|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 26, 2008 2:01:30 GMT
As with every other horned animal, the horns evolved for defense and attack and secondarily came to be objects of sexual display. Likewise for muscles; females are attracted to masculine features... (I'm off to the gym.  ) The theory I heard about was different species of ceratopsians would know the difference between species, and thus not mate with other species. I wonder if I could have fit one more "species" in there... ;D I read once that there were supposedly 15 species of Triceratops alone... it gets ridiculous; every time something is found, it's a new species instead of just another slightly different-looking member of a known species. When the skeletons today's humans are discovered in millions of years time, they'll probably look like hundreds of different species...! I think that many of the ceratopsians were the same species, or at least a lot of interbreeding went on among them, given the broad range of close variation. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 26, 2008 2:43:42 GMT
What I'm trying to argue is that, while yes the toes are designed to spread, and thus distribute the weight more evenly, they are simply not thick or large enough to properly distribute the weight in a very soft sediment like mud or silts. Or snow (which was only given as a sediment that requires a lot of surface area to support a small amount of mass, just like muds and clays). Therefore, this is one more line of negative evidence for T rex being a predator that lurked within a pond and then attacked toward the shore. That's all. Thats what I meant too. We just didn't understand each other  And no, I didn't write an article on T-Rex suggesting he used his tail as a weapon.....what do you mean it sounded like me? lol ;D Sid, you're theory is also what I believe- Tyrannosaurus's "pack" was actually it's family .... I don't believe T-Rex stumbled along, looking for a pack such as Deinonychus did. I believe from the time a Rex was born, he hunted with his parents and siblings. I also believe Tyrannosaurs could live alone successfully. I do not believe a large pack was needed. I mean, he was the largest predator of his time, he didn't have any need for a massive pack. Its uneccessary. I understand Allosaurus may have hunted in packs because their were much larger herbivores (Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus), but during Tyrannosaur's time and general area...there weren't many large herbivores that required much help... ;D Where did you get the idea that Deinonychus stumbled around looking for a pack and T-Rex didn't. Whats your evidence? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 26, 2008 3:03:23 GMT
;D Ceratopsians front legs weren't mean"t for running, they were made for moving side to side. In other words keeping their heads between them and the predator. I suspect they did this in groups when possible. Yes their head dress was also probably used for sexual display. I never said they would be running. What you said was " (Einiosaurus Horns) It doesn't look very efficient for keeping predators away hmm. " I took this to mean that you did'nt think their horns were effective for self defense. The only other logical defense would be to run. Since you didn't readily say thats not what you meant till days later, I assumed thats what you meant. So do you agree with me or do you have some other point which you'd like to make. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 26, 2008 3:15:34 GMT
And another thing, Trex never walked in snow! Can you show me the research that said that? ;D T-Rex lived in a sub-tropical climate with crocodylians. See Hell Creek Formation-Wikipedia. Can you show me research that showed T-Rex walked in snow? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 26, 2008 4:34:22 GMT
Can you show me the research that said that? ;D T-Rex lived in a sub-tropical climate with crocodylians. See Hell Creek Formation-Wikipedia. Can you show me research that showed T-Rex walked in snow? ;D Can you show me where someone here said that? I brought up snow as an analogue for an example (snow shoe hares and lynx move more easily over a soft sediment because of the wide paws/feet relative to body mass) but I did not (mean to) imply that T rex walked over snow. Sorry for the confusion. And now for something completely different .. On the topic of making real dinos, almost every day at my Centre I am asked the question almost every day--can we clone dinos, bring them back, etc. I always answer with the pretty curt "No." And for this, I curse Spielberg, and Crichton, and all of those that the latter borrowed/stole/took inspiration from that came earlier, especially the far underrated "Billy and the Cloneasaurus". Okay, a reference to Simpsons and to Monty Python. I could try to get Star Wars in there, and feel complete. Then again, do or do not, there is no try... |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Sept 26, 2008 4:36:45 GMT
Billy and the Cloneasaurus!  In Spanish, they translated it as 'Juanito y los Clonosaurios' which is just as funny  I truly hope one day we will be able to visit the past, there are so many things I would like to see, and not only prehistorical things. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 26, 2008 8:44:57 GMT
Billy and the Cloneasaurus! I truly hope one day we will be able to visit the past, there are so many things I would like to see, and not only prehistorical things. Travelling back to the past...Sigh,that would be a truly amazing experience But,hey...There would be always the risk to alter the time-space continuum or some other nuts like that (remember Ray Bradbury's "Sound of Thunder"?)  |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 26, 2008 8:54:32 GMT
Thats what I meant too. We just didn't understand each other And no, I didn't write an article on T-Rex suggesting he used his tail as a weapon.....what do you mean it sounded like me? lol ;D Sid, you're theory is also what I believe- Tyrannosaurus's "pack" was actually it's family .... I don't believe T-Rex stumbled along, looking for a pack such as Deinonychus did. I believe from the time a Rex was born, he hunted with his parents and siblings. I also believe Tyrannosaurs could live alone successfully. I do not believe a large pack was needed. I mean, he was the largest predator of his time, he didn't have any need for a massive pack. Its uneccessary. I understand Allosaurus may have hunted in packs because their were much larger herbivores (Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus), but during Tyrannosaur's time and general area...there weren't many large herbivores that required much help... ;D Where did you get the idea that Deinonychus stumbled around looking for a pack and T-Rex didn't. Whats your evidence? ;D Well, first off I said I "believe T-Rex didn't do this, and furthermore there have been tons of deinonychus species that have been found together in the same place at the same time. This means they were pack hunters and brought down prey by using numbers.....how else did an animal join a pack if he didn't find one? Did they magically become a member? I don't think so. ;D UNLESS! The deinonychus pack was also a large family.....  To clear up things- T-Rex didn't walk in snow....he walked on either damp marshy earth, dry grassy plains, or ash buildup near volcanoes, but...no evidence of snow. Yes, his feet did even out his weight, but in the case of walking across muddy riverbanks or sneaking up on prey, it wasn't very affective do to his size. Ceratopsian horns were never useless. They could all be either used to ram an animal, or impale one. They could also be used for attracting mates. Too many things going on at once...had to clear some of that up lol ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 26, 2008 9:01:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 26, 2008 9:49:37 GMT
OMG Jack Horner just got OWNED. That article was very interesting. It summed up just about every kind of argument that I have stressed to people that my relative knows. (His friends agree with jack horner because he is the "dinosaur lord" ) However, the article is missing one....the argument that Tyrannosaurus' teeth were too cone shaped to have been for predation. Horner tells us that razor-like teeth were most effective for hunting. This is a load of bologna. Tyrannosaurus' circular teeth were extremely effective, this is because of his massive size and bite force. They were bone crushing weapons, not slicing weapons. Not only did they crush bone, but they also were filled with bacteria. His teeth were biological weapons! Because they were serrated, they held bacteria that could cause infection and kill an animal. We see this in modern day komodo dragons. They have saliva FILLED with bacteria that potentially poisons animals. It usually kills them within 24-48 hours. I won't get in to any more of this. Rather, I'm going to write my own article on Tyrannosaurus Rex. What is more effective against braking a bony frill of a Triceratops? Thin flesh-slicing teeth, or huge, thick bone crushing teeth? You tell me. |
|
|
|
Post by kustom65 on Sept 26, 2008 10:04:23 GMT
Googling T.rex as scavenger, I couldn't find anyone besides Doc Horner who seriously thinks Rex couldn't have been a predator... although I have met someone who believes it, and she's a dino professional. I'm going to give her a printout of Gavin Rymill's excellent refutation.
Tyrannax, I agree with your bacteria-saliva theory; Komodo dragons have that ghastly attribute, of course. I just bought a book on them today and I look forward to perusing it tonight when the household is good and quiet!
I look forward to seeing your article, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 26, 2008 13:12:40 GMT
Billy and the Cloneasaurus! I truly hope one day we will be able to visit the past, there are so many things I would like to see, and not only prehistorical things. Travelling back to the past...Sigh,that would be a truly amazing experience But,hey...There would be always the risk to alter the time-space continuum or some other nuts like that (remember Ray Bradbury's "Sound of Thunder"?) Unless it's a Star Trek universe--it doesn't seem to matter much then. And while I try to remember RB's story, it is more important to forget the recent movie. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Sept 26, 2008 13:19:22 GMT
OMG Jack Horner just got OWNED. That article was very interesting. It summed up just about every kind of argument that I have stressed to people that my relative knows. (His friends agree with jack horner because he is the "dinosaur lord" ) However, the article is missing one....the argument that Tyrannosaurus' teeth were too cone shaped to have been for predation. Horner tells us that razor-like teeth were most effective for hunting. This is a load of bologna. Tyrannosaurus' circular teeth were extremely effective, this is because of his massive size and bite force. They were bone crushing weapons, not slicing weapons. Not only did they crush bone, but they also were filled with bacteria. His teeth were biological weapons! Because they were serrated, they held bacteria that could cause infection and kill an animal. We see this in modern day komodo dragons. They have saliva FILLED with bacteria that potentially poisons animals. It usually kills them within 24-48 hours. I won't get in to any more of this. Rather, I'm going to write my own article on Tyrannosaurus Rex. What is more effective against braking a bony frill of a Triceratops? Thin flesh-slicing teeth, or huge, thick bone crushing teeth? You tell me. Two other things--why can't heavy, crushing teeth be predatory? Wolverines and hyenas do a pretty good job of hunting. It's more about catch and subdue anyway, and big heavy teeth just might (note--sarcastic edge to voice, with eye-rolling) be handy for catching or killing something. Second, while the bacteria thing is interesting, it must be remembered that Komodos, like all monitors, iguanas, and snakes have a form of venom in their saliva (I brought it up elsewhere here--and mused about venomous mosasaurs, since the common ancestor is somewhere in those groups). So the recent finding is that while septicemia may play a factor, the venom is probably more important anyway. Of course, there is also a matter of scale--even a T rex nip would cause some pretty hefty damage and blood loss, and likely shock. These together would probably be more than sufficient without waiting the potential days that it would take a bacterial infection to take hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Sept 26, 2008 16:13:50 GMT
OMG Jack Horner just got OWNED. That article was very interesting. It summed up just about every kind of argument that I have stressed to people that my relative knows. (His friends agree with jack horner because he is the "dinosaur lord" ) However, the article is missing one....the argument that Tyrannosaurus' teeth were too cone shaped to have been for predation. Horner tells us that razor-like teeth were most effective for hunting. This is a load of bologna. Tyrannosaurus' circular teeth were extremely effective, this is because of his massive size and bite force. They were bone crushing weapons, not slicing weapons. Not only did they crush bone, but they also were filled with bacteria. His teeth were biological weapons! Because they were serrated, they held bacteria that could cause infection and kill an animal. We see this in modern day komodo dragons. They have saliva FILLED with bacteria that potentially poisons animals. It usually kills them within 24-48 hours. I won't get in to any more of this. Rather, I'm going to write my own article on Tyrannosaurus Rex. What is more effective against braking a bony frill of a Triceratops? Thin flesh-slicing teeth, or huge, thick bone crushing teeth? You tell me. Two other things--why can't heavy, crushing teeth be predatory? Wolverines and hyenas do a pretty good job of hunting. It's more about catch and subdue anyway, and big heavy teeth just might (note--sarcastic edge to voice, with eye-rolling) be handy for catching or killing something. Second, while the bacteria thing is interesting, it must be remembered that Komodos, like all monitors, iguanas, and snakes have a form of venom in their saliva (I brought it up elsewhere here--and mused about venomous mosasaurs, since the common ancestor is somewhere in those groups). So the recent finding is that while septicemia may play a factor, the venom is probably more important anyway. Of course, there is also a matter of scale--even a T rex nip would cause some pretty hefty damage and blood loss, and likely shock. These together would probably be more than sufficient without waiting the potential days that it would take a bacterial infection to take hold. True! This tells us that T-Rex had an advantage that he didn't always need. I mean, seriously, if Rex got close enough to his prey to bite them with 20,000 lbs of force, why would he need the bacteria anyway? Maybe this was more of an attribute for sub adults, who couldn't alwys crush the competitors.  Or,maybe Tyrannosaurus used bacteria to take down strongly armored animals such as ankylosaurus or triceratops without having to attack over and over again...just let the infection do its course. Maybe this is why sometimes we find only one bite mark on Triceratops? Note: "Sometimes" |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2008 21:26:58 GMT
Can you show me the research that said that? ;D T-Rex lived in a sub-tropical climate with crocodylians. See Hell Creek Formation-Wikipedia. Can you show me research that showed T-Rex walked in snow? ;D So you are saying it would be impossible for it to go up a mountain to where is is coler and there may have been snow? ;D This thread is so de-railed right now... |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 26, 2008 23:04:27 GMT
;D T-Rex lived in a sub-tropical climate with crocodylians. See Hell Creek Formation-Wikipedia. Can you show me research that showed T-Rex walked in snow? ;D So you are saying it would be impossible for it to go up a mountain to where is is coler and there may have been snow? ;D This thread is so de-railed right now... No it was to big to climb mountains and had no physical adaptations for it. Mountain climbing animals usually have 4 legs like mountain goats. This would help with balance. Of course if he had wings he could fly up the mountain. |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2008 23:14:34 GMT
So you are saying it would be impossible for it to go up a mountain to where is is coler and there may have been snow? ;D This thread is so de-railed right now... No it was to big to climb mountains and had no physical adaptations for it. Mountain climbing animals usually have 4 legs like mountain goats. This would help with balance. Of course if he had wings he could fly up the mountain. I don't mean like vertical slopes, but gradually going up the mountain. Understand? I am having trouble explaining it |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 26, 2008 23:24:04 GMT
;D I disagree with several things here. Triceratops and other animals have been found that have survived T-Rex bites. Yes it may have lead to infection but it doesn't look like it was deadly poisoness. I also don't believe R'Rex could heave himself off the ground with his tiny arms, not only was he way to heavy but his arms were to short to get any lift. I don't believe T-Rex could easily run 25 MPH. The best study I've seen suggested 18 MPH. Personally I think 18-24MPH would be a good figure. I'd like to know which muscle in a crocodile tail is similar to a T-Rex tail and how his tiny arms are going to launch him forward. What makes him think T-Rex arms were so powerful? While I agree with the conclusion that T-Rex is a predator I feel the article is filled with inconclusive assumptions. Also Tyrannax I feel you are too biased about T-Rex to be totally objective. I'm certainly no expert but I think you need to study more of the T-Rex information that is out there. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Sept 26, 2008 23:36:35 GMT
No it was to big to climb mountains and had no physical adaptations for it. Mountain climbing animals usually have 4 legs like mountain goats. This would help with balance. Of course if he had wings he could fly up the mountain. I don't mean like vertical slopes, but gradually going up the mountain. Understand? I am having trouble explaining it ;D If theres snow in a sub-tropical climate the mountain would have to be very big. I don't think T-Rex could climb it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Sept 26, 2008 23:36:42 GMT
^ Trex could curl a 100 pound weight with one arm.
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
)
