[001]
albertonykus
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The claw in Talos wasn\'t \
to:
The claw in \\\'\\\'Talos\\\'\\\' wasn\\\'t \\\"broken in half\\\". It was the toe itself that was injured, not the claw. In any case, it could have resulted from any number of things. Misaimed kick to the ground? Defense? If broken by prey, the prey doesn\\\'t have to be the size of a hadrosaur. Probably something like a smaller ornithopod could have injured the toe as well. The injury only shows that deinonychosaurs used their killing claws as weapons, it says nothing about attacking huge prey, and the authors claim no such thing.
I have not heard about the group of \\\'\\\'Troodon\\\'\\\' preserved with \\\'\\\'Maiasaura\\\'\\\'. Source please. Not to mention that even the (more famous and numerous) \\\'\\\'Deinonychus\\\'\\\'-\\\'\\\'Tenontosaurus\\\'\\\' sites are equivocal, so such a conclusion is not necessarily watertight.
Regardless of exactly how \\\"intelligent\\\" deinonychosaurs were (which isn\\\'t entirely measurable to begin with), I do not know of any studies showing that they could have been as intelligent as the most intelligent birds today (and this wouldn\\\'t be the first time a general audience dinosaur book made up or exaggerated such factoids). I do not see anything equivocal in the current wording of the article. As far as I know, no professionals would disagree with the notion that the most intelligent living birds are more intelligent than deinonychosaurs were. The point about dinosauroids still stands as well.
I have not heard about the group of \\\'\\\'Troodon\\\'\\\' preserved with \\\'\\\'Maiasaura\\\'\\\'. Source please. Not to mention that even the (more famous and numerous) \\\'\\\'Deinonychus\\\'\\\'-\\\'\\\'Tenontosaurus\\\'\\\' sites are equivocal, so such a conclusion is not necessarily watertight.
Regardless of exactly how \\\"intelligent\\\" deinonychosaurs were (which isn\\\'t entirely measurable to begin with), I do not know of any studies showing that they could have been as intelligent as the most intelligent birds today (and this wouldn\\\'t be the first time a general audience dinosaur book made up or exaggerated such factoids). I do not see anything equivocal in the current wording of the article. As far as I know, no professionals would disagree with the notion that the most intelligent living birds are more intelligent than deinonychosaurs were. The point about dinosauroids still stands as well.
