Too much T.Rex

Mal-Adjusted

Does anyone feel that the Tyranosarous has been a bit...overexposed in the media? most dino-documentaries are about her and almost all dinosaur movies have one as the "big finish"

There are plenty of other fascinating dinosaurs that have not had anywhere near as much focus

dlofnep

You can never have too much T-Rex. It's a fascinating dinosaur. Large, carnivorous.. What more could you want?

Galvasean

Not that i don't love a bit of variety but....

WindSock

Yeah I see what you mean, OP. I blame the name. And the band of the same name. There are loads of mad dinos out there that are forgotton about or I haven't heard about. Time for the underdinos to rise up and take their places. All hail Dimetrodon!

dlofnep

Dimetrodon wasn't a dinosaur

WindSock

Yeah but he looks cool :cool:

Mal-Adjusted

Galvasean, i like that pic!
if any of you want a laugh, go to the Jurassic park boards on IMDb (It doesn't really matter which film) to see the MONSTROUS debate over which of those two should win. i **** you not, ppl are really getting emotional about it!:(

All hail Suchomimus! (or maybe Allosarous)

Galvasean

The reason why T.rex is such an icon is because it was the first truly giant flesh eating dinosaur to be described and was for a long time the biggest known*.

Interestingly when the first paper referencing the name Tyrannosaurus was published it also described another specimen called 'Dynamosaurus'. They turned out to be two different individuals of the same species. Tyrannosaurus is still used as the official bame today ('Dynamosaurus' has been discarded) simply because it was written down on the paper first. Simple huh?



* Carnivore dinosaurs to be noted as being bigger than Tyrannosaurus
Spinosaurus
Giganotosaurus
Carcharodontosaurus
Tyrannotitan
Mapusaurus

#6 doesn't seem so special...

mathias

Isnt it the case , that up until the release of "Jurassic" park , there were only actually 3 T -rex's found , and isnt it also the case that its status as a predator is very much under debate , as its physical characteristics are more in tune with a skulking scavenger as opposed to a hunter ?

In other words , its more like a hyena that a Lion , if you see what I mean.
National Geographic had a program about this guy who is convinced that T-rex was a scavenger not a hunter.

Galvasean

Hi there Mathias.

mathias wrote: »

Isnt it the case , that up until the release of "Jurassic" park , there were only actually 3 T -rex's found ,

Not too sure about that. Although possibly there may have only been 3 fairly complete specimens before the film. But before Jurassic Park Tyrannosaurus was one of the best known theropods to science (except possibly Allosaurus)

mathias wrote: »

and isnt it also the case that its status as a predator is very much under debate , as its physical characteristics are more in tune with a skulking scavenger as opposed to a hunter ?

In other words , its more like a hyena that a Lion , if you see what I mean.
National Geographic had a program about this guy who is convinced that T-rex was a scavenger not a hunter.

We had a thread on that controversy a while back.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055345308
Basically the guy in question has barely a leg to stand on.

And for the record. Data has shown that hyenas are more active hunters than lions. Hyenas tend to hunt mostly at night. This is why their hunting behaviour was not well known and documented until fairly recently (thanks to improvements in night vision recording equipment).

Galvasean

WindSock wrote: »

All hail Dimetrodon!

As a member of the Nocturnal Forum I have made my taughts clear on this issue:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57357177&postcount=40

WindSock

No way man, Dimetrodons were the punks of the ancient reptilian world

Canis_major

I guess its the cult of celebrity applied to a few bones
In fairness they are pretty interesting creatures, and probably suffering from the jurassic park effect. If it gets people interested in palaeo all well and good i say!

maryo'dee

tha was a great scene in one of the jurasic park moview when the spinosauros kills the t-rex.

now that spinosauros was pretty impressive.

Galvasean

maryo'dee wrote: »

tha was a great scene in one of the jurasic park moview when the spinosauros kills the t-rex.

now that spinosauros was pretty impressive.

Quiet, wind up merchant.
The word great should not be associated with Jurassic Park 3

Mal-Adjusted

maryo'dee wrote: »

tha was a great scene in one of the jurasic park moview when the spinosauros kills the t-rex.

now that spinosauros was pretty impressive.

meh... it was a decent film. i certainley enjoyed it. but ppl put way too much emotion into THAT scene.

Galvasean

WindSock wrote: »

No way man, Dimetrodons were the punks of the ancient reptilian world

Losey punks,

dlofnep

T-rexes make me happy inside.

maryo'dee

Is it true that Nicolas Cage owns a Triceratops skull fossil.
it is supposed to have cost a small fortune.

Galvasean

One sold recently for a million dollars.
http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/514586.html?nav=5010

Nic Cage is rumoured to have been the mystery buyer. He already has a T.bataar skull in his collection which he beat Leonardo di Caprio in a bidding war to get:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070730/asp/foreign/story_8123786.asp

maryo'dee

thanks for the links. These items must be very rare. I think there are only a handfull of fossil t-rex skulls in the world.

Alvin T. Grey

maryo'dee wrote: »

tha was a great scene in one of the jurasic park moview when the spinosauros kills the t-rex.

now that spinosauros was pretty impressive.

While being soooo wrong on so many levels.
If you want to find Spino remains, check out T-Rex turds...:D

Rubecula

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

While being soooo wrong on so many levels.
If you want to find Spino remains, check out T-Rex turds...:D

T-Rex could also swim the Atlantic?:pac:

Sorry.. Should I get me coat at this stage to avoid further embarressment?

Adam Khor

Not only swimming the Atlantic, the Spinosaurus would also need a time machine to go back to the future!!:D

But I agree that the Spino in JP3 was impressive and I'm sure the real beast was too. Who cares if it could fight a T-Rex or not? A great horned owl can´t fight a great white shark and hell, both of them are badass!

PS- Do you think Nicholas Cage and Leonardo Di Caprio are actually into dinosaurs somehow, or they just collect ridiculously expensive stuff to feed their ego? Just wondering...

Scarinae

I think it's horrendous if it's true that dinosaur remains are becoming the new 'thing' to collect among the rich... A dinosaur skeleton might be pretty to look at, but it would be a hell of a lot more use in a museum or university where scientists could study it!

Galvasean

Fishie wrote: »

I think it's horrendous if it's true that dinosaur remains are becoming the new 'thing' to collect among the rich... A dinosaur skeleton might be pretty to look at, but it would be a hell of a lot more use in a museum or university where scientists could study it!

It is true. Many potentially valuable fossils are lost to 'fossil poaching' and sold to the highest bidder, to be put on display, their true value never to be known. Fossil doctoring (changing/altering the fossils) is also quite common to make them look nicer and fetch a higher price.
However, in defense of Cage, DiCaprio et al., they purchased their fossils at legitimate auctions where the fossils were studied by scientists beforehand.

Alvin T. Grey

Fishie wrote: »

I think it's horrendous if it's true that dinosaur remains are becoming the new 'thing' to collect among the rich... A dinosaur skeleton might be pretty to look at, but it would be a hell of a lot more use in a museum or university where scientists could study it!

Me? I'm in two minds about this.
Yeah, it's a pitty that the fossils end up in private collections. But look at it this way, without the funding rised by that industry, they'd still bein the ground undiscovered.
At least this way they will eventually find their way to a museum. Hell they aren't going anywhere.

For example:
Sue.

Adam Khor

IMHO, a fossil being stored in a celebrity's house is preferable to have it powdered into some useless traditional medicine, or cut in bits to be sold on eBay...

Galvasean

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

At least this way they will eventually find their way to a museum. Hell they aren't going anywhere.

For example:
Sue.

Yes and no. Oftentimes skeletons which are found illegally cannot have their locations of origin confirmed (such is the covert nature of illegal activity), making it impossible to tell what time/location they came from. This leads to them not being classifiable and not considered scientifically valid specimens. I recall a 20 foot long Oviraptor like theropod appeared on the maret in the USA. Its location of origin and age are unknown. May also believe it to be a chimera (made up of more than one individual specimen). Even if it did end up ina museum to be studied by scientists, there is very little they could learn from it compared to what could have been learned had they found 'it' themselves.

Kess73

Galvasean wrote: »

It is true. Many potentially valuable fossils are lost to 'fossil poaching' and sold to the highest bidder, to be put on display, their true value never to be known. Fossil doctoring (changing/altering the fossils) is also quite common to make them look nicer and fetch a higher price.
However, in defense of Cage, DiCaprio et al., they purchased their fossils at legitimate auctions where the fossils were studied by scientists beforehand.

Have to be honest and say that if I had their level of cash, I would probably do something similar.