?

I realize that but to me I won't assume either hunted in packs until evidence tells me otherwise. I'll assume they behaved like their living relatives. I see no reason for Deinonychus to have been anymore a pack hunter than Utahraptor.

[Sharptooth]

How could it benefit a certain animal "fitness" (as Dawkins would say) helping a weaker member of its group, or even adopting a member of a different species (even if it doesn't usually ends well, at least in the wild)?

If you think of it from the perspective of the genes, it does make sense. Dawkins would more likely refer to 'gene survival' rather than 'animal "fitness"'.  In your example, the weaker (a highly subjective term) member still shares genes with the rest of the group, so it is in their best interest, or rather, in the interest of the future survival of their shared genes, to adopt altruistic behavior.

As for adopting a member of a different species, innate gene programing can be easily hijacked or manipulated. An example from nature is brood parasitism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite

Interesting topic. But let's not get too hot under the collar, let's keep our heads please.

Yeah, but Dawkins (and many other people in the academic world) make it looks like animals are controlled by their DNA like robots, while Bekoff, Masson and other ethologists argue that they can actually choose to do what they do, and i tend to be with 'em. There's a "basement" made of instinct, but it's culture, experience and of course free will that make possible to built upon it.


X Metallisuchus:

Yeah, i noticed it... And you've also noticed that more than often, when a discussion involves dromies, it quickly becomes a 100+ pages long topic? 

[Metallisuchus]

Yes, Dromies seem to be the stars of the Mesozoic - a leftover obsession from the "Stage 2 View". I suppose they're among the more controversial groups in all of dinosauria...

[Gryphoceratops]

I'd hesitate to consider dinosaurs reptiles. They've evolved from reptiles, yes but... Well you get the drill.

I'm not saying modern day mammals make a better model for behavior than birds or crocs, I'm just saying (as you just said) that they likely had some behavioral traits specific to themselves.

Would you assume a Triceratops would behave like a crocodile or a bird? Their design is much different.

And I understand where you're coming from - I feel that we're entering a new era in paleontology, and believe me, I've been questioning everything about what I consider "The Stage 2 View". I'm not clinging to "Jurassic Park science" - I was always irked by some of their inaccuracies, actually.

By the way, you DO realize that this whole thing stemmed from myself saying that Utahraptor was probably less likely to depend on hunting in packs than Deinonychus right?

Dinosaurs are reptiles.  Thats that.  That being said birds are actually reptiles as well.  There isn't really anything differentiating them from other reptiles.  If you look at the DNA of birds and other reptiles you will find that crocodilians are MUCH closer to birds than they are to squamates and testudines.  Go to the American Museum of Natural History in NYC and check out their hall of diversity exhibit.  They actually have mounts of alligators and crocs grouped with birds (as archosauria) rather than with other reptiles (rightfully so) on their giant tree of life display.  Ask any credible ornithologist or herpetologist they will tell you the same thing. 

I will never forget my old professor's famous quote when an undergrad asked about birds "Birds are just reptiles with feathers!". 

[Himmapaan]

...more than often, when a discussion involves dromies, it quickly becomes a 100+ pages long topic? 

Which was what I had anticipated and hinted towards several pages ago. 

[DinoToyForum]

Yeah, but Dawkins (and many other people in the academic world) make it looks like animals are controlled by their DNA like robots, while Bekoff, Masson and other ethologists argue that they can actually choose to do what they do, and i tend to be with 'em.

From my reading, Dawkins doesn't make it look like animals are controlled by their DNA like robots. Dawkins coined the term 'meme', a unit of cultural inheritance that can spread down generations, specifically to make the point that genes are not necessarily the be all and end all.

There's a "basement" made of instinct, but it's culture, experience and of course free will that make possible to built upon it.

I agree. The question is, then, did dromeosaurs have culture, learn from experience, or have 'free will'? Was there a dromeosaur pack-hunting meme?

[Sharptooth]

Yeah, i forgot about memes... Anyway, to answer your question about dromies, i'd say yes, they had free will, culture and learned from experience like (probably) every other animal today; why not? But how much complex (psychologically speaking) they really were? Maybe they were as smart as ravens, or maybe not; they had a brutal society like in lions or they were more "civilized" like beavers or elephants? If i look at a Deinonychus skeleton i see a creature that was well equipped to be a fearsome predator, but that's all! Even if i'd spend an entire year around the world searchin' for a modern analogue amongst modern archosaurs, i bet i'd never catch not even a glimpse of what he was truly inside... Granted, no animal is truly asocial, so i can expect some form of interactions between two or more individuals of this species, and again lookin' at modern dinosaurs i can guess that they probably cared for their kids (today roughly the 96% of bird species engage in parental care, so it's basically a given), but, as you would say, how much the "pack-hunting meme" was widespread?
I already expressed what i think about it (likely, i said) but, like almost everythin' in this science, i'm not so arrogant as some paleontologists and yell "YES, WHAT I SAID IS TRUE 1000%!" almost sounding like a preacher tryin' to convert his disciples to the "gospel" (and, sadly, there are some scientists who act like that!)... 

[stoneage]

again lookin' at modern dinosaurs i can guess that they probably cared for their kids (today roughly the 96% of bird species engage in parental care, so it's basically a given),

I don't think you can conclude that because todays most birds engage in parental care that most dinosaurs did.  During the mesozoic most mammals laid eggs, but most don't today.

[Sharptooth]

again lookin' at modern dinosaurs i can guess that they probably cared for their kids (today roughly the 96% of bird species engage in parental care, so it's basically a given),

I don't think you can conclude that because todays most birds engage in parental care that most dinosaurs did.  During the mesozoic most mammals laid eggs, but most don't today.

Uh? What it has to do with dinosaurs?

You're using a not so right example here... The physical changes mammals endured from the Mesozoic surely also changed some of their behaviors, but the same can't be said about dinosaurs, at least regarding reproduction; i mean, non avian dinosaurs laid eggs in nests just like modern bird, so it could be expected that they also cared for their young.

[Arioch]

We only have a faint evidence for parental care on Maiasaura and maybe oviraptorids or some ceratopsians, and it would be of a semi altricial kind, at best . Unlike actual birds, non avian dinos had such slow growth rates that adults couldn´t afford extending the care for their chicks until they were almost sub adults without putting in a serious risk their lifes. The different fossil locations of adults and juveniles on most species seem to confirm this: they didn´t live together. In fact, "true" parental care on dinosaurs seem to be mostly restricted to neornithes (and it might be a clue of their evolutionary success).