88 replies to this topic

[darkknight]

t.rex was a savenger,not a predator?
what you think?

[fallingalien]

Yes and no, something huge like that couldn't eat just dead things since animals killed...........maybe he was like a hihena? they chase animals away after they kill stuff.

but I think he was like this because that would be why they didn't kill humans and eat them WHILE!! they lived with humans.

[draconic chronicler]

This was said on another thread, but the T-Rex as scavenger is nonsense designed to give a certain exhibitionist paleontologist some publicity.
The main argument for this is that T Rex's arms were nearly useless and he wasn't very fast.  Now consider the T-Rex as a "land crocodile".  Crocodiles do not need front claws to be a highly succesful predator.  Huge jaws are quite enough.  Also consider crocs wait in ambush for animals to come to the water.  T-Rex could wait along "game trails" for dinos to pass by.

There is no such thing as a pure scavening reptile today, and there probably wasn't 65 millions years ago.  

Falling alien, I am not sure what you mean, but the fossil evidence quite conclusively proves humans did not coexist with dinosaurs.  If they had, there would be no people today.

I think there is a lot of cultural and spiritual evidence for the creatures we know as "dragons" coexisiting with mankind, but most of these legends suggest that dragons are "controlled" by a higher authority, and therefore be prevented from wiping out mankind as giant theropod dinosaurs would have.

[frogfish]

ok, draconic chronicler and falling angel...there are already threads for dragons in the bible and humans with dinos...not here.

T rex could of scavenged....predators are oppurtunistic feeders

[indeed]

I agree on all points Frog  

[draconic chronicler]

Frogfish, believe it or not, every predator is also a "scavenger", but only a fool (or a paleontologist trying to get publicity), would make such a ridiculous claim that "T-Rex was NOT a hunter, but only a scavenger".  Such a "pure scavenger" doesn't exist now, and probably never.

Edited by draconic chronicler, 19 October 2005 - 09:38 AM.

[darkknight]

the whole palaeontology world has debated on this issue,polls are 60 savenger,40 predator.

[frogfish]

I garee with Draconic Chronicler...BUT I NEVER SAID T-REX WAS A PURE SCAVENGER! If you Misunderstood....i meant T-rex was a preadtor that was an oppurtunistic feeder, so it would of ALSO scavenged...there is no such thing as a pure scavenger....well, at leats there is none with a backbone

[draconic chronicler]

Frogish, I was referring to Chordates of course.

DW, Paleontologists can be quite the expert in assembling bones, and noting the fine differences to denote subspecies, but many are very ignorant of living animals with similar lifestyles to the dinosaurs.  EVERY chordate predator in the world is a scavenger too, but no reptile, bird or mammal ever known was only a scavenger.  It is a completely ridiculous claim, and using the example of crocodilians, conclusively proves that the T-Rex could be a formidible "ambush predator" even if it was slow and had nearly useless forearms.  Believe it or not, every predatory bird also has no arms and they do just fine.

[frogfish]

T rex wouls of been an stalker and short chase predator...like a tiger...it would chase after Edmondtonosaurus.

[DemonWatcher]

T-rex was both a scavenger and a hunter, nearly all paleontologists accept this, given that modern predators today, will take the kill of another and feed on it, only if the game is sparse or the prey is bigger than that us out to predator, but some have suggested that T-Rex may have hunted in packs.  there are different opinions here and that is fine, just don't make yours seem like it is the important one, they are all important.

[seeking]

Quote

This was said on another thread, but the T-Rex as scavenger is nonsense designed to give a certain exhibitionist paleontologist some publicity.

do you have some sort of grudge against this guy? or is it just to hard for you to accept that your childhood love of the t-rex being a killing machine was false?

Quote

The main argument for this is that T Rex's arms were nearly useless and he wasn't very fast.

also the relation of size between the leg bones, i forget what the scientific names are, but the bones that make up the theigh, and the bones that make up the shin

Quote

  Now consider the T-Rex as a "land crocodile".  Crocodiles do not need front claws to be a highly succesful predator.  

they need them to walk though, the t-rex's arms serve no purpose

Quote

Huge jaws are quite enough.  

thats true, snakes are predators, i'll give you that one

Quote

Also consider crocs wait in ambush for animals to come to the water.  T-Rex could wait along "game trails" for dinos to pass by.

and hide in what? the t-rex would be far to large to camoflage himself into the surounding trees.  The t-rex would also have to be hidden while standing, and at 2 stories tall....that can be a very difficult task.

There is no such thing as a pure scavening reptile today, and there probably wasn't 65 millions years ago.  

the popular belief is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.....there are A LOT of scavenger birds....

I think there is a lot of cultural and spiritual evidence for the creatures we know as "dragons" coexisiting with mankind,

thinking with out back up is just an opinion, and opinions are nothing special

but most of these legends suggest that dragons are "controlled" by a higher authority, and therefore be prevented from wiping out mankind as giant theropod dinosaurs would have.

riiiiiiiiight  

Edited by seeking, 20 October 2005 - 05:25 AM.

[Bone_Collector]

Quote

Yes and no, something huge like that couldn't eat just dead things since animals killed...........maybe he was like a hihena? they chase animals away after they kill stuff.

but I think he was like this because that would be why they didn't kill humans and eat them WHILE!! they lived with humans.

I can't believe some people actually think that humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Gosh!
Too many cavemen-dino movies I'd say.

Although the image of human cave dwellers hunting dinosaurs is well established in fiction, it is far from accurate. People didn't evolve until about 65 million years after the dinosaurs' extinction. Except for the birds, who are the sole surviving descendants of the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs and people are well separated in terms of geologic time.

Just as frogfish said, I believe T-Rex was an opportunistic feeder. I believe, it also scavenged a lot. It is peoples' fascination for T-Rex that makes it hard for them to accept this fact.

Attached Files

•  Dinotime.gif   3.48K   29 downloads

[draconic chronicler]

I said from the beginning that "all carnivores scavenge", but the exhibitionist trying to get his name in print made the sweeping claim that T Rex was an exclusive scavenger too slow and unable to catch prey, which is simply a stupid, unsustanitiated statement calculated to get publicity.

Believe it or not, all predatory birds lack arms completely and do perfectly fine.  So why couldn't a predatory T-Rex?  Vultures will commonly hunt any small animal they can catch if carrion is not available.

As for T-Rex being an amubush predator, believe it or not, they can crouch down until their bellies drag, giving themselves an only 7 foot high or so profile that could be easily concealed in brush.  Even alligators are known to "stake out" game trails some distance from water to catch deer and dogs that frenquent these places. T-Rex probably adopted a similar hunting strategy.

The only reason vultures are a succesful scavenger is that by flying they can cover hundreds of miles a day in search for carrion.  An (exclusive scavenger" T-Rex would not have this advantage, and would have to consume far more carrion.  Pterosaurs, like vultures, were probably the true scavengers of the mesozoic, but like vultures probably hunted small animals as well, and some of course, were specialist fish eaters.

The "T-Rex as pure scavenger" proposal has only one thing going for it -
and that is the gullibility of the generally ignorant public to accept any new and outrageous "Revisionist Theory".