|
Post by thagomizer on Sept 24, 2008 9:49:01 GMT
A lion is nothing more than an opportunist, thieving jerk. Lionesses do all the work, hyenas hunt and then lose it to big guys with cat mullets, leopards get killed by bullies after all of their hard work. Do you really want T rex associated with that? So what? So what if T. rex were "like" that? "They just do what they do." --Alan Grant All dinosaur fans completely ignore the one fictional character we should all be looking up to! Dinosaurs weren't noble. None were jerks. None were cowardly, or brave, or heroic, or selfless, or greedy. None "ruled" the others. None was better than any other, or worse. They all behaved the way they did, that's it. They just... did what they did. They're just animals, like any other. That goes doubly for lions
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 10:00:47 GMT
Agreed. All dinosaurs- and all animals for that matter are special in their own way and can't be bent or twisted into something that the public WANTS to see. So what if T-Rex was a scavenger? I am still obsessed with him! Even though I strongly believe he wasn't a scavenger, I would still hold a life long love for T-Rex if he was.Dinosaurs, are just how God(Atheists, please do not comment on this ) intended them to be and we should accept them as the way they are Sorry if that sounded a bit weird ;D
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 24, 2008 11:24:27 GMT
As for T.rex having a great sense of smell to prove the scavenger idea, well that's just silly. A highly-developed sense of smell is also very useful for detecting LIVE prey, an invaluable asset for a predator that had to lurk in wait for hours on end. If Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger, btw, why did animals of his time (Triceratopsa - Ankylosaurus) have such strong defense mechanisms? Those were just for sexual display.... BTW -- joking again!! But seriously, a lot of paleontologists do say things like that. And some (well, one of them) say T. rex was a scavenger. I'm sure they make these illogical counter-intuitive comments just to get noticed.... Of course T.rex was a predator, one of the most formidable that ever lived, and the top predator in its ecosystem ... if it wasn't then what was?? I've got more to say on this... later.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 24, 2008 13:38:16 GMT
Please don't get me started. Tyrannosaurus was NOt, I repeat NOt a scavenger. He was an oppurtunist most likely, like a lion. It has been researched and it is concluded that he most likely couldn't support his weight by just eating carcasses that he found. One major adaptation he had was excellent depth perception - meaning he could actually face his prey or adversary and attack head on. Would he really need this for scavenging? No, he'd need good olfactory cells. Which he does, but this doesn't necessarily prove scavenging, just a sharp nose for finding prey, or possibly, kills when he could find them. But he is, in no way, just a scavenger. He has too many hunting advantages too much evidence of predation, but I won't get into that right now. I'm sorry I had to sum this up into a paragraph, but I could go on and on. If you need more info on Tyrannosaurus, just pm me. I was indeed joking! There's no way T.rex was a scavenger -- well, you've seen my painting! My belief is that T.rex was a very patient ambush predator -- it HAD to rely on the element of surprise. It couldn't simply walk up to its desired prey item from a distance, although that's just what many paintings and CGI scenarios depict. That prey is gonna FLEE LIKE CRAZY unless it doesn't see Rex until it's too late. I even harbour a secret theory that rexes may have lurked near the shore in water holes, etc. I can't see any reason why not. It's not much of a secret theory, actually. For one, most predators lurk near water holes, because sooner or later their prey will come to drink, and cover tends to be higher there anyway. Second, T rex is generally found in the coastal plain region--near the western edge of the (drying up) Interior Seaway. Third, the big one in SK, Scotty, was found in backwater deposits.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 24, 2008 13:43:46 GMT
A lion is nothing more than an opportunist, thieving jerk. Lionesses do all the work, hyenas hunt and then lose it to big guys with cat mullets, leopards get killed by bullies after all of their hard work. Do you really want T rex associated with that? So what? So what if T. rex were "like" that? "They just do what they do." --Alan Grant All dinosaur fans completely ignore the one fictional character we should all be looking up to! Dinosaurs weren't noble. None were jerks. None were cowardly, or brave, or heroic, or selfless, or greedy. None "ruled" the others. None was better than any other, or worse. They all behaved the way they did, that's it. They just... did what they did. They're just animals, like any other. That goes doubly for lions Nope, sorry, lions are jerks.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 24, 2008 14:14:07 GMT
I even harbour a secret theory that rexes may have lurked near the shore in water holes, etc. I can't see any reason why not. It's not much of a secret theory, actually. For one, most predators lurk near water holes, because sooner or later their prey will come to drink, and cover tends to be higher there anyway. Second, T rex is generally found in the coastal plain region--near the western edge of the (drying up) Interior Seaway. Third, the big one in SK, Scotty, was found in backwater deposits. Sorry, I can see now that I wasn't clear .... my "secret theory" is that T.rex lurked in the water near the shore, much like a crocodile. I haven't seen this proposed elsewhere, and I think it's perfectly feasible.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 24, 2008 15:05:08 GMT
It's not much of a secret theory, actually. For one, most predators lurk near water holes, because sooner or later their prey will come to drink, and cover tends to be higher there anyway. Second, T rex is generally found in the coastal plain region--near the western edge of the (drying up) Interior Seaway. Third, the big one in SK, Scotty, was found in backwater deposits. Sorry, I can see now that I wasn't clear .... my "secret theory" is that T.rex lurked in the water near the shore, much like a crocodile. I haven't seen this proposed elsewhere, and I think it's perfectly feasible. Two problems--the splayed toes on an animal that weighed several tonnes would never support it in mud or soft sediment; second, to have a crocodilian niche would require certain adaptations for approach in the water--eyes and nostrils on the top of the head, for example. Problem is, we know from the skulls that T rex had stereovision, with the eyes set in the lateral sides of the skull, and the nostril was nowhere near the top. Further, if you are impyling that T rex would stand and lurk far out from shore, then rush in, the problem is that there is no cover in the middle of a water body, and no prey animal would stick around if they could see the predator; or the element of surprise would be lost and there'd be no point. Plus, again, the foot issue--there is no evidence of webbing or hooves. Plus, a several-tonne beast trying to run against the water would be up against some pretty rigid forces. When tigers attack in the water, they are chasing animals intothe water, that are less capable than they of supporting their weight (hooves vs paws), so it is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 18:08:28 GMT
Sorry, I can see now that I wasn't clear .... my "secret theory" is that T.rex lurked in the water near the shore, much like a crocodile. I haven't seen this proposed elsewhere, and I think it's perfectly feasible. Two problems--the splayed toes on an animal that weighed several tonnes would never support it in mud or soft sediment; second, to have a crocodilian niche would require certain adaptations for approach in the water--eyes and nostrils on the top of the head, for example. Problem is, we know from the skulls that T rex had stereovision, with the eyes set in the lateral sides of the skull, and the nostril was nowhere near the top. Further, if you are impyling that T rex would stand and lurk far out from shore, then rush in, the problem is that there is no cover in the middle of a water body, and no prey animal would stick around if they could see the predator; or the element of surprise would be lost and there'd be no point. Plus, again, the foot issue--there is no evidence of webbing or hooves. Plus, a several-tonne beast trying to run against the water would be up against some pretty rigid forces. When tigers attack in the water, they are chasing animals intothe water, that are less capable than they of supporting their weight (hooves vs paws), so it is reasonable. I'm afraid sbell is right. Tyrannosaurus didn't have ANY adaptation that leads us to believe he stalked his prey in the water - Brachiosaurus has nostrils on top of his head, but now scientists believe this allowed him to eat and breathe at the same time, not breathe while underwater....Also Tyrannosaurus's tail vertebrae weren't very large (Just..normal for a large theropod) - we see this in crocodiles, they have large tails allowing themselves to move quickly through the water. However, splayed toes would have, if anything, helped Tyrannosaurus walk on mud because it evens out the weight. But being so heavy, its a bit risky. He also had great depth perception - this is better for chasing prey or fighting opponents, not stalking in water.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 24, 2008 18:22:34 GMT
Two problems--the splayed toes on an animal that weighed several tonnes would never support it in mud or soft sediment; second, to have a crocodilian niche would require certain adaptations for approach in the water--eyes and nostrils on the top of the head, for example. Problem is, we know from the skulls that T rex had stereovision, with the eyes set in the lateral sides of the skull, and the nostril was nowhere near the top. Further, if you are impyling that T rex would stand and lurk far out from shore, then rush in, the problem is that there is no cover in the middle of a water body, and no prey animal would stick around if they could see the predator; or the element of surprise would be lost and there'd be no point. Plus, again, the foot issue--there is no evidence of webbing or hooves. Plus, a several-tonne beast trying to run against the water would be up against some pretty rigid forces. When tigers attack in the water, they are chasing animals intothe water, that are less capable than they of supporting their weight (hooves vs paws), so it is reasonable. I'm afraid sbell is right. Tyrannosaurus didn't have ANY adaptation that leads us to believe he stalked his prey in the water - Brachiosaurus has nostrils on top of his head, but now scientists believe this allowed him to eat and breathe at the same time, not breathe while underwater....Also Tyrannosaurus's tail vertebrae weren't very large (Just..normal for a large theropod) - we see this in crocodiles, they have large tails allowing themselves to move quickly through the water. However, splayed toes would have, if anything, helped Tyrannosaurus walk on mud because it evens out the weight. But being so heavy, its a bit risky. He also had great depth perception - this is better for chasing prey or fighting opponents, not stalking in water. Splayed toes may help in mud--but narrow, splayed toes will not work. This is true of wet sediment (hippo feet) or very dry (camel toes) or snow (snowshoe rabbits, lynx). In every case, these animals have toes and feet that are expanded out quite a bit, to provide a wide surface to prevent sinking. A rex foot has three long, narrow toes, each of which would individually sink under the extreme weight above it--the foot, because there is no pad or hoof, has to be considered as three separate sources of downward force. Some three-toed birds may walk on mud, but they weigh, at best, a few pounds.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 18:57:22 GMT
He had narrow bones, yes, but doesn't a cat? Dosen't a bird? Point is, those narrow bones were covered with flesh allowing his weight to be distributed better than, say a triceratops, or hadrosaur.
I agree with you on the weight problem, he'd be too heavy to get far, but, his weight was splayed out. Being so heavy, i'm sure it didn't matter much like it would with, say a 3-4 ton predator such as Allosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by itstwentybelow on Sept 24, 2008 19:24:05 GMT
You guys have REALLY derailed this thread. What does any of this rex discussion have to do with the topic?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 19:30:45 GMT
T-Rex is very interesting, thats why we derail ;D
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 24, 2008 22:41:57 GMT
He had narrow bones, yes, but doesn't a cat? Dosen't a bird? Point is, those narrow bones were covered with flesh allowing his weight to be distributed better than, say a triceratops, or hadrosaur. I agree with you on the weight problem, he'd be too heavy to get far, but, his weight was splayed out. Being so heavy, i'm sure it didn't matter much like it would with, say a 3-4 ton predator such as Allosaurus. No no no no no. A hadrosaur had hoof-ish toes, ergo the individual toes had far more surface area to them; likewise a Triceratops foot. And have you ever seen a non-lynx cat go through snow? It doesn't very well, because the lack of surface area causes the force of the body's mass to focus too narrowly against the substrate. Likewise, I would imagine, with a rex toe. Each one is long, narrow, and supporting several tons. While the foot could slog through some mud, of course, it would not be that efficient for moving over a river/pond bed. And weight is entirely the issue--the higher the mass, the higher the downward force due to gravity (the actual measure of weight); the narrower the surfaces against a substrate, the more likely they are to push through due to those forces. Ergo, a T rex would sink in more viscous materials than an Allosaurus because the higher mass would increase the downward force, causing greater likelihood of sinking. And based on Morrison Fm. predator traps, we know that it didn't take much for an allosaur to become mired.
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 24, 2008 22:45:12 GMT
I appreciate the very well-reasoned comments here .... and I've modified the name of this thread to accommodate the derailment.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 22:48:14 GMT
He had narrow bones, yes, but doesn't a cat? Dosen't a bird? Point is, those narrow bones were covered with flesh allowing his weight to be distributed better than, say a triceratops, or hadrosaur. I agree with you on the weight problem, he'd be too heavy to get far, but, his weight was splayed out. Being so heavy, i'm sure it didn't matter much like it would with, say a 3-4 ton predator such as Allosaurus. No no no no no. A hadrosaur had hoof-ish toes, ergo the individual toes had far more surface area to them; likewise a Triceratops foot. And have you ever seen a non-lynx cat go through snow? It doesn't very well, because the lack of surface area causes the force of the body's mass to focus too narrowly against the substrate. Likewise, I would imagine, with a rex toe. Each one is long, narrow, and supporting several tons. While the foot could slog through some mud, of course, it would not be that efficient for moving over a river/pond bed. And weight is entirely the issue--the higher the mass, the higher the downward force due to gravity (the actual measure of weight); the narrower the surfaces against a substrate, the more likely they are to push through due to those forces. Ergo, a T rex would sink in more viscous materials than an Allosaurus because the higher mass would increase the downward force, causing greater likelihood of sinking. And based on Morrison Fm. predator traps, we know that it didn't take much for an allosaur to become mired. Triceratops had a very circular foot (very small toes/wouldn't have helped him much) and its weight would have been pushed straight down. But considering he walked on 4 legs, his weight was evened out. Exactly, Tyrannosaurus WOULD have his weight spread out, but he'd still be much too heavy to make it useful. Especially since he's bipedal. I understand weight is the entire issue, that's what I'm saying. Try this- go out onto thick snow. If you sink in, use swim flippers and walk on your toes. The flippers even your weight out, just as Tyrannosaurs toes did for him .He, however, weighed 7 tons, way too much for him to get far even if he did have his weight splayed out..... Point is, just like a bird his weight wasn't entirely pressed down onto a foot - is was pressed down onto a foot AND 6 large toes. Are you proposing that a triceratops would get farther than a Tyrannosaurus if it walked into thick mud? Let me remind you that Triceratops weighed, in some cases, 11 tons, and did NOT have the advantage Tyrannosaurus did.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 24, 2008 22:55:38 GMT
;D T-Rex speed has been estimated at anywhere from 5-45 MPH. Jack Horner in 1993 said he could only run about 10 mph. This was about the same time that Jurrassic Park came out. His weight has been estimated at anywhere from 5 to 8 tons. At any rate his weight is close to that of an African Elephant which can run at 25 mph. The average person (healthy I assume) can run at almost 18MPH. It was certainly much faster then any armored dinosaur.The armored dinosaurs weren't afraid of T-rex as they had armor to fight off the large mosquitos of the time. J/K T-Rex did have binocular vision which is suppose to be better then that of Modern Hawks. Binocular vision is only found in modern predators with the exception of some Primates. There are T-Rex tooth marks on some of the dinosaurs living at the same time as T-Rex that healed. T-Rex was a hunter and a scavenger. My complaint is I don't understand how T-Rex doesn't have to be called Manospondylus gigas, but Brontosaurus has to be called Apatosaurus. ;D He
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 22:59:28 GMT
An elephant can run 25, but a T-rex with hollow bones can only run 10. That make sense ;D lol He was a true hunter, his anatomy, all of it, had advantages that say "I'm a super predator, yes" A truly incredible work of nature
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 24, 2008 23:07:20 GMT
;D Tyrannax T-Rex didn't have flippers. If he did it would have been for a water adaption. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 24, 2008 23:30:27 GMT
I knew you would say that stoneage! It's an example, not a serious experiment. Just to make stoneage happy, cut the flippers so it looks like 3 toes. ;D
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 24, 2008 23:37:43 GMT
If Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger, btw, why did animals of his time (Triceratopsa - Ankylosaurus) have such strong defense mechanisms? The theory is now that they were for sexual display, like ( Hey dude, my horns are bigger then yours, so I get to mate with your girlfriend, and if you don't let me, I'm gonna gore you" . Look at einiosaurus: Doesn't look very efficient for keeping predators away, hmm?
|
|