Jack Horner...

Alvin T. Grey

Am I missing something? Whats with the dissing?

Kess73

He is a Paleotroll. A rare species of Dinowum.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Am I missing something? Whats with the dissing?

Well, many of us dislike him because he seems determined to take the coolest, most classic dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Torosaurus etc, and convince everyone that they were lame.

He is the guy who defends the idea of T.rex as a mere scavenger (a giant ground vulture, in his own words) despite lots of evidence indicating otherwise (and common sense; if T.rex wasn´t hunting those huge herds of duckbills and ceratopsians then, who was? There were no other giant predators at the time, and if there were, they must have been exceedingly rare, for their remains have not been found).

He also says that Pachycephalosaurus couldn´t head-butt because they would break their neck/skull (despite the fact that reinforced neck vertebrae and extremely thickened skull found in Pachycephalosaurus and its relatives are obvious adaptations to withstand violent impacts).

And of course, there's the whole "Torosaurus is an old Triceratops" thing.

So yeah, he is not very popular among dinosaur fans, except for those who worship every paleontologist alive, for some reason I cannot understand.

... we do owe him Maiasaura, tho.

Alvin T. Grey

Deffinatly didn't get enough attention as a child then methinks.....:D

I suppose he does serve a purpose though when you come to think of it. His theories are radical, but it forces you to look at what you consider current docterine again. Ok, you walk away with a feeling of vindication, but at least you looked.

Oh hell, my mummy raised me to always look for the good in people. Makes you a kind of a glass-half-full kind of person. Having said that if you diss a T-Rex......you're an idiot.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Oh hell, my mummy raised me to always look for the good in people. Makes you a kind of a glass-half-full kind of person. Having said that if you diss a T-Rex......you're an idiot.

Amen, dude.

Galvasean

'Honourary palaeontologist' indeed. If I lived in Montana I'd be an honourary palaeontologist by now...

Adam Khor

Funny but I prefer this one:

Alvin T. Grey

Ok, so I did a little watching/reading today. I concur with the consensus. I have also come to the following conclusion:

Jack Horner must have collected plastic dinosaurs as a kid, however for some unknown reason (maybe his parents thought it unsuitabe?) he never got a T-Rex. That scarred the poor young Horner permently and predisposed him to hate the Rex. He nurtured this hatred - managing to keep it secret, for years until someone unfortunatly pointed a camera in his direction and and thus priovide him with a suitable soapbox from which to attempt to destroy the symbol of his torment.

Not capable of destroying the creature, he made it his lifes work to destroy its charactor.

In the end one should try to show compassion for this poor misguided soul......

Screw it, that takes too much energy, mind if I point and laugh at him instead?

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

Ok, so I did a little watching/reading today. I concur with the consensus. I have also come to the following conclusion:

Jack Horner must have collected plastic dinosaurs as a kid, however for some unknown reason (maybe his parents thought it unsuitabe?) he never got a T-Rex. That scarred the poor young Horner permently and predisposed him to hate the Rex. He nurtured this hatred - managing to keep it secret, for years until someone unfortunatly pointed a camera in his direction and and thus priovide him with a suitable soapbox from which to attempt to destroy the symbol of his torment.

Not capable of destroying the creature, he made it his lifes work to destroy its charactor.

In the end one should try to show compassion for this poor misguided soul......

Screw it, that takes too much energy, mind if I point and laugh at him instead?

Not at all. Point and laugh, mate

Alvin T. Grey

Adam Khor wrote: »

Not at all. Point and laugh, mate

I am a self confessed new guy when it comes to the science of palaeontology. However I like to think I picked up a few insights in my time with regards to....well common sense.
One thing I have learned in this meandering journey through life is 'Never dismiss the possibility that you may not know what the heck you are talking about'.

Couple of things struck me as untrue or missing the point, or just plain ignoring stuff:

The T-Rex was slow:

And? He ignores the fact that in nature, you only have to be faster than what you eat. A starfish is an active carnivore. It doesn't move quickly at all, but it does move faster than the coral it eats.

The T-Rex had a great sense of smell;
Yes it did. So does a shark. So does almost every preditor. Especially Reptiles.
And he ignores the fact that a T-Rex has humongus well positioned eyes also. So he uses one overdevoloped sense in order to demonstrate that another overdeveloped sense wasn't as important.....(no disconnect there)

A T-Rex had small arms useless for grasping prey:
So, it didn't use them. - Neither did those big arsed terror birds I read about. Yet he doesn't seem to think about that at all.....

A T-Rex

Kess73

I just want for a T Rex to make a comeback Jurassic Park style before Horner dies.

That way he can get the chance to back up his arguement that T Rex was nowt more than a scavenger, and Horner can do so at close quarters with me watching from a safe distance.

Adam Khor

Alvin T. Grey wrote: »

I am a self confessed new guy when it comes to the science of palaeontology. However I like to think I picked up a few insights in my time with regards to....well common sense.
One thing I have learned in this meandering journey through life is 'Never dismiss the possibility that you may not know what the heck you are talking about'.

Couple of things struck me as untrue or missing the point, or just plain ignoring stuff:

The T-Rex was slow:

And? He ignores the fact that in nature, you only have to be faster than what you eat. A starfish is an active carnivore. It doesn't move quickly at all, but it does move faster than the coral it eats.

The T-Rex had a great sense of smell;
Yes it did. So does a shark. So does almost every preditor. Especially Reptiles.
And he ignores the fact that a T-Rex has humongus well positioned eyes also. So he uses one overdevoloped sense in order to demonstrate that another overdeveloped sense wasn't as important.....(no disconnect there)

A T-Rex had small arms useless for grasping prey:
So, it didn't use them. - Neither did those big arsed terror birds I read about. Yet he doesn't seem to think about that at all.....

A T-Rex

To that, I could add that:

1. T. rex has very long legs relative to its body size; longest among giant theropods if I remember well. When you look at the creature's skeleton it is obvious that it wasn´t a slowpoke; it is designed as a runner. Maybe not a cheetah- but a runner nonetheless.

2. T. rex is the ONLY giant predator known from the latest Cretaceous in North America; Nanotyrannus is seemingly just a juvenile T. rex, and claims by Bakker that some T. rex skeletons are really a separate species (tentatively known as Tyrannosaurus X) have not been confirmed. Even if it was a new species, which is unlikely, it was so similar to T. rex that anything Horner could say about T. rex would apply too to Tyrannosaurus X.
Having said so, there were HUGE herds of giant ceratopsians and hadrosaurs at the time T. rex lived (as well as the humongous Alamosaurus, recently confirmed to have been as large as Argentinosaurus itself). If T. rex was not an active predator, then who was hunting these giant herbivores? Who kept their population under control? Horner has suggested dromaeosaurs (raptors) as a possibility, but the raptors that lived at the time were small animals (wolf sized, at most). Even with their formidable weaponry and agility, raptors would have trouble bringing down the gigantic Edmontosaurus or Triceratops, let alone Alamosaurus.

3. There is fossil evidence that T. rex attacked live dinosaurs; bite marks that match T. rex teeth (and T. rex only) have been found in the bones of Edmontosaurus, a duckbilled hadrosaur. The wounds show signs of healing, meaning the duckbill survived an attack by a predatory T. rex. If this isn´t evidence then what is?

4. Edmontosaurus, Triceratops, Ankylosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus all lived alongside T. rex, and they were among the largest, if not the largest, and best armed of their kind. This makes sense if they were coexisting with a gigantic predator; they needed to become larger, stronger and more dangerous to survive. Animals don´t become huge and dangerous just because.

5. T. rex was way too big to survive only on carrion. No large animal today feeds only on carrion; and even those who are primarily scavengers, like vultures, will kill prey when hungry enough, or simply, when the opportunity presents itself.

You see, as you dig deeper into the world of paleontology you will realize that there's plenty of arrogant people in it (believe me, I know many of them), and that they will often cling obsessively to their ideas and never let go, no matter how much evidence there is proving them wrong.
People still claims that sabertoothed cats couldn´t bite through bone because they would break their teeth, despite the fact that bite marks from Smilodon have been found in the bones of other Smilodons, and that Megantereon bite marks have been found in hominid remains, going deep into the bone.
You will probably remember too that Megaloceros was once said to have become extinct because it couldn´t bear the weight of its enormous antlers, which is really a stupid idea. Same with the extended belief that theropods would die if they fell to the ground while chasing prey.
Unfortunately, when paleontologists say something, fanboys will often repeat it non stop until another respected paleontologist says otherwise. It just works that way.

Alvin T. Grey

I see what you mean, but to make such broad conclusion in the light of other more obvious (to me anyway) is more than a little silly.

Take the small arm thing....

He compares the T-Rex to a Raptor. But ignores the fact that they are two very different creatures.
Their size is different, their prey items were different, their method of hunting was different, yet he compares the two based only on the fact that they were both bipedal carnivourus reptiles.

Sort of like comparing a lion and a wolf as quadropedal pack hunting carnivourus mamals.
That are nothing alike in terms of prey, method of hunting or size. And thus drawing a non provible (yet eaily disprovable) conclusion.

where is the science in that?