Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Valkenburgh, B. Articles by Molnar, R. E. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Dinosaurian and mammalian predators compared

¹ Blaire Van Valkenburgh. Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology, and Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1606. bvanval{at}ucla.edu
² Ralph E. Molnar. Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Theropod dinosaurs were, and mammalian carnivores are, the top predators within their respective communities. Beyond that, they seem distinct, differing markedly in body form and ancestry. Nevertheless, some of the same processes that shape mammalian predators and their communities likely were important to dinosaurian predators as well. To explore this, we compared the predatory adaptations of theropod dinosaurs and mammalian carnivores, focusing primarily on aspects of their feeding morphology (skulls, jaws, and teeth). We also examined suites of sympatric species (i.e., ecological guilds) of predatory theropods and mammals, emphasizing species richness and the distribution of body sizes within guilds. The morphological comparisons indicate reduced trophic diversity among theropods relative to carnivorans, as most or all theropods with teeth appear to have been hypercarnivorous. There are no clear analogs of felids, canids, and hyaenids among theropods. Interestingly, theropods parallel canids more so than felids in cranial proportions, and all theropods appear to have had weaker jaws than carnivorans. Given the apparent trophic similarity of theropods and their large body sizes, it was surprising to find that species richness of theropod guilds was as great as or exceeded that observed among mammalian carnivore guilds. Separation by body size appears to be slightly greater among sympatric theropods than carnivorans, but the magnitude of size difference between species is not constant in either group. We suggest that, as in modern carnivoran guilds, smaller theropod species might have adapted to the threats posed by much larger species (e.g., tyrannosaurs) by hunting in groups, feeding rapidly, and avoiding encounters whenever possible. This would have favored improved hunting skills and associated adaptations such as agility, speed, intelligence, and increased sensory awareness.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. C. D'Amore and R. J. Blumenschine Komodo monitor (Varanus komodoensis) feeding behavior and dental function reflected through tooth marks on bone surfaces, and the application to ziphodont paleobiology Paleobiology, December 1, 2009; 35(4): 525 - 552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. R. Longrich and P. J. Currie A microraptorine (Dinosauria-Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America PNAS, March 31, 2009; 106(13): 5002 - 5007. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. R. Fiorillo On the Occurrence of Exceptionally Large Teeth of Troodon (Dinosauria: Saurischia) from the Late Cretaceous of Northern Alaska Palaios, May 1, 2008; 23(5): 322 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Novack-Gottshall Using a theoretical ecospace to quantify the ecological diversity of Paleozoic and modern marine biotas Paleobiology, March 1, 2007; 33(2): 273 - 294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]