Many prey animals do successfully pretend to be dead in order to escape. Only when they run the hunt goes on – unless the predator gets a clue. Especially snakes are said to only notice movement; when feeding pet snakes the owners usually need to move the food.
In other words: Existing animals do prove that it happens.
It’s a problem of efficiency: you (or I) are also predators and have much more difficulty in discerning stuff that is static from the background. Our sight is always limited necessarily (only the central part has actually good resolution) and our brain automatically fills in the blanks for efficiency. That’s why “freeze or run” is the usual panic reaction and why “freezing” works so well and so many prey have avoided to become prey through the ages that way and lived another day to maybe have babies that would transmit such efficient “freeze” genes (instructions) to the future generations, including us (we may be predators often but we can also become prey if careless).
In the book, T-Rex vision was based on movement because they filled in gaps with frog DNA, and frogs identify prey by how it moves. In the movie they kept the vision-based-on-movement part but ash-canned the explanation. I mean, how could you tell an animal’s vision is based on movement from fossilized bones?
As Maju said, it isn’t necessarily just about movement on its own, since prey can also be camouflaged or concealed. A predator searching from a distance might easily see a target sitting out in the open, but find that same target nearly invisible if it sits still so that it blends into nearby cover.
But avoiding an immediate attack based on sight won’t stop a predator using its other senses like smell to search more slowly. Hiding prey is gambling on being missed by that or getting a better opening to escape before it’s found.
I would also add that a already dead prey might be an indicator of disease ravaged. Eating diseased prey would be harmful unless the predator has a digestive system built to benefit from the disease (vitamins and minerals from bacteria and fungi).
It definitely has feathers, the question is mow many and at what age because we didn’t find many good fossils to answer that. Tiny t benefits much from feathers, big T will likely benefit from bare skin.
I might remember small rex to be found with many feathers and big REX to be found with pathces of bare skin.
It doesn’t even have to be consistent. You could easily have had the tyrannosaurus population in one area covered in feathers that its cousins elsewhere didn’t need.
They were around for more than long enough to diversify.
Maybe, still, feels like current theory, seeing as how we went years without thinking it and years of a dinosaur being real (Brontosaurus) then not being real, then being real again.
However, still, the answer of a time line without feathers seems to be plausible :p
Crichton kind of dodges that, by having Wu complain to Hammond, that what they are making aren’t even dinosaurs, but only what the public expect dinosaurs to look like
Hmm, I was thinking of real dinosaurs as understood by science (is that biopaleontology or just paleontology/biology?), not in Jurassic Park tropes. I may be the less “cultural nerd” around here bc I’ve only watched the first JP movie… and only when it was broadcasted on TV.
That’s what I was thinking. I could swear the movies even mentioned how that was wrong (couldn’t remember if the second book did, been forever since I read it).
The second book has a scene where Dodgeson and his henchmen break into the Tyrannosaur nest, get caught red-handed by a parent, Dodgeson tells the henchmen to stay still and suddenly one of the henchmen only has his feet left.
Grant knew that FROGS have terrible sight up close and are super sensitive to movement.
I can’t remember if he got a clue or if it was a complete gamble, but it worked and laid the ground for the theory of how they where breeding.
“Most paleontologists accept that Tyrannosaurus was both an active predator and a scavenger like most large carnivores.” (Wikipedia Feeding_behaviour_of_Tyrannosaurus#Scavenging)
Should it be standing downright? That would be… erm… terribly inefficient.
If you mean looking like a kangaroo, then that’s rather from the first half of the 20th century, even 19th century. In the late 20th century most was already right… except the feathers (and apparently vision misconceptions, what I did not know because I never paid much attention to Jurassic Park anyhow).
1 2 3 4
I declare a dino war!
John Hammond: “Ok, who’s hungry?”
T-Rex: “ROAAAAAAR!”
I mean, how could a predator evolve to not see prey that isn’t moving?
Tbf, what prey Wouldn’t run from a T-Rex?
Many prey animals do successfully pretend to be dead in order to escape. Only when they run the hunt goes on – unless the predator gets a clue. Especially snakes are said to only notice movement; when feeding pet snakes the owners usually need to move the food.
In other words: Existing animals do prove that it happens.
It’s a problem of efficiency: you (or I) are also predators and have much more difficulty in discerning stuff that is static from the background. Our sight is always limited necessarily (only the central part has actually good resolution) and our brain automatically fills in the blanks for efficiency. That’s why “freeze or run” is the usual panic reaction and why “freezing” works so well and so many prey have avoided to become prey through the ages that way and lived another day to maybe have babies that would transmit such efficient “freeze” genes (instructions) to the future generations, including us (we may be predators often but we can also become prey if careless).
In the book, T-Rex vision was based on movement because they filled in gaps with frog DNA, and frogs identify prey by how it moves. In the movie they kept the vision-based-on-movement part but ash-canned the explanation. I mean, how could you tell an animal’s vision is based on movement from fossilized bones?
As Maju said, it isn’t necessarily just about movement on its own, since prey can also be camouflaged or concealed. A predator searching from a distance might easily see a target sitting out in the open, but find that same target nearly invisible if it sits still so that it blends into nearby cover.
But avoiding an immediate attack based on sight won’t stop a predator using its other senses like smell to search more slowly. Hiding prey is gambling on being missed by that or getting a better opening to escape before it’s found.
I would also add that a already dead prey might be an indicator of disease ravaged. Eating diseased prey would be harmful unless the predator has a digestive system built to benefit from the disease (vitamins and minerals from bacteria and fungi).
… especially now that T-Rex has been acknowledged to have an IQ worth comparing with baboons… apparently.
Shouldn’t have feathers?
Isn’t the feathers just their current theory?
Also, she could’ve grabbed that T-Rex from a time line where they don’t have feathers. :p
Or see their prey not moving :)
It definitely has feathers, the question is mow many and at what age because we didn’t find many good fossils to answer that. Tiny t benefits much from feathers, big T will likely benefit from bare skin.
I might remember small rex to be found with many feathers and big REX to be found with pathces of bare skin.
It doesn’t even have to be consistent. You could easily have had the tyrannosaurus population in one area covered in feathers that its cousins elsewhere didn’t need.
They were around for more than long enough to diversify.
Maybe, still, feels like current theory, seeing as how we went years without thinking it and years of a dinosaur being real (Brontosaurus) then not being real, then being real again.
However, still, the answer of a time line without feathers seems to be plausible :p
Crichton kind of dodges that, by having Wu complain to Hammond, that what they are making aren’t even dinosaurs, but only what the public expect dinosaurs to look like
Hmm, I was thinking of real dinosaurs as understood by science (is that biopaleontology or just paleontology/biology?), not in Jurassic Park tropes. I may be the less “cultural nerd” around here bc I’ve only watched the first JP movie… and only when it was broadcasted on TV.
That’s probably a reason why I miss some jokes.
Well Jurassic Park is based on over three decades old information and the second book already makes it clear that it was outdated.
That’s what I was thinking. I could swear the movies even mentioned how that was wrong (couldn’t remember if the second book did, been forever since I read it).
The second book has a scene where Dodgeson and his henchmen break into the Tyrannosaur nest, get caught red-handed by a parent, Dodgeson tells the henchmen to stay still and suddenly one of the henchmen only has his feet left.
To be fair the book explains it better.
Grant knew that FROGS have terrible sight up close and are super sensitive to movement.
I can’t remember if he got a clue or if it was a complete gamble, but it worked and laid the ground for the theory of how they where breeding.
“Most paleontologists accept that Tyrannosaurus was both an active predator and a scavenger like most large carnivores.” (Wikipedia Feeding_behaviour_of_Tyrannosaurus#Scavenging)
Standing still won’t help against scavengers
No carnivore is 100% a predator or a scavenger, TBF.
That T Rex is pretty period-accurate, though.
No feathers, and standing upright – both still widely accepted in the ’80s/’90s.
Should it be standing downright? That would be… erm… terribly inefficient.
If you mean looking like a kangaroo, then that’s rather from the first half of the 20th century, even 19th century. In the late 20th century most was already right… except the feathers (and apparently vision misconceptions, what I did not know because I never paid much attention to Jurassic Park anyhow).