• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

T-Rex bite was world's strongest

Status
Not open for further replies.
This documentary shows what they really looked like.

kong-rex_1.jpg
 
How can it bench with those skimpy arms.
But look at those legs he is definiatly a squatter.

For all their small size, T-rex's arm bones are incredibly robust and pretty much buried in muscle. They were too small to be useful but it could easily win arm wrestling matches with the beefiest humans.
 

FFFFFFUUUUUU when I glanced at this I was hoping it was one of those GIFs where only part of the image moves and the rest stays still (like the one from the shining). Where it was just the jello jiggling. Damn, I don't have the l33t skills to do it myself.
 
People seem to forget that the T-Rex in JP1 was a girl.
And it was also mother rex that went on a rampage in the city in TLW.
But that's OK because the female rexes are actually larger than the males.
 
Hey something else interesting:

Tyrannosaurus rex was much, much bigger than we thought - about 30% heavier than previously estimated. The models are rather unappealingly fat, though. :(

Oh go stomp your feet in the corner. Birds are wrecking machines. Today's golden eagle is used to hunt wolves. Haast's eagle hunted 10 foot tall elephant birds and humans before its food source was destroyed. Terror birds ruled South America after the dinosaurs went extinct. Knowing theropods were feathered makes them cooler. Would you be happier if we still thought they were tail dragging lizards, slightly more energetic than your average tortoise? And what's this BS about "Scientist's think"? It's not a freaking opinion. We know tyrannosaurs had feathers because we found fossils with them, though not anything specific to T-rex. Personally, I figure hatchlings were down covered and adults lacked many feathers, though males might have had display feathers.

Golden eagles are pretty fucking awesome.
 
Please give me an example of a terrestrial animal the size of tyrannosaurus.

And mammals are not the best comparison either--feathers are not fur. While I agree that T. rex probably wasn't covered in feathers, it's not something you can say is considered "extremely unlikely."

I mean, look at a reconstruction like this:
639643a9e677d53fbc79ad96ae571028-d2z6rix.jpg


Are you really willing to say with 99% certainty that T. rex couldn't have possibly looked something like that?

pretty much tbqh

hed overheat like a motherfucker
 
stronger that that HUUGE ancient supercrocodile?
whats its name?

hmmmmmm

edit: sarcosuchus

No, you're thinking of Deinosuchus. Sarcosuchus' skull was relatively thin and narrow by comparison:


And estimates for Deinosuchus' bite strength place it at around 18,000 newtons - stronger than previous estimates of T. Rex's bite strength, but well below the current range of 35,000 - 57,000 newtons.

I do wonder how that compares to large marine predators; the great white is around 20,000 newtons, for instance.
 
I always liked the plant eaters like triceratops and brachiosaurus because I could imagine them being friendly and us becoming bro's.
 
An ancient sea scorpion, Jaekelopterus rhenaniae, grew to 8 feet in length. Imagine a scorpion bigger than man! In 2007, Markus Poschmann unearthed a fossilized claw from this massive specimen in a German quarry. The claw measured 46 centimeters, and from this measurement, scientists were able to extrapolate the size of the prehistoric eurypterid (sea scorpion). Jaekelopterus rhenaniae lived between 460 and 255 million years ago.

A millipede-like creature known as an Arthropleura reached equally impressive sizes. Arthropleura measured as long as 6 feet, and 18 inches wide. While paleontologists have yet to find a complete fossil of Arthropluera, trace fossils found in Nova Scotia, Scotland, and the United States suggest the ancient millipede would rival an adult human being in size.

Insects, too, reached extraordinary sizes in prehistoric times. A giant dragonfly known as Meganeuropsis Permian measured an impressive 71 cm from wing tip to wing tip, a full 28 inch wing span.

Man, prehistoric animals sucked across the board. Insects were HUGE.

fire-up-the-bbq.jpg
 
Psh, the Spinosaurus owned Rex in JP3. Oh wait, that movie doesn't count.

Aren't they making a JP4 supposedly? I wonder if they'd keep the same looks for the dinosaurs as previous movies or go more accurate based on new information. I assume the former rather than the latter.
 
People seem to forget that the T-Rex in JP1 was a girl.
And it was also mother rex that went on a rampage in the city in TLW.
But that's OK because the female rexes are actually larger than the males.

The T. rex that was loose in San Diego in The Lost World was the male. Tembo had no interest in shooting a female--he wanted "a male. Buck only." Which was what he tranquilized. It was green--female Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park are brown.

And the idea that female Tyrannosaurus were larger than their male counterparts is a long since discredited hypothesis.

pretty much tbqh

hed overheat like a motherfucker

I don't think you know what the word "insulation" means. It doesn't just mean keeping heat in--it also means keeping heat out. Feathers are quite good at this--better than fur.

Though I think you're arguing less from a perspective of science and more from a perspective of you don't like the idea.

Hey something else interesting:

Tyrannosaurus rex was much, much bigger than we thought - about 30% heavier than previously estimated. The models are rather unappealingly fat, though. :(

Neat reconstruction based on this:
tyrannosaurus.png
 
Psh, the Spinosaurus owned Rex in JP3. Oh wait, that movie doesn't count.

Aren't they making a JP4 supposedly? I wonder if they'd keep the same looks for the dinosaurs as previous movies or go more accurate based on new information. I assume the former rather than the latter.

They'll probably explain it away by blaming it on dodgy DNA samples extracted from the mosquitoes.

To be honest I'm amazed they haven't pulled the "experiment gone wrong/mutant" card yet.
 
I've been watching an excellent series on Netflix streaming titled: Clash of the Dinosaurs. The first two episodes had some great details on the T-Rex. I rec. it for everyone.

It also talks about this guy: Hatzegopteryx
As flying animals go they don't get much bigger than Hatzegopteryx. It was a pterosaur of gigantic proportions, standing over five metres tall with a wingspan of at least ten metres. This would have made Hatzegopteryx one of, if not the, largest flying animal ever known. The robust skull was three metres long and among the largest of any non-marine animal.
hatzegopteryx_1.jpg


Crazy nature is crazy.

Oh god it's beautiful.
 
I believe the article was referring to Erickson and company's bite force analyses from the mid- to late-nineties, in which case the ~13,000 N estimate for a posterior tooth was actually that which was required to replicate fossilized T. rex bite marks on a Triceratops pelvis. Given the position of the bites on the underside of the pelvis, they were inferred to have been made during feeding, and not representative of the maximum bite force, which presumably would have been generated during prey capture.

The authors of that study have repeatedly said as much, but given the poor quality of science reporting in general, their findings tended to be reported as "T-rex bite = alligator lol."

Ahhh, very interesting thank you. Yea that makes much more sense.
 
The T. rex that was loose in San Diego in The Lost World was the male. Tembo had no interest in shooting a female--he wanted "a male. Buck only." Which was what he tranquilized. It was green--female Tyrannosaurus in Jurassic Park are brown.

And the idea that female Tyrannosaurus were larger than their male counterparts is a long since discredited hypothesis.



I don't think you know what the word "insulation" means. It doesn't just mean keeping heat in--it also means keeping heat out. Feathers are quite good at this--better than fur.

Though I think you're arguing less from a perspective of science and more from a perspective of you don't like the idea.



Neat reconstruction based on this:
tyrannosaurus.png

Modern scientific proof points towards T-Rexes being unfeathered, dude. There's not a ton of debate on the matter.
 
Modern scientific proof points towards T-Rexes being unfeathered, dude. There's not a ton of debate on the matter.

I'm quite aware. I'm merely playing devil's advocate to those who believe T. rex lacked feathers not because they actually studied the reasons but because they don't want T. rex to have feathers.

EDIT: I'm mostly just seriously sick of supposed dinosaur fans acting like petulant children as soon as it's suggested that the creatures they imagined in their childhood may not have looked as such.
 
Neat reconstruction based on this:
tyrannosaurus.png

Hm.

That is better. The gray models they had looked positively obese! Here the extra weight looks more distributed through the base of the tail and torso and less like they just tossed on thirty-percent extra body weight onto a dino-beer gut.
 
The gray models they had looked positively obese! Here the extra weight looks more distributed through the base of the tail and torso and less like they just tossed on thirty-percent extra body weight onto a dino-beer gut.

To be fair, and given the wide error bars (intentionally) produced by the authors' methodology, the models in the study your're referring to were deliberately made to reflect a broad range of masses. The minimum and maximum values shown in the figures represented qualitative extremes of plausibility. This was done with the expectation that the actually masses, (and centers of masses), of the specimens studied would fall within that range.

To me, the most interesting aspect of that study was the upwardly revised growth rate for T. rex, given the larger disparity they found between the sizes of a juvenile and an adult. So not only was T. rex likely larger than previously thought, it grew larger than previously thought faster than previously thought. Neat.
 
To be fair, and given the wide error bars (intentionally) produced by the authors' methodology, the models in the study your're referring to were deliberately made to reflect a broad range of masses. The minimum and maximum values shown in the figures represented qualitative extremes of plausibility. This was done with the expectation that the actually masses, (and centers of masses), of the specimens studied would fall within that range.

To me, the most interesting aspect of that study was the upwardly revised growth rate for T. rex, given the larger disparity they found between the sizes of a juvenile and an adult. So not only was T. rex likely larger than previously thought, it grew larger than previously thought faster than previously thought. Neat.

Yes, thanks for the explanation. I was just commenting on the aesthetics (particularly of the maximum representation for Sue). T. Rex looks better somewhat svelte!
 
why do you guys not like the thought of dinosaurs with feathers? It just means they were probably going to evolve into dragons
 
Its hard for me to imagine an obese T-Rex, I've read the article before. It just seems to have such slender legs compared to its frame. Can you imagine an elephant walking on two legs?
 
The fat models are the examples of extremely bulky estimates. There's also a really skinny estimate too. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

As 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.

d-mount-2.jpg
 
This pleases my inner 12 year old big time! Never believed the previous studies suggesting he might have been a bit of a wimp. Oooo T rex you so bad!

I don't get all the negative reactions to a feathered T rex in this thread and in general. A feathery T rex sounds pretty bad ass to me! Makes sense too.
 
FOOL.

Nothing hunts a mofuggin T-Rex.


Actually in the documentary I mentioned the Hatzegopteryx was one of the few creatures with the nerve to eat baby T-Rexes. When both parents were indisposed (hunting or something) it would swoop down, have a snack, and fly away. Apparently it could see baby T-Rexes clearly from a thousand feet in the air.

Something else I learned. Triceratops would kill baby T-Rexes when they had the chance. Not that they were meat eaters, but better to kill one than let it grow up and attack you – pretty clever no? Also, Triceratops usually won their fights against the T-Rex.
 
Actually in the documentary I mentioned the Hatzegopteryx was one of the few creatures with the nerve to eat baby T-Rexes. When both parents were indisposed (hunting or something) it would swoop down, have a snack, and fly away. Apparently it could see baby T-Rexes clearly from a thousand feet in the air.

Something else I learned. Triceratops would kill baby T-Rexes when they had the chance. Not that they were meat eaters, but better to kill one than let it grow up and attack you – pretty clever no? Also, Triceratops usually won their fights against the T-Rex.

Triceratops are so underrated.

The ones with the club on their tail and armour too.
 
Actually in the documentary I mentioned the Hatzegopteryx was one of the few creatures with the nerve to eat baby T-Rexes. When both parents were indisposed (hunting or something) it would swoop down, have a snack, and fly away. Apparently it could see baby T-Rexes clearly from a thousand feet in the air.

Something else I learned. Triceratops would kill baby T-Rexes when they had the chance. Not that they were meat eaters, but better to kill one than let it grow up and attack you – pretty clever no? Also, Triceratops usually won their fights against the T-Rex.

You do realize none of what you just said is scientifically proven, right? They're just random speculations done for a TV show. Not to mention Hatzegopteryx lived in Europe.

As for T.rex size, we actually have quite a few Tyrannosaurs bigger than Sue. MOR 008, MOR 1126, MOR 1152, UCMP 118742, UCMP 137538.

9JPlx.jpg


They overestimated both Giganotosaurus and Charcarodontosaurus in that picture though. Both of them are only around upper 12 meters to lower 13 meter range. Though even with the exaggerated length, neither of them matched UCMP 137528.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom