Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Young Tarbosaurus had the killer instinct

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭ Alvin T. Grey


    They didn't change that much.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Adam Khor


    Hmm... nothing new, really. It was already known about T-Rex, wasn´t it? They say that the adults and the youngsters occupied different ecological niches, thus explaining why there aren´t other large predators from the same time and place.

    Question to those who know more than I do ;); is the same true for Tarbosaurus? I hear that Alioramus may be a juvenile Tarbosaurus. Are there other large predators from the same time and place? Or would Tarbosaurus completely dominate the food chain as seemingly did T-Rex?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭ Galvasean


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Hmm... nothing new, really. It was already known about T-Rex, wasn´t it? They say that the adults and the youngsters occupied different ecological niches, thus explaining why there aren´t other large predators from the same time and place.

    I'm assuming this also puts a nail into the coffin of the Nanotyrannus genus.
    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Question to those who know more than I do ;); is the same true for Tarbosaurus? I hear that Alioramus may be a juvenile Tarbosaurus. Are there other large predators from the same time and place? Or would Tarbosaurus completely dominate the food chain as seemingly did T-Rex?

    There are no other massive carnivores present in Tarbosaurus' domain that I am aware of.
    While non of teh articles I have read on the juvenille Tarbosaurus mention whether or not it was one in the same with Alioramus, the skull in the picture looks quite different.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭ Alvin T. Grey


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I'm assuming this also puts a nail into the coffin of the Nanotyrannus genus.



    I don't think they could have changed that much. Nano-Ts brain was in a different place. It's eyes were different, it's teeth were different.
    http://discovermagazine.com/1992/mar/insidetheheadofa8


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭ Galvasean


    I don't think they could have changed that much. Nano-Ts brain was in a different place. It's eyes were different, it's teeth were different.
    http://discovermagazine.com/1992/mar/insidetheheadofa8

    Hope it is a seperate genus TBH (if anything so I don't have to admit Jack Horner was right about something). Apparently BobBakker, Peter Larson, and Phil Currie are due to publish a paper on the Tyrannosaurus/Nanotyrannus debate soon. Should be interesting considering Larson and Currie have been on opposite ends of the debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Adam Khor


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Apparently BobBakker, Peter Larson, and Phil Currie are due to publish a paper on the Tyrannosaurus/[/i]Nanotyrannus[/i] debate soon. Should be interesting considering Larson and Currie have been on opposite ends of the debate.

    Sounds like they reached a conclusion then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭ Galvasean


    Hope so. Best keep our ears open.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭ Alvin T. Grey


    I can't wait to find out what the outcome is. As far as Jack is concerned, even a broken clock is right at least twice...


Advertisement