|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Mar 28, 2012 21:26:33 GMT -5
I was talking about the back legs, which are not stubby. It just strikes me as the logical response when the Rex nips at it's butt.
|
|
Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 28, 2012 21:46:24 GMT -5
I never said Theropods would whip their tails. Tenontosaurus is an Iguanodont. sorry I read Tenontosaurus as tyrannosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Mar 29, 2012 15:50:04 GMT -5
I was talking about the back legs So was I. If not stubby, they're still short in comparison to the rest of the body, giving them a short reach. Unless tyrannosaurus has something for ass-sniffing it's not going to get kicked in the face.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Mar 29, 2012 17:57:41 GMT -5
Well if it's chasing the Lambeosaurus in a hunting scenario... I could see it literally biting the ass, then getting kicked or whipped. Similar to lions getting kicked off zebra butts. I know zebras are better kickers but they also have no tails.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Mar 29, 2012 19:04:51 GMT -5
I'd think Tyrannosaurus would be more likely to flank prey before biting from the side. This isn't a hunt, it's a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Mar 29, 2012 19:06:31 GMT -5
I know.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Jan 22, 2013 19:29:10 GMT -5
Lambeosaurus is 2-4 times bigger and would simply roll right over the rex with a charge.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jan 29, 2013 0:15:46 GMT -5
Presuming it could not only do that at any reasonable rate, but also hit.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Mar 23, 2013 18:43:20 GMT -5
I'd think Tyrannosaurus would be more likely to flank prey before biting from the side. This isn't a hunt, it's a fight. the lambeosaurus's sides are too wide for the t-rex to wrap his jaws around. besides, this thing is like 4 times heavier. Why can't it just push the t-rex over?
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Mar 24, 2013 12:59:18 GMT -5
the lambeosaurus's sides are too wide for the t-rex to wrap his jaws around. I was not saying Tyrannosaurus would bite lambeosaurus' side. It could bite from the side. Ok, you're in a fight. Your opponent is a quarter of your weight (he's also quite a bit faster). Say he has a knife. Your only strategy is to push him over/trample him. Not very easy. Now imagine how much more difficult this would be with animals in the several ton range, which are not terribly agile and have a limited span of body motion at a short distance.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Mar 24, 2013 19:38:00 GMT -5
as far as I know, t-rex did not kill animals larger than itself.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Oct 24, 2013 18:47:16 GMT -5
"Lambeosaurus laticaudus" was renamed Magnapaulia laticaudus and downsized to 12.5 meters and 10 tonnes. I think Tyrannosaurus should be able to win that.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 25, 2013 15:00:24 GMT -5
as far as I know, t-rex did not kill animals larger than itself. Triceratops was actually heavier than tyrannosaurus, and they represented a similar predator-prey relationship as seen with lions and zebras. Triceratops wasn't necessarily LARGER than tyrannosaurus, but it was heavier nonetheless. If you were talking about length, then you were correct, but weight is an entirely different story.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Oct 25, 2013 18:52:43 GMT -5
Forgot to mention, whether it be against the genus Magnapaulia or Lambeosaurus, T.rex wins since the hadrosaur was (unfortunately) downsized. Now, there is still Shantungosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Just some guy on Sept 20, 2015 18:53:52 GMT -5
Gonna put in my honest $0.02 on brontophagy in Tyrannosaurus (because it was sort of brought up here). I honestly don't think Tyrannosaurus was really all that oh so inept at brontophagy at all. People like to point out gape, but I have to ask, has anyone actually estimated exactly how wide T.rex can open its jaws? Also, who originally stated that it was comparatively pathetic (narrower than expected for a predator)? I believe that the gape was not so much relatively narrow as much as the gapes of other predatory dinosaurs (e.g. carnosaurs) simply being disturbingly large (which they were). Powerful-biting predators today likewise don't seem to have a big problem with gape when practicing brontophagy. Canids and hyaenids have "crushing-oriented" bites, yet they clearly don't have an issue wrapping their jaws around much larger animals. Killer whales ( which seem to have significantly smaller heads and, in turn, narrower gapes than T.rex even proportionately speaking) are apparently also able to get a grip on sperm whales with their maws ( source). Even big cats (which have far smaller heads and gapes proportionately) are able to bite the wide body regions of larger cape buffalo, hippos, and even elephants ( 1, 2, 3, 4). Given these instances, I find it safe to assume that gape will not be a big issue. People also bring up dentition. Make no mistake, people are definitely right in saying a carnosaur packs teeth that are far better suited to slicing than the teeth of T.rex. Even then however, even conical toothed predators seem to be able to cause notable soft tissue damage ('notable' might be an understatement in the case of some predators). Canids and hyaenids are known for disemboweling their prey and ripping them apart. The lions I gave a link to were able to cause some rather significant soft tissue damage to the buffalo and hippo and a male lion in the fourth link was stated to have been "tearing it [an elephant] open at the armpit region" (inb4 someone says "carnassials", let me note that carnivorans only utilize these teeth for feeding, not actually as weapons against living prey and foes). The killer whales in the study I linked to were able to "wrench off mouthfuls of flesh" (albeit with difficulty, but nonetheless successfully). So whereas I would definitely say that ziphodont teeth are a more reliable, efficient manner of biting off flesh and causing soft tissue damage, it's not impossible for a conical-toothed predator to mess up soft tissue quite badly. It's also true that bite force doesn't mean a whole lot for predators armed with steak knives for teeth. Once you get to animals with comparatively blunt, rounded teeth that are pointed at the tip however, bite force becomes an important tool for preying upon large game (including animals larger than the predator). And we all know Tyrannosaurus had plenty of bite force. So would the jaws of a powerful-biting predator (e.g. Tyrannosaurus) be as efficient of a weapon against larger animals as the jaws of a cutting-toothed predator (e.g. a carnosaur)? No, it's obviously more efficient to tear and bite off flesh and cause soft tissue damage with slicing teeth and a stupidly large gape. Does this necessarily mean the jaws of Tyrannosaurus were bad weapons against larger animals? No, not really, because clearly other powerful-biting predators have demonstrated that strong jaws with comparatively blunt teeth and a modest gape can actually be very effective weapons against larger animals.
|
|