Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
darkknight

T-Rex was a scavenger?

89 posts in this topic

t.rex was a savenger,not a predator?

what you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on all points Frog :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

err ya eddymontyrilyes.....WHAT?!? Of course I've been paying attention teahcer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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

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

Huge jaws are quite enough.

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

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 :wacko:

Edited by seeking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :D

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.

post-10488-1129792675_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t.rex was a savenger,not a predator?

what you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

both..it would very easy for t-rex to scavenge when other small predator made a kill and big bad t-rex just scared little ones off. on the other side its huge jaws can make quick kill with one bite( bite contains bacteria) its estimated that the Tyrannosaurus was able to bite with a force of 3,000 pounds. its most likely prey' slow moving dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

True but they have also proven that t-rexes have a hard time to get back up once he falls.

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

What about Komoto Dragons? Their toxin they carry in their saliva alone can kill a human, due to all the bacteria from feeding on decaying flesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would toxic saliva make the komodo dragon a pure scavenger? Like every predator they will scavenge a meal if they find uneaten carrion, but are fearsome hunters as well, attacking water buffalo and even humans. The T-Rex argument was responding to the the statement that they were entirely scavengers and could not hunt. This is what I said was nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree entirely with DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Rex probably did scavenge, something as big as it was could easily steal another predators kill. But there's no way it was only a scavenger. There are simple facts that show T-Rex was a hunter...

Fact 1: IT WAS BIG. Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around. Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Fact 2: T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had. You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things. This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter. If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Fact 3: T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain. T-Rex was smart and cunning. You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter. The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey. But what do their machines know??? Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).

In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals. (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength). Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow. But that makes no sense. These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons. If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite, we also know it was smart. T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own. Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack. Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory. We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters......we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils. But they were hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-Rex probably did scavenge, something as big as it was could easily steal another predators kill. But there's no way it was only a scavenger. There are simple facts that show T-Rex was a hunter...

Fact 1: IT WAS BIG. Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around. Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Fact 2: T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had. You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things. This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter. If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Fact 3: T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain. T-Rex was smart and cunning. You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter. The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey. But what do their machines know??? Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).

In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals. (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength). Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow. But that makes no sense. These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons. If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite, we also know it was smart. T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own. Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack. Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory. We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters......we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils. But they were hunters.

that and those same simulaters once said that Tyranosuarus Rex could go as fast as 40 mph, which is as fast as some cars and most bicyclists(road bikes), so he could actually catch his prey fairly easily, and in groups would be incredibly effective, much like the Grey Wolf, or a pride of lions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact 1: IT WAS BIG. Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around. Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Strike 1: The worlds best hunters have always been small and agile, a scavenging animal would indeed evolve to be large as the large size garentees a scavanged meal more easily...

Fact 2: T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had. You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things. This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter. If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Strike 2: You dont need a strong bite to be a hunter, to be a hunter you need a combonation of these attributes: a bite that can peirce and severe main veins and ateries (all thats needed is fangs), claws/talons to slice the prey, and/or speed. All the hunters of today either have fangs, claws, speed, or all of the above, the T-Rex has none of these things. As for the strong bite, a scavenger would need the extra strength in order to break apart the bones of the left over meal - to get all he could from the find...

Fact 3: T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain. T-Rex was smart and cunning. You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter. The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

a the size of your brain is only important when compared to the body mass of the creature owning that brain, the body mass of the T-Rex is far to excessive for the gorrilla sized brain to be "intelligent". Its possible that with that size brain a creature can develop the skills to hunt, but not absolute proof. As for the being smart to coordinate thier packs or to hunt on thier own, that remark holds no weight as there is no proof that the T-Rex was indeed intelligent.

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey. But what do their machines know???

the machines may have done the calculations but the equations have been found through human discovery, the bone length ratio holds true to all living animals, and machines dont know anything, but the poeople using them sure do.

Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).

and how long ago was this theory? we had a theory that at the time made sense, as our understanding grew our view point changed...just how at one point scientist thought t-rex was a hunter based on size alone....now we know better.

In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals. (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength). Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow. But that makes no sense. These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons.

so T-Rex's arms are in proportion with the rest of his body?

Exactly.

If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

IF, and thats a big IF, the were predators

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

so far you've given no conclusive evidence that the T-Rex was a hunter, so im going to have to go ahead and disagree with that statement

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size

fast for its size doesnt mean its fast...

, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite

True.

we also know it was smart

False.

T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own. Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack. Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory.

Speculation holds no weight in a debate.

We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters

Again, no evidence thus far points to them being hunters.

.....we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils.

And thats what will happen.

But they were hunters.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but no they were not....

edit: my quote tags are correct but for some reason not working, strange

Edited by seeking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to use computers and machines to figure this out. Every point that the "pro-scavengers" use is negated by observation and comparision with similar animals in similar ecological niches. Even if we accept the "latest" simulations that suggest T Rex was slow, and its arms were useless in securing prey these two factors do not make other living animals today automatic, full-time scavengers. Such a creature doesn't even exist.

Dinosaurs and crocodilians are both archosaurs and share many characteristics. Crocodiles, like the "new" T Rex do not have to run down their prey to be superb predators. They let the prey come to them. This is a trait of "ambush predators". Likewise Crocs and T-Rex have some of the world's most powerful jaws, and we know crocs are predators. And finally, crocodiles do not need to use front arms in hunting (nor do any predatory birds), so saying T Rex must, to be a hunter is completely unsubstantiated.

As stated before, there are absolutely no other chordates that can be classed as a pure scavenger, and it is pure fantasy to say T-Rex was one. We have living animals today unmistakable T-Rex physical attributes (strong jawsed, slow predators), that contradict every point made by the pro-scavenger clique. Just because somebody gets a wild revisionist article published, and they make a TV show about it, doesn't mean it is real.

It is very reasonable to assume that T-Rex excercised at least as much parental care as crocodilians and possibly more. This is a trait of all archosaurs, and really has not bearing on being predator or scavenger. The same can be said of them living in social groups like the other living archosaurs, crocs and birds. To say they actually hunted in mammalian packs cannot be substantiated however. Just because we see trackways of what may be several theropods following the same prey item, may be no different than several herons chasing the same frog or several crocs diving into the river to catch the same monkey that fell from a tree. Its fun to give dinos these distinctly mammalian characteristics, but unfortunately, we see no evidence of this in the other living archosaurs of today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a doco on this very topic and about T-Rex in general.

They had palaeontologists arguing both sides and the conclusion was its a predator that would not pass up the opportunity to scavenge. They had evidence to back up there conclusion such as damage to prey dinos, that T-Rex was the only living species at the time capable of inflicting these bites, and they knew the prey was alive and lived after the attack as the bones showed signs of repairing.

As for speed they calculate at least 11 kms an hour from fossilized footprints found.

The jury is still out on the parental care aspect though.

I should add they compared it to a cross between a Crocodile and an Emu

Edited by indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.