lets see....

link
link 2

if t-rex is faster than its prey, its more agile too...so it could kill them...use common sense...



sorry, your wrong, feeder mice still have instincts....and it does happen in the wild, how else would snakes eat...even HORNER could see that!



do you really think there a difference in speed....i would shut my mouth if I were you because you don't know nothing about herpetology



lol, use common sense...if he is faster than his prey, he is more agile and "quick" so he could ambush them...





then how does a cheetah hunt? They are the same principles


so oppurtunistic hunting is when an animal mainly hunts, not scavenges? Ok, then trex is an "oppurtunistic hunter". YES, hyenas do hunt more than they scavenge....


even more ironic....i will just let you be ignorant, no one believes you anyways


I'll stop here, because it is usless arguing with a thick-skulled person like you ...Kind of like trying to convince a catholic that abortion is good...
Sorry, but i wqasn't angry, I just used CAPS because it was easier to disinguish what i typed.

Sorry Seeking, but I'm in agreement with DC, Frogfish, and the rest. I'm guessing you're from a midwestern state? Assuming you would "see" a T-Rex in an open field? Have you ever travelled to a thick jungle? Have you not seen trees and brush taller than a T-Rex? I'm only from Ohio, so I know about open areas. But I've also been through thick forests, not woods. I personally could see how something so big could hide off of a game trail, wait for some type of pack animals passing through, ambush and come up with dinner.

The eyesight note: how good of eyes do you need to be able to see a dinosaur from 10-50 feet away? I know blind people who would know when a dinosaur is that close.

The speed note: last time I checked, not too many dinos were that fast. We're not talking about cheetahs, or even gazelle. So maybe a Rex couldn't catch another faster PREDATOR (remember, predators are the faster ones) but ambushes a waterhole and has a chance to catch a variety of different dino delicacies.

The scavenger theory is interesting, I might have bought more from Horner if he would've endorsed this While or Before the movies were selling or sold. (Hint, Hint)

No pun intended, Peace

allright people, seriously, you are all making assumptions of me and i think its funny

i dont believe in god, or any of the like, im from CT, and i do have an open mind, you can ask anyone here on this board that has seen my posts

i will reply back to the posts more thouroughly after i get out of work, ta ta for now

I think even the poor eyesight stuff is very dubious as well and not based on any reality. The closest living relatives to dinos are birds and crocodilians. Birds have the best vision in the world and crocs have excellent vision as well, undoubtedly better than humans, both day and night. T-Rex also has a top predator's binocular vison, something Horner didn't want to mention. T-Rex had incredible olfactory powers, and this would be important in finding game trails and ambushing prey. The notion that T Rex would die if it stumbled is nearly as asinine as Horner's scavenger theory. Maybe he came up with that one too. If we took "computer models" as gospel, than it would be impossible for bumblebees to fly. Computer models also said T-REx was fast, then, that he was slow, and that he could not get up if he fell. It is all BS, a researcher can make a computer model to exactly what he wants it to. The way to learn about extinct animals is to study the behaviour of similar living living animals in similar ecological niches. Horner didn't do this, which is why the theory is so flawed. The onlyu thing it had going for it from the very begiining is the gullible human tendency to accept any instance of "revisonism" no matter how contrived.

I think it was either both or just a scavenger. Or a possibility of both my answers. And no i'm not crazy. Well I am, but oh-well.

It may have originally been a predator or predator/scavenger, but as time went on, they just started to steal other carnivores meals.

But i'm still sticking with both, maybe it picked it's battles. Which would be easier, killing a large triceratops or scaring away velicitraptors?

Soory, but Velociraptors lived in Mongolia, not N. America...It was more a hunter than a scavenger, clearly!

you don't need jaws that kill in a single well placed strike to be a scavenger, all you need there is a strong set of TEETH, not jaw muscle but teeth. And such a big head is well suited fr killing most prey in a single or even in two strikes(if need be).
The only way for Tyranosuarus Rex to be a scavenger is if it was injured and could not hunt on its own.

leaf eaters wouldn't eat humans and meat eaters didn't live everywhere. plus lions and tigers and all them don't attack humans much.

this isn't jurassic park and I don't believe in the way they do carbon dating, complete WASTE.

carbon dating is good up to a point yes, but they generally don't carbon date fossils, they look at the strata the bones are sitting in, in order to try and get a more accurate dating for the creatures likely period of burial.

they date rocks with radioactive elements, like stronium

thank you froggy, i knew they used the strata, thanks for the reminder, forgot that part of the dating.

no problem!

good point. He could have been hairy as well? How do scientists actually know he was a reptile as well??

They know he was an archosaur, which technically is not are reptile. Other Archosaurs include all the other true diosaurs, birds, crocodiles and pterosaurs. Snakes, turtles and lizards are considered "reptiles". Crocodiles are sometimes included in the reptile group too, but they are much more closely related to birds.

crocs are reptile, what are you talking about?

Exactly. Crocodiles ARE reptiles. Who missed the biology class.

who has been studing the beasts for their evolutionary tracks, and DC is right ask any dino expert or even croc expert.

I'd hardly call DC a 'dino or croc expert'. Reptiles, they are.

not who i was talking to, and DC has done their research, and i'd say google that info and see what you get, because my info comes out of journals and scientific magazines.

don't you mean talking about, i mean DC may not be an expert but certainly has more info than you or I.

Here's my 2 cents worth...

I believe that Tyrannosaurus was normally a hunter. Of course, any predator will scavenge if the opportunity arises, but to say that the T-rex was incapable of killing its own food is ignorant.

Yes, the T-rex had miniscule arms. However, these arms were heavily, HEAVILY muscled. What's better for catching and holding prey? Longer, thinner, slimmer arms? Or shorter, stronger arms that hold your prey withing reach of your main weapon...

Your jaws. The jaws of a T-rex (as someone already mentioned) could put out an estimated 3000 psi of bite force. This strength would be BONE SHATTERING. Moreover, the teeth of a T-rex have roots over a foot long! Why would the T-rex need such deeply-rooted teeth if they didn't have to contend with a STRUGGLING prey animal. Also, look at the bite radius of a T-rex, With a good bite, a Tyrannosaur could rip a 3x5 FOOT chunk of flesh from a prey animal. Now, given the size of it's potential prey, this would probably be a CRIPPLING wound.

Also, the T-rex was more than adequately equipped to hunt it's prey on a sensory level. The Tyrannosaurus had acute eyesight and binocular vision
two things VERY important to a predatory animal. Moreover, the Tyrannosaur's sense of smell is undisputedly one of the most powerful of ANY KNOWN CREATURE. Why? After a herd of hadrosaurs is attacked by a single, let alone a PACK of Tyrannnosaurs, are they going to linger in that area? And after the expediture of energy it took to BRING DOWN the prey, the T-rex, like a lion, would probably have to rest for a prolonged period of time. Meanwhile, the herd of prey animals has put several miles of distance between them and the kill. This amazing sense of smell would allow the Tyrannosaurs to EASILY track their prey.

Finally, concerning a Tyrannosaur's speed capabilities, here's the trick to being a predator, you only need to be SLIGHTLY faster than your prey. We've had all this discussion about the speed a T-rex was capable of... has anyone stopped to think about the speed limit of it's PREY?

I believe that the T-rex would wait in ambush for it's prey, and then barrel towards it at a sprint, (possible far quicker that we've estimated) latch on with it's grappling hook arms, and then veritably bludgeon and lacerate it's prey to death with it's powerful neck and jaws. Hell, if it was able to latch on to it's prey's neck, one quick snap would break it's neck instantly.

OR, it might have barreled at it's prey and tackled them with sheer body-mass... A 5 ton T-rex moving even 20 mph would probably topple a prey animal easily, then it's only a matter of dealing a killing blow while it's immobilized.
This technique would be very effective if Tyrannosaurs hunted in small packs, smaller, quicker individuals could tackle prey as the larger, more powerful creatures moved in for the kill.

Moreover, we've discovered evidence of a Tyrannosaurus attacking a live prey animal. A skeleton of a Hadrosaur, I believe an Edmontosaurus, was discovered to have wounds on it's hind and tail sections remarkably similar to bite wounds inflicted by large, serrated seven-inch long Tyrannosaur teeth.. However, the bones showed evidence of regrowth AFTER the wound, so the animal was alive enough to HEAL after the attack.

I have no doubt that if a T-rex could steal dead prey from another predator, it would... ALL PREDATORS will take a pre-killed prey over something they have to expend energy hunting... But to assume that there was enough carrion to sustain groups of 7-10 ton theropods is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS.

So of COURSE the T-rex could be an advantageous scavenger, but it's unreasonable to say that it wasn't capable of bringing down it's own food.

Aah hah! now we really see how ignorant both Frogfish and Ashley are on the subject of dinosaurs. You both know about as much on this subject as you do about the Bible -- ZILCH!

DW is right, as I am, but like he says, don't take it from me, take it from the latest sceintific books and journals. Frogfish, even your Dino God Horner will tell you the same thing. It is one of the few, intelligent, scientific things he has ever said.

Crocodilians birds and dinosaurs are all closely related archosaurs, which technically should be classed seperately from the "lower" reptiles, which anatomically are completely different animals, even though a croc has the superficial outside resemblence to a lizard. These archosaurs, crocs included, have a very different physiology compared to the "reptiles".

And as for being a croc expert, there are probably few people in the world who have had such a direct contact with them, (like living in a small studio
apartment with a "loose" nile crocodile for over 10 years, and studying crocodiles in their natural habitat in Sri Lanka, including big "Salties"). As I type this, there is a 6 foot alligator lying under my chair.

I believe that Tyrannosaurus was normally a hunter. Of course, any predator will scavenge if the opportunity arises, but to say that the T-rex was incapable of killing its own food is ignorant.

Yes, the T-rex had miniscule arms. However, these arms were heavily, HEAVILY muscled. What's better for catching and holding prey? Longer, thinner, slimmer arms? Or shorter, stronger arms that hold your prey withing reach of your main weapon...

Interesting, because history states the opposite. T-Rex had very short arms and they were not muscular. T-Rex's legs were its powerhouse along with it's massive jaws.

Your jaws. The jaws of a T-rex (as someone already mentioned) could put out an estimated 3000 psi of bite force. This strength would be BONE SHATTERING. Moreover, the teeth of a T-rex have roots over a foot long! Why would the T-rex need such deeply-rooted teeth if they didn't have to contend with a STRUGGLING prey animal. Also, look at the bite radius of a T-rex, With a good bite, a Tyrannosaur could rip a 3x5 FOOT chunk of flesh from a prey animal. Now, given the size of it's potential prey, this would probably be a CRIPPLING wound.

Crippling, but not fatal. A Tricotops (sp) could probably fight off a T-Rex successfully and recover.

Also, the T-rex was more than adequately equipped to hunt it's prey on a sensory level. The Tyrannosaurus had acute eyesight and binocular vision
two things VERY important to a predatory animal. Moreover, the Tyrannosaur's sense of smell is undisputedly one of the most powerful of ANY KNOWN CREATURE. Why? After a herd of hadrosaurs is attacked by a single, let alone a PACK of Tyrannnosaurs, are they going to linger in that area? And after the expediture of energy it took to BRING DOWN the prey, the T-rex, like a lion, would probably have to rest for a prolonged period of time. Meanwhile, the herd of prey animals has put several miles of distance between them and the kill. This amazing sense of smell would allow the Tyrannosaurs to EASILY track their prey.

I'm confused. I thought T-Rex had poor visutal acuty? It's sense of smell was powerful, but it's binocular vision was quite poor for an animal of its size, and I'm not just saying this because of the movie Jurassic Park. It's a proven fact that T-Rex was a hunter, but it was practically as blind as a bat visually.

Finally, concerning a Tyrannosaur's speed capabilities, here's the trick to being a predator, you only need to be SLIGHTLY faster than your prey. We've had all this discussion about the speed a T-rex was capable of... has anyone stopped to think about the speed limit of it's PREY?

Again, incorrect. Speed it one thing, but intelligence is very important to overcome your prey and T-Rex wasn't the brightest blub. It had strategic capabilities, but most animals were smarter. A T-Rex could really only overpower another animal if they roamed in packs. Remember, numbers equal power. Alone, it stood a very slim chance against an equal adversary.

I believe that the T-rex would wait in ambush for it's prey, and then barrel towards it at a sprint, (possible far quicker that we've estimated) latch on with it's grappling hook arms, and then veritably bludgeon and lacerate it's prey to death with it's powerful neck and jaws. Hell, if it was able to latch on to it's prey's neck, one quick snap would break it's neck instantly.

OR, it might have barreled at it's prey and tackled them with sheer body-mass... A 5 ton T-rex moving even 20 mph would probably topple a prey animal easily, then it's only a matter of dealing a killing blow while it's immobilized.
This technique would be very effective if Tyrannosaurs hunted in small packs, smaller, quicker individuals could tackle prey as the larger, more powerful creatures moved in for the kill.

You're thinking of the Velociraptor, who hunt in packs, hide in foilage, and then attack their prey. A T-Rex could barrel over its prey, but moreover it would wait for its prey to fight back. You see, T-Rex was a hunter and it liked to fight. The fight was a part of the hunt. And victory proved its superiority over others.

Moreover, we've discovered evidence of a Tyrannosaurus attacking a live prey animal. A skeleton of a Hadrosaur, I believe an Edmontosaurus, was discovered to have wounds on it's hind and tail sections remarkably similar to bite wounds inflicted by large, serrated seven-inch long Tyrannosaur teeth.. However, the bones showed evidence of regrowth AFTER the wound, so the animal was alive enough to HEAL after the attack.

I have no doubt that if a T-rex could steal dead prey from another predator, it would... ALL PREDATORS will take a pre-killed prey over something they have to expend energy hunting... But to assume that there was enough carrion to sustain groups of 7-10 ton theropods is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS.

So of COURSE the T-rex could be an advantageous scavenger, but it's unreasonable to say that it wasn't capable of bringing down it's own food.



Yes, it could bring down its own food, but so could others bring down a T-Rex.

it is quite possible for one bite to kill. look at the komodo dragon. the mouth is laced with deadly bacteria, so even if you get away, there's still a huge chance of death.

i think the rex did a lot of hunting, and of course scavenged when it could.

the powerful legs and jaws are the real killers, though, the arms were considerably less important. you don't NEED strong arms to be a killer. wolves use speed and bite, and the rex likely had the same strategy.

yes, i know wolves are pack critters. but if a lone rex could run up and get a quick bite off, what's to say that wouldn't be more than enough to take the beastie down?

Down, but not out. Remember, if you back a dog into a corner, he is prone to attack in defense and kill his attacker. Sometimes a wounded animal is more dangerous than a healthy one coz he believes has nothing left to lose. But in the end, he survives.

Interesting, because history states the opposite. T-Rex had very short arms and they were not muscular. T-Rex's legs were its powerhouse along with it's massive jaws.

By measuring the bone scars on Tyrannosaur arm bones, and by reconsturcting said muscularture, it's calculated that (on the small end) A Tyrannosaur's Bicep ALONE was about as thick as the largest thigh muscle in a body-builder's body. A T-rex (If it's arms could reach it) Could lift upwards of 400 pounds with one arm, a combined strength of nearly half a ton. So if these measurements are indeed on the small end of the spectrum, we can assume, that the arms alone could potentially keep hold of an object at 1000 pounds of resistand force)

Crippling, but not fatal. A Tricotops (sp) could probably fight off a T-Rex successfully and recover.

Crippling yes, How fast do you think any prey animal would be able to move if a 3x5 foot section of their LEG MUSCLES were instantaneously removed?

I'm confused. I thought T-Rex had poor visutal acuty? It's sense of smell was powerful, but it's binocular vision was quite poor for an animal of its size, and I'm not just saying this because of the movie Jurassic Park. It's a proven fact that T-Rex was a hunter, but it was practically as blind as a bat visually.

The visual acuty is harder to determine than most other sensory aspects since a lot of the potential lies in the eyball itself, which unfortunatly does not fossilze. The only inferrence that we can really make is by measuring the section of the brain reserved for processing the visual information. I didn't say T-rex had the eyes of an eagle, but they were stereoscopic which is uncommon even among other predatory dinosaurs save for some of the smaller varieties. One other thing most people seem to overlook is the sense of hearing on a T-rex... Again referring to the brain casts, most paleontologists believe that T-Rex had quite acute hearing. Why would a scavenger need good hearing?

Speed it one thing, but intelligence is very important to overcome your prey and T-Rex wasn't the brightest blub. It had strategic capabilities, but most animals were smarter. A T-Rex could really only overpower another animal if they roamed in packs. Remember, numbers equal power. Alone, it stood a very slim chance against an equal adversary.

How bright do you think it's prey animals were? In all of animal history, the predators are the smart ones. Compare the intelligence of a dog to a gopher. Or comparitively, a lion to a Gazelle. The prey animals don't survive because they outwit the predators, they survive by smelling / hearing /seeing them before they can make the attack. You don't give the T-rex muxh credit for it's reasoning capabilities, but comparibly, Tyrannosaurs had larger brains proportionately that most other predatory dinosaurs, again, with the exception of the smaller varieties. (Raptors / Troodonts) Prey animals on the other hand, think cows / gazelles / etc. have quite small brains for their proportional body-size. The same hold true with most of Cretaceous prey-animals. And while proportional brain size can't really PROVE intelligence, we can safely assume that a Tyrannosaur was mentally, better equipped than the dinosaurs it was hunting.

You're thinking of the Velociraptor, who hunt in packs, hide in foilage, and then attack their prey.

Based on a few relatively recent dicoveries, some scientists believe that Tyrannosaurs may indeed have hunted in small packs. In Hell Creek, Montana a site was discovered containign SEVERAL Tyrannosaurs in EXTREMELY close proximity. Large predators do not SHARE their territory with compeditors unless they cooperate, and hunt together.

A T-Rex could barrel over its prey, but moreover it would wait for its prey to fight back. You see, T-Rex was a hunter and it liked to fight. The fight was a part of the hunt. And victory proved its superiority over others.

When hunting stricktly for food, most predators dont' PLAY WITH THEIR FOOD. A well-fed fox or wolf, may toss a small rodent around before it eats it, but when was the last time you saw a leopard, lion, or cheeta have a game of "tag" with their prey before killing it.? Animals don't hunt for sport, they hunt for food. And what a romanticized view of prehistory you have to suggest that a T-rex would pass up a fat, slow duckbill, for a fast, mean, cetatopsian. A T-rex would probably only risk attacking a Triceratops if it was old and near death, or already dead, same with an ankylosaur.

Yes, it could bring down its own food, but so could others bring down a T-Rex.

Ceratopsians and Ankylosaurs would be THE ONLY prey capable of adequately DEFENDING themselves from a T-rex, meanwhile, we have a plethora of hardosaurs to feed on. Again a predator isn't going to risk the personal injury it may sustain by hunting dangerous prey when defenseless Hardosaurs are in abundance. Defensively, pretty much the only thing a Hadrosaur could do was flee.

By measuring the bone scars on Tyrannosaur arm bones, and by reconsturcting said muscularture, it's calculated that (on the small end) A Tyrannosaur's Bicep ALONE was about as thick as the largest thigh muscle in a body-builder's body. A T-rex (If it's arms could reach it) Could lift upwards of 400 pounds with one arm, a combined strength of nearly half a ton. So if these measurements are indeed on the small end of the spectrum, we can assume, that the arms alone could potentially keep hold of an object at 1000 pounds of resistand force)

Okay, maybe compared to a body-builder's arms, a creature that high and thick could have arms like tree trunks, but they hardly compared to their legs, and as they were stubby, they weren't utilized as well as they should.

Why would a scavenger need good hearing?

Like the sonar of a bat, to compensate for one sensory deficinary.

How bright do you think it's prey animals were?

We can't proven human's are the most intelligence species on the planet either, we just think we are.

Based on a few relatively recent dicoveries, some scientists believe that Tyrannosaurs may indeed have hunted in small packs. In Hell Creek, Montana a site was discovered containign SEVERAL Tyrannosaurs in EXTREMELY close proximity. Large predators do not SHARE their territory with compeditors unless they cooperate, and hunt together.

Smart.

I we both argeee that Tyrannosaurs were hunters, then why are we arguing? lol. We should pool the data towards our half of the arguement.

What ever happened to Seeking? He seemed dead-set on his T-Rex scavenger theory... We should be debating with him. XD

BTW Atlantis, forgive me for not mentioning the potential power in a Tyrannosaurs legs, that would most definately be another benifit to a hunter lifestyle

(Ironically, guess who was LEADING the expedition that FOUND all the Tyrannosaurs dead together? Jack Horner...) He'd better stop undermining himself... XD

Agreed.

Scavenger vs. predator.....
Rex was probably both. In nature, modern predatorsoften scavenge for easy meals. Lions will gladly steal a dead gazelle from hyenas if he can.
A score is a score.

And scavengers sometimes hunt when carrion is scarce. Hyenas hunt big prey, though they're classified as primarily scavengers.

T-Rex could have fit that pred/scav category. It's hard to imagine a creature that big subsisting solely on carrion, but we can't discount he could've scavenged.

Yes, we know, but it is not PRIMARILY a scavenger

T. Rex was opportunistic. It was a predator and a scanvenger. People today think of lions as predators [which they are], but, they are also scavengers. Any so-called predator will always take the easy way. A lion conserves much more enery and receives no injuries taking a free meal. The same can be said for any carnivorous dinosaur.

Paleontologist Jack Horner, proposed that T.Rex could not have been a predator. His arguments against predation include its small eyes (needed to see prey), small arms (needed to hold prey), huge legs (meaning slow speed) and that there is no evidence for predation, bones have been found with tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them or scratched by them, but so far no study has shown that tyrannosaurs killed other dinosaurs for food.

His evidence supporting scavenging include large olfactory lobes (part of the brain used for smell), vultures also have large olfactory lobes. And that its legs were built for walking long distances (the thigh was about the size of the calf, as in humans).

There are arguments against scavenging. Most large living predators (such as lions and hyenas) do scavenge meat when it’s available, but most prefer fresh meat. Horner argues its arms were too weak to grab prey, but sharks, wolves, snakes, lizards and even many birds are successful predators without using their forelimbs, if any. T. rex also had large visual lobes in its brain to process information for sight. And its skull was wide enough for both eyes to focus on the same object, giving it good depth perception.

Whether T.Rex was a slow animal is tough to tell. some paleontologists arguing T. rex ran at a zippy top speed of 45 miles per hour and others suggesting a more moderate 25 miles per hour.

Researchers created a computer model to calculate how much leg muscle a land animal would need to support running fast. In the Feb. 28 issue of the journal Nature, they report that T. rex probably could not run quickly. In fact, hindered by its size, it may not have been able to run at all. Though not enough is known to give an exact speed limit for T. rex, a range of 10 to 25 miles per hour is possible, according to the authors.

a fossil bone with tyrannosaur tooth marks that had healed would be strong evidence of predation.

Personally, I would prefer T-Rex were a ferocious hunter, stalking primordial game trails. Waiting to leap out and tear the throat from a terrorized duckbill or careless triceratops... JMO

Tyrannosaurus rex
T. Rex

they have a fossil of a hadrosaur, i believe, which had bite marks consistant with T rex bite, but it had signs of healing before the creature died. remember rex was adapted to do what it did, "...that its legs were built for walking long distances (the thigh was about the size of the calf, as in humans)." yet we can run for long distances. can he explain that one, or you for that matter.
Yes all predators will scavenge, when it is necessary, but will eat fresh flesh, and scavngers the same, when they need to they will hunt. Humans are the same, or rather used to be that way.

I do not believe anyone on this thread ever said T-Rex never scavenged, it is common knowledge that virtually every predator does. The wild claim made by Horner that T Rex was exclusively a scavenger is the point of discussion. And as proven here, there is absolutely no proof, but by merely saying it assured Horner more publicity. The last two points, great olfactory ability and poor eye sights are meaningless. Crocodilians have as great an ofactory sensory organ, and are known to walk for miles after scenting carrion, but we also know they are formidable hunters. The eyes of a Croc are also very small an a very large adult, yet their vision is better than a humans, particularly at night. T-Rex probably had better vision simply becasue it was binocular.

Yes, Dc is right...

t-rex wasa big ugly mother so had to be a predator

intresting way to put it...