Finaika
Member
Is this true?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
T-Rex bite was world's strongest
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
Is this true?
fixed
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Truly. For some reason I always pictured them as gentle things haha. In actuality they were walking tanks, slaying T-Rexes when attacked and were the most successful herbivore of all time.
Some of it has been scientifically proven; particulary the Triceratops killing T-Rexes. As far as the giant bird swooping down and eating T-Rexes...somewhat impossible to prove and is of course speculation, but not that far of a stretch of imagination. Hatzegopteryx has been found in Texas as well.
Edit: Actually the very first specimen of the species was found in Texas. Not sure where you are getting Europe from.
Spaceman Spiff
Member
TAs for Deinosuchus, it's not that impressive besides having a longer head than T.rex. The gigantic picture we all know of is a wrongly reconstructed skull.
True. In the famous AMHN "Phobosuchus" reconstruction Mumei posted earlier, only the dark bits at the tips of the snout and lower jaws, as well as the jaw articulation, represent actual fossil material; the rest of the skull, (read: the overwhelming majority), was pure sculpture, scaled up from Cuban and saltwater crocodiles.
As I recall, the reconstruction was taken down at the AMNH a number of years ago, and the fossils separated from the plaster, although casts of it may still be on display elsewhere.
Cow Mengde
Banned
I'm not talking about Triceratops killing T.rex. Predator and prey struggles will probably end up with someone dead.
Hatzegopteryx is not from Texas since the name Hatzegopteryx is named after an area in Europe. What you're thinking of is Quetzalcoatlus, it's sister taxa from Texas.
Spaceman Spiff
Member
I think you've got Hatzegopteryx confused with Quetzalcoatlus, (although after further study, the former may end up being synonymized with the latter).
They're both similarly-sized azhdarchids, but Hatzegopteryx is indeed from Europe (Romania/Transylvania to be precise), and Quetzalcoatlus is from Texas.
Edit: Beaten by CM
Green Mamba
Member
Mapusaurus looks greatly overestimated in that picture as well. Last I checked the largest was estimated at 10 meters or so.
And just for curiosity's sake, another potential way to reconstruct Spinosaurus:
And just for curiosity's sake, another potential way to reconstruct Spinosaurus:
Cow Mengde
Banned
Actually no. For whatever reason, that got messed up. I don't know the full details of how it went from "bigger" than T.rex to 10 meters, but the original published paper does list a very large individual.
And yeah, the new Spinosaurus reconstructions are very interesting. It just shows how little we really know about this animal.
Spaceman Spiff
Member
Mapusaurus looks greatly overestimated in that picture as well. Last I checked the largest was estimated at 10 meters or so.
And just for curiosity's sake, another potential way to reconstruct Spinosaurus:
The largest of the recovered Mapusaurus fibulae was something like a centimeter or two longer than in the Giganotosaurus holotype, albeit more slender, so it might have been around that size. ~15 m might be a stretch, but some individuals were probably a fair bit bigger than 10 m.
The Spinosaurus reconstruction is almost certainly more accurate than the traditional interpretation. There have been some very convincing arguments that the big vertebra usually placed as a posterior sacral is actually an anterior caudal, so the sail very likely extended farther down the tail than is typically drawn.
Edit: Dammit, Mengde!
Cow Mengde
Banned
To add to that, the original Mapusaurus discovery was not just 1 animal, but fragmentary remains of a couple of individuals ranging from juveniles to 12+ meter individuals. Still pretty fragmentary though.
haha
Thumbs. They let us kill EVERYTHING.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Green Mamba
Member
Okay, gotcha. I haven't really kept up on Mapusaurus at all.
Could it be that far fetch though? I mean, you got eagles hunting wolves right? Those web feet probably wouldn't be ideal T-rex hunting talons though.
It's still hard for me to fanthom how big that flying creature is.
Does he eat oats after he squats?
Regarding Dinosaurs... it's really amazing and also quite scary that these fuckers dominated the Earth at one point. I mean, shit.
T-Rex must have been a nocturnal hunter if anything. The fucker was 15 feet tall, how can another animal miss that. Considering his potential slow speed, I think he was a tail nipper. He probably strode along and took the biggest, quickest bite he could out of a tail, probably taking a very good chunk off and just waltzed away as its victim is shocked by pain. Blood loss and potential infection would take care of the rest.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Trees existed back then. Jungles are pretty lush too. Though I do agree it would most likely used ambush tactics to hunt. Even cheetahs try to get a close as possible to their prey before revealing itself for the element of surprise.
As for T.rex speed, it might be faster than we originally thought. This was research from a year ago noticing how big the caudofemorlis muscle was on T.rex. This huge muscle on its butt was underestimated by as much as 40%.
That is an interesting wrinkle which I wish we could explore. How nasty was its mouth? It very well could've originated the Komodo Dragon school of biological warfare.
The creatures that they think it scavenged could've been previous bite victims. We know T. Rex had an immense sense of smell, top among meat eating dinosaurs; he could track a bite victim for miles.
Prax
Member
*cluck cluck*
I LOVE feathered dinosaurs. They look so cool (and pretty.. and cute!).
My favourite dinosaurs have always been brachiosaurus and ankylosaurs though.
Triceratops and stegosaurus were alright too, but ceras always seemed like a bully dinosaurs, and stegos had a posture that made them look wimpy.
Cow Mengde
Banned
It's not true. Komodo Dragons are actually venomous. We have clear evidence of dinosaurs surviving and healing from a tyrannosaur bite, and other marks with no signs of infection. Tyrannosaur teeth are very robust and distinct so their bite marks are very easy to recognize.
They don't need this infectious bite. The prey it hunts aren't exactly Olympic sprinters either. Tyrannosaurus was fast enough to hunt its contemporary prey.
IntelliHeath
As in "Heathcliff"
Dinosaur fan protip: Brontosaurus don't exist.
Technically, it is other name for Apatosaurus due to it being familiar name. In past, the structure of brontosaurus was made out of two different dinosaur species. If i remember right, the head was from other kind of dinosaur with body of Apatosaurus.
Green Mamba
Member
Here's a more recent protip: The animal people generally think of when they think "Brachiosaurus" is no longer considered a species of Brachiosaurus, and goes by the name Giraffatitan. It was once considered an African species of the American Brachiosaurus--and because the African species was known from better, more complete material, it became the quintessential Brachiosaurus in depictions. But after someone took a closer look at the similarities and differences, it was felt that they were too different to both fall under the Brachiosaurus name.
It's not as bad as the Brontosaurus case--Brachiosaurus is still a perfectly valid name for a valid taxon, but what you probably think of in your head as Brachiosaurus should really be called Giraffatitan. The American Brachiosaurus, the still valid species (B.altithorax) is kind of less fantastic looking, with a proportionately broader chest and a less prominent nasal crest.
It's not as bad as the Brontosaurus case--Brachiosaurus is still a perfectly valid name for a valid taxon, but what you probably think of in your head as Brachiosaurus should really be called Giraffatitan. The American Brachiosaurus, the still valid species (B.altithorax) is kind of less fantastic looking, with a proportionately broader chest and a less prominent nasal crest.
Ah, oops. I saw the commentary that parts of it were plaster, but I didn't know that it was inaccurate.
I quite enjoy this rolling back of all the stuff I kept hearing about T. Rex that made me sad - too slow, probably a scavenger, poor eyesight, etc.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Very few paleontologists support the scavenger theory. Most of the arguments are nonsensical. I can put your mind at ease with some real facts.
Too slow - Bull shit. It's not the world's fastest predator either, but it's also not hunting the world's fastest prey. It also has huge leg muscles.
Scavenging - Is a must for all predators. Predator hunt success rates are around 11%. So out of 100 days, only 11 of those days a predator actually makes a kill. They have to rely on carcasses whenever they stumble into them, or chase away others for their food.
Poor eyesight - Biggest bullshit ever. Out of all the 12+ meter carnivores, Tyrannosaurus is the only 1 with binocular vision. Even if we take into account of smaller carnivores, that's still a hand full with vision as good as T.rex. It's wide skull makes both of his eyes point forward where as 99% of the rest have eyes to the side. If T.rex was alive today, it's one of the few that can appreciate the 3DS.
Now here's something the average joe doesn't know about. In nature, different animals occupy different niches to survive. Usually there are large, medium, and small predators. In North America, despite almost 150 years of discovery, we have no medium size predators during the late cretaceous. It's either 10 ton tyrannosaurs, or tiny predators. What happens to animals that are too big and powerful for small predators, but too fast for tyrannosaurs to hunt? One obvious conclusion is that they haven't been found yet. The other is that the medium niche is occupied by young and juvenile tyrannosaurs. The young ones are very fast and light weight animals. Tyrannosaurs basically has shut out the competition and dominated its land. This isn't uncommon either since Komodo Dragons are just like that. And not, packing hunting for smaller dinosaurs is not an option. A Triceratops can take a dump that weighs more than 3 dromaeosaurs, even modern day Lions and Hyenas don't dare to attack elephants and they aren't as badly out weigh compare to small carnivores against giant herbivores.
Oh, don't worry. Spaceman Spiff already did that about three years ago!
But this new stuff - bite strenth estimatins up by 20 - 40,000 newtons, size estimates up by as much as 30%, previously underestimated tail muscle that would have greatly contributed to locomotion now 45% larger - is all good news.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Well there you go. The scavenger theory has far too many holes it in and some downright lies to make their point.
I think it really depends on its weight. Anything more than 3 and a half tons IMO results in a very slow bi-pedal animal IMO. Perhaps it could still be a hunter, just not the kind people imagine it to be.
ChubbyHuggs
Member
So because of this thread I went and watched Clash of the Dinosaurs. Talk about redundant, someone should just edit the first three videos down to segments of each dinosaur.
Yeah I was getting frustrated at how much they repeat stuff. I just stopped watching it.
Cow Mengde
Banned
It's hunting prey around the same weight. Don't imagine a cheetah chasing prey, imagine a bunch of elephants playing soccer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked