|
Post by Super Communist on Jun 13, 2012 10:06:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jun 13, 2012 21:57:23 GMT -5
Actually no. Looks like Jack Horner still hasn't relinquished his old habits. Ugh, maybe he is something of a crackhead after all. web.me.com/dinoruss/jdp/trex/hunting.htm^Thomas Holtz notes that Tyrannosaurus likely ran its prey down. news.discovery.com/animals/t-rex-tail-built-for-speed.htmlAnd no, it wasn't slow either. Please don't use the scavenger argument, it's been disproved a hundred times over. www.redorbit.com/news/science/1985428/study_disputes_claims_that_t_rex_was_a_scavenger/Sidestepping is different from turning. To sidestep, you simply need to move one leg to one side, and do the same to the other. To turn, you need to shift your entire body in a different direction, making multiple small movements of your legs. I would surmise that the first would generally be quicker for tyrannosarus. Keep in mind that it's not a robot either. It doesn't have to turn on a single point, but instead run/walk in an arc which would effectively accomplish the same thing. This is a forced fight to the death, so any such behaviors are irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Jun 14, 2012 5:02:33 GMT -5
I don't understand how people can justify saying that a plodding, strait-legged elephant is as fast as an animal with the legs of an ostrich. There's no way to calculate Tyrannosaurus's speed, but it was definitely faster than an elephant. That goes without saying I think. Anyway, did you see the f@cking size comparison? Case closed. That's really ironic. A poster with the username tyrannosaurus thinks the t-rex will win. The elephant in your size comparison is probably a female. You admitted it yourself earlier. abcnews.go.com/Technology/rex-ferocious-killer-opportunistic-scavenger/story?id=12974461 T-rex was likely a scavenger not a predator. Not to mention its arms would be useless in pinning the elephant anyway. Where is it going to bite the elephant? The legs? It'll get his face kicked in. The face? It will get skewered. The only way for the t-rex to win is to outmanuever the elephant and bite its rear. That's almost impossible considering rex takes over 2 seconds to make a quarter turn. So there goes that theory of a t-rex sidestepping a charging elephant. You aren't vulnerable to an attack you can counter with relative ease. Carnivores are able to hunt because of a neat cheat code called "flee instinct". When "prey" stands its ground, this confuses the predator, leaves him second-guessing himself. Even wildebeests have deterred lone lions in this manner. It was prepared to fight and the lion called it quits. Without "flee instinct", herbivores would be the predators. A bison herd can trample an entire wolf pack to death in seconds. The elephant is female, the rex is male(or gracile-morph). A male elephant would be bigger, but a female(robust-morph) rex would be bigger to, and the ratio would be about the same. Wolves and crocodiles don't use their arms for hunting. Neither id Tyrannosaurus. Why would an animal be so big if it was picking scraps? And what was the apex predator of the ecosystem, if not T. rex? Of what relevance is a bison heard vs a wolf pack? Your point is apparently that herbivores are just better than carnivores. You can't generalize like that. If that were true, the flee instinct would not exist. Tyrannosaurus's normal prey is elephant-sized. The elephant, on the other hand, has never seen any predator bigger than a lion. The elephant will probably flee. But, as Anonymous said, this is a forced fight to the death.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jun 14, 2012 12:29:08 GMT -5
I believe it's generally agreed on nowadays that there was no size discrepancy between the 2 sexes of Tyrannosaurus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was more talk of the old.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jun 14, 2012 15:50:58 GMT -5
Just because you're the biggest carnivore in your range doesn't make you an apex predator. Grizzlies are the largest predators in their environment. They scavenge off kills more often than actually chasing down an elk or horse. One lion pride never made a kill in an entire year. They scavenged everything from hyenas. For an entire year. Even docile circus elephants can turn unpredictably ferocious in musth. I don't think such an infuriated animal would easily back down from a t rex. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPdn-jK-MqM strength of a calm elephant. What do you think a furious one exerting full force could do? www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcnLRXSG50Q and check out this colossal bull elephant. You get the sense of scale when he walks by that tree at 1:10. & Of course the music is epic. I can't comment on the part about T-rex hunting ceratopsians. That's a whole other topic @anom and Super Commie: I'll respond your points eventually after I finish reading the articles you posted.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Jun 14, 2012 21:05:20 GMT -5
Grizzlies are apex predators, make no mistake. Tyrannosaurus may have scavenged more often than it hunted, we have no way of knowing that. But it was capable of hunting when it had to. Do you consider lions predators? They scavenge more often than hunt. But they're still predators because when there are no carcasses around they hunt for food. T. rex was no different. And I have proof of predatory behavior in T. rex; That injury on the tail is a healed wound from a Tyrannosaurus bite. The T. rex was probably chasing the Edmontosaurus and bit it, but the Edmontosaurus escaped. Healed bite marks have been found on Triceratops skulls to, indicating fights. And non-healed bite marks have been found, which could mean either scavenging or a sucessful hunt. I can't show you a video of a T. rex walking by, but it would inspire fear and awe. Triceratops is the best analog of an elephant from T. rex's environment. Some have been proven to have survived Tyrannosaur attacks, and some have been proven to have been eaten by Tyrannosaurs. One of the unhealed specimens had bite marks on it's horn. I think that this is an example of T. rex attacking and killing Triceratops, because if it scavenged, why would it bite the horn?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Jun 14, 2012 21:59:41 GMT -5
I believe it's generally agreed on nowadays that there was no size discrepancy between the 2 sexes of Tyrannosaurus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that was more talk of the old. You're wrong. There are two morphs, robust and gracile. Robust are bigger, gracile are smaller. Robust-morphs are theorized to be females, due to the wider pelvis and the fact that one robust morph has been proven to be female. The size comparison I showed was of a gracile T. rex and a female elephant. A male elephant would compare similarly to a robust rex.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jun 14, 2012 23:00:20 GMT -5
You're wrong. There are two morphs, robust and gracile. Robust are bigger, gracile are smaller. Robust-morphs are theorized to be females, due to the wider pelvis and the fact that one robust morph has been proven to be female. The size comparison I showed was of a gracile T. rex and a female elephant. A male elephant would compare similarly to a robust rex. Yes I know about the morphs but what is the evidence that the "robust" and "gracile" forms correspond to genders?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Jun 15, 2012 1:19:38 GMT -5
Well I gave you all the evidence. It's really just speculation, but it seems logical to me.
To clarify, whether or not they're sexually dimorphic is irrelevant to this match, because there are two morphs and one is larger and stronger than the other.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jun 18, 2012 22:43:58 GMT -5
Didn't 2 scientists on the BBC documentary, T-rex: warrior or wimp prove that T-rex could survive only by scavenging? They said it only needed a human sized meal every 5-6 days and only had x5 (??) the metabolic rate humans had. It was something along those lines.
But the articles posted by Anom and Commie claim the opposite. So I'm not too sure. Overall I have changed my mind after reading the articles you posted. I'd say it's a tossup- for now
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jun 18, 2012 22:57:22 GMT -5
I believe that was based on the old assumption that dinosaurs were all cold-blooded. We don't really know at this point. Even if it did only require that much food, things don't just die in front of you and more numerous, smaller predators would get there first. On another note, there's also that commonly cited study with the chickens. It claimed tyrannosaurus could not have run fast because it would have had to put too much muscle into its legs. Based on the anatomy of CHICKENS. Seriously, now that's stupid. Chickens are as tall as they are long, very fat and plump, and not at all cursorial. Their legs are short, the body is low to the ground, and the tail is not designed to make room for muscles. Bad comparison entirely.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jun 18, 2012 23:50:41 GMT -5
The documentary showed T-rex bite marks on the underside of a triceratops Sacrum. That's impossible to land on a struggling animal. T-rex had large oflactory lobes just as vultures do. The height and size would help seeing long distance and scaring off smaller animals off the carcass. www.unmuseum.org/tyran.htm Some info regarding T-rex speed. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything. It's just impossible to know for sure. Whatever the case, I don't think a musth bull elephant is a pushover. If you saw that video of a calm elephant pushing over a tree, what do you think an excited one can do?
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jun 19, 2012 10:00:31 GMT -5
If I see a hyena scavenging, that's no proof it's only a scavenger. Tyrannosaurus wouldn't pass up a free meal, but fact remains that it was a hunter. For example, we've seen healed bite marks from Tyrannosaurus on some prey animals. The "info regarding tyrannosaurus speed" is plain dumb. Giraffes may kill or severely injure themselves if tripping after running. In fact, people can get some nasty wounds by falling. Despite this, we run all the time, and to animals for seemingly no reason. Tyrannosaurus' leg proportions were similar to those of ornithomimids, which were fast moving bird like dinosaurs. The hip area is also quite large and broad, and offers plenty of area for muscle attachments. And, of course, there's the tail. Arms? Seriously...Tyrannosaurus didn't need long arms because its jaws were plenty enough. Crocodiles, snakes, and fish hunt just fine without arms. Olfactory lobes and height - that's a double edged sword. Carcasses give off a stronger stench than living animals; thus, having a better sense of smell might compensate for the prey's lack of stink. Height can be used to survey the landscape for LIVING prey. This also allows Tyrannosaurus to land a bite more easily on prey running below it. Note that Tyrannosaurus has very good binocular vision for a dinosaur, allowing for superior depth perception. An animal that goes after dead bodies all day is not going to need that. Horner thinks triceratops would've died off like some dinosaur plague. Yeah that's not going to happen. Tyrannosaurus following herds is simply impractical and time-consuming. Do lions follow zebra herds and wait for them to die off? No. Even if a week later, some old bones did give up, that energy simply would not be enough to replace what's already been lost. It's not impossible to know for sure when we have fossils that visibly show bite marks from a T. rex that occurred from a failed hunting attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Jun 19, 2012 17:50:38 GMT -5
I've already conclusively proven that T. rex hunted. Didn't 2 scientists on the BBC documentary, T-rex: warrior or wimp prove that T-rex could survive only by scavenging? How, exactly, did they reach such a ludicrous conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jun 30, 2012 11:12:58 GMT -5
Ok I've re-read the entire thread and all the links Commie and Anom posted Tyrannosaurus- what do you think of this article Credit goes to Commie for finding the source: www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/13/old-thunder-thighs-t-rexs-weight-topped-tons/ Turns out, as the animal grew it also became slower, likely because its torso got longer and heavier while its limbs grew relatively shorter and lighter. The result shifted its center of gravity forward. and That shift changes a lot of the inertial properties, by shifting the mass forward you're shifting the pivot point away from the hips, which is the natural pivot, so that requires bigger muscles," Makovicky told LiveScience. "T. rex has pretty large, in fact, enormous leg muscles, probably the largest leg muscles of any creature that ever lived, but a lot of that leg muscle had to stabilize the animal and didn't translate into speed."I don't doubt that t-rex could hunt low-end, weak animals. A strong healthy animal ready to fight? Hard to say. PS- I promise this time to respond to the rest of everyone's points. Sorry for the delay.
|
|