Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T01:11:06.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dinosaurian and mammalian predators compared

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Blaire Van Valkenburgh
Affiliation:
Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology, and Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1606. E-mail: bvanval@ucla.edu
Ralph E. Molnar
Affiliation:
Museum of Northern Arizona, 3101 North Fort Valley Road, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, J. F., Hall-Martin, A., and Russell, D. A. 1985. Long-bone circumference and weight in mammals, birds and dinosaurs. Journal of Zoology 207:5361.Google Scholar
Auffenberg, W. 1981. The behavioral ecology of the Komodo monitor. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
Barsbold, R. 1974. Saurornithoididae, a new family of small theropod dinosaurs from central Asia and North America. Acta Palaeontologia Polonica 30:522.Google Scholar
Barton, D. E., and David, F. N. 1956. Some notes on ordered random intervals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 18:7994.Google Scholar
Biknevicius, A. R., and Ruff, C. B. 1992. The structure of the mandibular corpus and its relationship to feeding behaviours in extant carnivorans. Journal of Zoology 228:479507.Google Scholar
Biknevicius, A., and Van Valkenburgh, B. 1996. Design for killing: craniodental adaptations of predators. Pp. 393428in Gittleman, J. L., ed. Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution, Vol. II. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Britt, B. 1991. Theropods of Dry Mesa Quarry (Morrison Formation, Late Jurassic, Colorado) with emphasis on the osteology of Torvosaurus tanneri. Brigham Young University Geological Studies 37:172.Google Scholar
Carbone, C., Mace, G. M., Roberts, S. C., and Macdonald, D. W. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402:286288.Google Scholar
Carpenter, K. 1992. Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America. Pp. 250268in Mateer, N. J. and Chen, P.-J., eds. Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. China Ocean Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
Carr, T. D. 1999. Craniofacial ontogeny in tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria, Coelurosauria). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19:497520.Google Scholar
Carrano, M. T. 1999. What, if anything, is a cursor? Journal of Zoology 247:2942.Google Scholar
Chin, K., Totaryl, T. T., Erickson, G. M., and Calk, L. C. 1998. A king-sized theropod coprolite. Nature 393:680682.Google Scholar
Chure, D. J. 1994. Koparion douglassi, a new dinosaur from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Dinosaur National Monument; the oldest troodontid (Theropoda: Maniraptora). Brigham Young University Geology Studies 40:1115.Google Scholar
Chure, D. J. 1995. A reassessment of the gigantic theropod Saurophagus maximus from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Oklahoma, USA. Pp. 103106in Sun, A. and Wang, Y., eds. Short papers, Sixth symposium on Mesozoic terrestrial ecosystems and biota, 1995. China Ocean Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H. 1962. The weights of dinosaurs. American Museum Novitates 2076:116.Google Scholar
Colbert, E. H., and Russell, D. A. 1969. The small Cretaceous dinosaur Dromaeosaurus. American Museum Novitates 1900:120.Google Scholar
Currie, P. J. 1990. Elmisauridae. Pp. 245248in Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P., and Osmolska, H., eds. The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Currie, P. J., and Jacobsen, A. R. 1995. An azhdarchid pterosaur eaten by a velociraptorine theropod. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 32:922925.Google Scholar
Currie, P. J., and Russell, D. A. 1988. Osteology and relationships of Chirostenotes pergracilis (Saurischia, Theropoda) from the Judith River (Oldman) Formation of Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 25:972986.Google Scholar
Dayan, T., and Simberloff, D. 1994. Character displacement, sexual dimorphism, and morphological variation among British and Irish mustelids. Ecology 75:10631073.Google Scholar
Dayan, T., Tchernov, E., Yom-Tov, Y., and Simberloff, D. 1989a. Ecological character displacement in Saharo-Arabian Vulpes: outfoxing Bergmann's rule. Oikos 55:263272.Google Scholar
Dayan, T., Simberloff, D., Tchernov, E., and Yom-Tov, Y. 1989b. Inter- and intraspecific character displacement in mustelids. Ecology 70:15261539.Google Scholar
Dayan, T., Simberloff, D., Tchernov, E., and Yom-Tov, Y. 1990. Feline canines: community-wide character displacement among the small cats of Israel. American Naturalist 136:3960.Google Scholar
Dayan, T., Simberloff, D., Tchernov, E., and Yom-Tov, Y. 1992. Canine carnassials: character displacement in the wolves, jackals and foxes of Israel. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 45:315331.Google Scholar
Dodson, P. 1971. Sedimentology and taphonomy of the Oldman Formation (Campanian), Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta (Canada). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 10:2174.Google Scholar
Dodson, P. 1983. A faunal review of the Judith River (Oldman) formation, Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta. Mosasaur 1:89118.Google Scholar
Eaton, R. L. 1979. Interference competition among carnivores: a model for the evolution of social behavior. Carnivore 2:916.Google Scholar
Eberth, D. A., Thomas, R. G., and Deino, A. 1992. Preliminary K-Ar dates from bentonites in the Judith River and Bearpaw Formations (Upper Cretaceous) of Dinosaur Provincial park, southern Alberta, Canada. Pp. 296304in Mateer, N. J. and Chen, P.-J., eds. Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. China Ocean Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
Emerson, S. B., Greene, H. W., and Charnov, E. L. 1994. Allometric aspects of predator-prey interactions. Pp. 123139in Wainwright, P. C. and Reilly, S. M., eds. Ecological morphology: integrative organismal biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M., and Olson, K. H. 1996. Bite marks attributable to Tyrannosaurus rex: preliminary description and implications. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:175178.Google Scholar
Erickson, G. M., Van Kirk, S. D., Su, J., Levenston, M. E., Caler, W. E., and Carter, D. R. 1996. Bite-force estimation for Tyrannosaurus rex from tooth-marked bones. Nature 382:706708.Google Scholar
Ewer, R. F. 1973. The carnivores. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
Fanshawe, J. H., and Fitzgibbon, C. D. 1993. Factors influencing the hunting success of an African Wild Dog pack. Animal Behaviour 45:479490.Google Scholar
Farlow, J. O. 1993. On the rareness of big, fierce animals: speculations about the body sizes, population densities, and geographic ranges of predatory mammals and large carnivorous dinosaurs. American Journal of Science 293A:167199.Google Scholar
Farlow, J. O., Brinkman, D. L., Abler, W. L., and Currie, P. J. 1991. Size, shape and serration density of theropod dinosaur lateral teeth. Modern Geology 16:161198.Google Scholar
Farlow, J. O., Smith, M. B., and Robinson, J. R. 1995. Body mass, bone “strength indicator” and cursorial potential of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 15:713725.Google Scholar
Fiorillo, A. R. 1991. Prey bone utilization by predatory dinosaurs. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 88:157166.Google Scholar
Foster, J. R., and Chure, D. J. 1998. Patterns of theropod diversity and distribution in the Late Jurassic Morrison Formation, Western USA. Pp. 3031in Abstracts and Programs for the Fifth International Symposium on the Jurassic System, International Union of Geological Sciences Subcommission on Jurassic Stratigraphy. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1920. Osteology of the carnivorous Dinosauria in the United States National Museum, with special reference to the genera Antrodemus (Allosaurus) and Ceratosaurus. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 110:1154.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1924. A new coelurid dinosaur from the Belly River Cretaceous of Alberta. Bulletin of the Canadian Department of Mines, Geological Survey 38:112.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1946. A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Lance Formation of Montana. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 106:119.Google Scholar
Gittleman, J. L., and Harvey, P. H. 1982. Carnivore home-range size, metabolic needs, and ecology. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 10:5763.Google Scholar
Glut, D. F. 1997. Dinosaurs, the encyclopedia. McFarland, Jefferson, N.C.Google Scholar
Gradzinski, R., and Jerzykiewicz, T. 1972. Additional geographical and geological data from the Polish-Mongolian palaeontological expeditions. Acta Palaeontologia Polonica 27:1730.Google Scholar
Gradzinski, R., Kazmierczak, J., and Lefeld, J. 1968. Geographical and geological data from the Polish-Mongolian palaeontological expeditions. Acta Palaeontologia Polonica 19:3382.Google Scholar
Haynes, G. 1982. Utilization and skeletal disturbances of North American prey carcasses. Arctic 35:266281.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E., and MacArthur, R. H. 1959. A theoretical ecological model of size distributions among species of animals. American Naturalist 93:117125.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, J. R., and Garcia, M. 2002. Tyrannosaurus was not a fast runner. Nature 415:10181021.Google Scholar
Jaksic, F., Greene, H. W., and Yanez, J. L. 1981. The guild structure of a community of predatory vertebrates in central Chile. Oecologia 49:2128.Google Scholar
Kiltie, R. F. 1988. Interspecific size regularities in tropical felid assemblages. Oecologia 76:97105.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Y., Lu, J.-C., Dong, Z.-M., Barsbold, R., Azuma, Y., and Tomida, Y. 1999. Herbivorous diet in an ornithomimid dinosaurs. Nature 402:480481.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. 1972. The spotted hyena. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Losos, J. B., and Greene, H. W. 1988. Ecological and evolutionary implications of diet in monitor lizards. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 35:379407.Google Scholar
Madsen, J. H. Jr., and Welles, S. P. 2000. Ceratosaurus (Dinosauria, Theropoda) a revised osteology. Miscellaneous Publication, Utah Geological Survey, 00–2:180.Google Scholar
Maleev, E. A. 1974. Giganskei karnozavrii semeistva Tyrannosauridae. Sovmestnaia Sovetsko-Mongoliskaia Paleontologi-cheskaia Yekspeditsiia, Trudi 1:132191.Google Scholar
Molnar, R. E. 2000. Mechanical factors in the design of the skull of Tyrannosaurus rex (Osborn, 1905). Gaia 15:193218.Google Scholar
Muckenhirn, N. A., and Eisenberg, J. F. 1973. Home ranges and predation of the Ceylon leopard. Pp. 142175in Eaton, R. L., ed. The world's cats, Vol. 1. Winston Wildlife Safari, Winston, Ore.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F. 1916. Skeletal adaptations of Ornitholestes, Struthiomimus, Tyrannosaurus. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 35:733771.Google Scholar
Osmolska, H. 1996. An unusual theropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous Nemegt Formation of Mongolia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 41:138.Google Scholar
Ostrom, P. H., Macko, S. A., Engel, M. H., and Russell, D. A. 1993. Assessment of trophic structure of Cretaceous communities based on stable nitrogen isotope analysis. Geology 21:491494.Google Scholar
Palomares, F., and Caro, T. M. 1999. Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. American Naturalist 153:492508.Google Scholar
Paul, G. S. 1988. Predatory dinosaurs of the world. Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
Peczkis, J. 1994. Implications of body-mass estimates for dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14:520533.Google Scholar
Pianka, E. R. 1994. Comparative ecology of Varanus in the Great Australian Desert. Australian Journal of Ecology 19:395408.Google Scholar
Polis, G. A., and Holt, R. D. 1992. Intraguild predation: the dynamics of complex trophic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:151154.Google Scholar
Rayfield, E. J., Norman, D. B., Horner, C. C., Horner, J. R., Smith, P. M., Thomason, J. J., and Upchurch, P. 2001. Cranial design and function in a large theropod dinosaur. Nature 409:10331037.Google Scholar
Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecological Monographs 37:317350.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1969. A new specimen of Stenonychosaurus from the Oldman Formation (Cretaceous) of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 6:595612.Google Scholar
Russell, D. A. 1970. Tyrannosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of western Canada. Publications in Palaeontology, National Museum of Natural Sciences (Ottawa) 1:134.Google Scholar
Seidensticker, J. 1976. On the ecological separation between tigers and leopards. Biotropica 8:225234.Google Scholar
Seidensticker, J., Sunquist, M. E., and McDougal, C. 1990. Leopards living at the edge of Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Pp. 415423in Daniel, J. C. and Serrao, J. S., eds. Conservation in developing countries: problems and prospects. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., and Boecklen, W. 1981. Santa Rosalia reconsidered: size ratios and competition. Evolution 35:12061228.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D., and Dayan, T. 1991. The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22:115143.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution: pattern and process. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Tiffney, B. H. 1984. Seed size, dispersal syndromes, and the rise of the angiosperms: evidence and hypothesis. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71:551576.Google Scholar
Turner, C. E., and Peterson, F. 1999. Biostratigraphy of dinosaurs in the upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of the western interior, U.S.A. Pp. 77114in Gillette, D. D., ed. Vertebrate paleontology in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99–1.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1973. Body size and numbers of plants and animals. Evolution 27:2735.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1985. Locomotor diversity within past and present guilds of large predatory mammals. Paleobiology 11:406428.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1988. Trophic diversity within past and present guilds of large predatory mammals. Paleobiology 14:156173.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1989. Carnivore dental adaptations and diet: a study of trophic diversity within guilds. Pp. 410436in Gittleman, J. L., ed. Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution, Vol. I. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1991. Iterative evolution of hypercarnivory in canids (Mammalia: Canidae): evolutionary interactions among sympatric predators. Paleobiology 17:340362.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 1994. Extinction and replacement among predatory mammals in the North American Late Eocene–Oligocene: tracking a guild over twelve million years. Historical Biology 8:122.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B. 2001. The dog-eat-dog world of carnivores: a review of past and present carnivore community dynamics. Pp. 101121in Stanford, C. and Bunn, H. T., eds. Meat-eating and human evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B., and Hertel, F. 1998. The decline of North American predators during the Late Pleistocene. In Saunders, J. J., Styles, B. W., and Baryshnikov, G. F., eds. Quaternary paleozoology in the Northern Hemisphere. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 27:357374.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B., and Koepfli, K. 1993. Cranial and dental adaptations for predation in canids. In Dunstone, N. and Gorman, M. L., eds. Mammals as predators. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 65:1537. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Van Valkenburgh, B., and Ruff, C. B. 1987. Canine tooth strength and killing behaviour in large carnivores. Journal of Zoology 212:379398.Google Scholar
Weishampel, D. B. 1990. Dinosaurian distribution. Pp. 63139in Weishampel, D. B., Dodson, P. and Osmolska, H., eds. The Dinosauria. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Wing, S. L., and Tiffney, B. H. 1987. The reciprocal interaction of angiosperm evolution and tetrapod herbivory. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 50:179210.Google Scholar