Journal article Open Access

Dinosaurian and mammalian predators compared

Van Valkenburgh, Blaire; Molnar, Ralph E.

DCAT Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="" xmlns:adms="" xmlns:cnt="" xmlns:dc="" xmlns:dct="" xmlns:dctype="" xmlns:dcat="" xmlns:duv="" xmlns:foaf="" xmlns:frapo="" xmlns:geo="" xmlns:gsp="" xmlns:locn="" xmlns:org="" xmlns:owl="" xmlns:prov="" xmlns:rdfs="" xmlns:schema="" xmlns:skos="" xmlns:vcard="" xmlns:wdrs="">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:type rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:identifier rdf:datatype=""></dct:identifier>
    <foaf:page rdf:resource=""/>
        <rdf:type rdf:resource=""/>
        <foaf:name>Van Valkenburgh, Blaire</foaf:name>
        <foaf:familyName>Van Valkenburgh</foaf:familyName>
        <rdf:type rdf:resource=""/>
        <foaf:name>Molnar, Ralph E.</foaf:name>
        <foaf:givenName>Ralph E.</foaf:givenName>
    <dct:title>Dinosaurian and mammalian predators compared</dct:title>
    <dct:issued rdf:datatype="">2002</dct:issued>
    <dct:issued rdf:datatype="">2002-12-01</dct:issued>
    <owl:sameAs rdf:resource=""/>
        <skos:notation rdf:datatype=""></skos:notation>
    <owl:sameAs rdf:resource=";0527:dampc&gt;;2"/>
    <dct:description>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 an- cestry. Nevertheless, some of the same processes that shape mammalian predators and their com- munities 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 ap- pear 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 propor- tions, 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.</dct:description>
    <dct:accessRights rdf:resource=""/>
      <dct:RightsStatement rdf:about="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">
        <rdfs:label>Open Access</rdfs:label>
        <dcat:accessURL rdf:resource=""/>
Views 422
Downloads 128
Data volume 35.0 MB
Unique views 402
Unique downloads 126


Cite as