Search the Community

Herbivore dinosaurs are every bit as interesting as the big, scary monsters that were preying on them. While herbivores may have been the more peaceful kind, their variety is what makes them so fascinating - Stegosaurs with large plates on their backs and spiked tails, Ceratopsians with their horns and bony frills, or Ankylosaurs with their impressive armour. It must have all been for defense, right? Perhaps not. Many scientists now believe that those structures (well, aside from Ankylosaur's thick armour perhaps) have been used primarily as means of display or intimidation. for example, Triceratops mainly used his large frill to attract a mate, possibly with flashy colors, and used its horns in duels with members of its own species. Apparently fighting off a predator was not an option, since the horns were located on its head, creating a possibly dangerous situation, when a mortally injured T. rex could have fallen on the Triceratops, crushing its head in the process, killing them both. But is this really possible? I mean, in modern times buffalos certainly use their horns against their lion attackers if neccessary. That may not be the primary reason for their horns to evolve, but the fact is that they do use their horns, and can inflict serious injuries to their attackers. We can observe this. Besides, is there any better place to have a weapon as dangerous as the horns of a Triceratops? By having them right above your eyes you can always see your enemy and strike precisely where you want. In my opinion this is not a flaw, but an advantage. Also, did Pachys really use their thick skull domes only for display? According to J. Horner the dome of Pachycephalosaurus consisted of bone that was not designed to do the job of head-butting and the animal would risk serious injuries doing so. But in modern times other head-butting animals also risk serious injuries, yet they still behave this way. Your thoughts on these theories?