Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Jul 28, 2012 0:21:38 GMT -5
not every source is always correct, for instance many sites will state that the bite of a komodo kills because of deadly bacteria when in fact they are venomous, most if not all monitor lizards and roughly 1500 other species of lizards.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 28, 2012 0:25:22 GMT -5
Yes, but the ones we use are actually using science, and don't conflict with other articles written on the same site. Honestly just looking at tyrannosaurus's anatomy should tell you it was adapted to hunt large prey, not infants.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 28, 2012 3:45:55 GMT -5
It only hunted the old, sick, and weak. Even that show, Clash of the Dinosaurs said Triceratops would usually defeat a t-rex 1on1.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 28, 2012 4:44:30 GMT -5
Impossible.
In a straight up fight probably, but in an ambush its possible trex could have triumphed. We do have fossil evidence that tyrannosaurus attacked adult, healthy, triceratops.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 28, 2012 6:42:20 GMT -5
Specifically a HEALTHY adult triceratops? You sure?
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 28, 2012 8:16:59 GMT -5
Well unless weakened triceratops are able fight off predators with a six ton bite force, yes.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 28, 2012 8:21:37 GMT -5
Triceratops head was attached to a ball and socket joint according to that show. It can defend itself from any position (except backwards)
Even if that specific triceratops was healthy, it doesn't mean the t-rex killed it in a frontal fight. It could have been ambush or a chase where T-rex has easy access to the rear.
That's the beauty about ambush, it's like a cheat code. Doesn't have to bypass the horns/tusks and automatically gets on it's back.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 28, 2012 9:59:08 GMT -5
sciencedaily is the very same source you and Anom used on multiple occasions. The guy who wrote the article is entirely different, as are the scientific studies. www.livescience.com/1557-rex-secret-weapon-discovered.html^That article claims Tyrannosaurus could bite at 200,000 newtons - that's 23.5 tons, if I'm correct. I'd think the actual bite force would be lower than that, not exceeding 13 tons, but that's tremendous. Frequently, but not only. It would be impossible for that to happen. Tyrannosaurus would take a meal where it could get it; it can't afford to go romping around all day in search of old diseased nags. I don't think that show was extremely accurate; the intelligence of Tyrannosaurus as well as, I think, its speed and perhaps bite force were underrated. Dinosaurs weren't stupid, regardless of what those 50 year old books say. That would be physically impossible. Ball socket or no ball socket, its neck would be too short and thick. To turn around at more than perhaps an 90 degree angle or so its neck would have to collapse into itself. And then there's that troublesome frill.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimategrid on Jul 28, 2012 23:42:33 GMT -5
Triceratops is more than capable of defending itself from a tyrannosaur, but there is one thing the theropod has going for it, and that is eyesight. Triceratops had very poor eyesight, much like that of a rhino. Whereas Tyrannosaurus has eyesight like a hawk, it could judge distance very well, and could easily stay out of the Triceratops' range. Using its superior vision it could eventually basically sneak its way around the horns and get at a vulnerable area. Remember with the power of a tyrannosaur every spot on your opponent is vulnerable. It could very likely even crush a trike's skull.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 29, 2012 9:08:47 GMT -5
@anom 1. Cool article. There's no doubting t-rex's bite strength. 2. T-rex, like all predators was opportunistic. It would only go after triceratops if easier prey wasn't available. Then it would be forced to take bigger risks. 3. chrisindellicati.hubpages.com/hub/Triceratops skull was connected to a ball and socket joint at the neck, allowing Triceratops to swing it's head in a deadly circular motion. and Normally a full grown Triceratops would have little to fear from most predators.4. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/06/100629-science-dinosaurs-t-rex-nerves-elephants/ Nerve study shows T-rex plodded like an elephant. 2010. The only way I see t-rex winning is ambush or a chase where he can bite onto the rear/back and cripple the triceratops. Overall I have changed my dim views on t-rex since coming here. Thanks for the info. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 29, 2012 10:15:20 GMT -5
1. It seems fanciful that Tyrannosaurus could actually come close to that high a pressure, but yes it was certainly very powerful. 6 tons seems like the lower limit of bite force estimates. 2. True but we know that it hunted triceratops sometimes. 3. I don't doubt the joint would help but you have to consider triceratops' limitations in flesh. Even if as a skeleton it could turn its head 120 degrees to either side, in practicality the short neck and frill would prevent it from doing this. The triceratops' deadly asset of weaponry would have certainly been a deterrent, but had a Tyrannosaurus decided to attack it would have been in serious danger. 4. This quote: Comes from an outdated study. Tyrannosaurus certainly did pack the muscle to run fast. As for nerves, elephants can still run at 25 mph, which is the estimated speed for Tyrannosaurus. Also, of course, they never actually tested Tyrannosaurus' nerves. Who is to know that perhaps they could not have transmitted signals faster, or had some adaptation that shortened things out? I doubt a large theropod adapted for cursoriality that lived alongside fairly fast moving prey would be put down by a nerve; in that case, why would the body evolve to reach high speeds when the nerves couldn't keep up? If Tyrannosaurus could only keep up a pace of 15 mph, its body would have adapted accordingly. Animals don't usually evolve if there's no pressing need to, and anyway, adaptations for high speed do come with drawbacks. You're welcome for the info. Debating forums are not just for arguing and discussion but also for learning. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 29, 2012 21:34:55 GMT -5
Maybe I'll create a seperate thread for t-rex's speed. That's a debate for another day.
1. We'll have to disagree regarding a face off between triceratops and t-rex. I don't see t-rex bypassing the business end of the herbivore if the latter is facing him.
2. Please excuse my ignorance (I'm fairly new to prehistoric animal debates) but what were the "standard prey" the t-rex hunted? Because you claimed t-rex lived alongside fairly fast moving animals.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 30, 2012 9:36:35 GMT -5
1. To be quite honest I don't think Tyrannosaurus would have won any huge majority of face-on fights either, but it would be far from a curb stomp for the triceratops. Tyrannosaurus could side-step (put one foot to a side, then the other to move to an entirely different position) and then run past triceratops, I suppose. Not much turning required. 2. Hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. Tyrannosaurus (member) thinks hadrosaurs were fast animals. Their small front legs probably limited their speed somewhat, but they could still put up a good pace, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 30, 2012 21:20:06 GMT -5
From here: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070607-trex-dinosaur_2.html However, "most of the animals that T. rex would have been hunting were also large and pretty slow moving and not particularly agile. So although it wouldn't have been a particular speedy predator, that might not have been a big disadvantage."So triceratops or edmontosaurus wasn't particularly fast either.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 30, 2012 22:39:18 GMT -5
Ceratopsians may have been able to achieve rhino-like speeds. As for hadrosaurs, they could probably gallop: ![](http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/8750/mm-hadrosaur-skeleton-big.png) No one is suggesting that Tyrannosaurus was as fast as a cheetah; it was however a rather cursorial animal and a speed of 25 mph seems right in line. This is plenty faster than most theropods. This is a skeletal comparison of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus: ![](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2494669404_83596c21f9.jpg) ![](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/423943970_2e96623f29.jpg) As you can see Tyrannosaurus is tall with long legs and built more vertically, whereas giganotosaurus is a bit lower to the ground and its legs are shorter. Further inspection shows that Tyrannosaurus probably had quite a bit more room for muscle attachment, and that its tibia is longer than giganotosaurus'; a long tibia is generally a characteristic of fast moving animals. Regardless of whether or not Tyrannosaurus' environment really required animals to be fast, clearly Tyrannosaurus still had adaptations for speed so it seems irrelevant.
|
|