We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

The Tyrannosaur Thread- Anything T. rex or tyrannosaurid related

«1345

Comments

  • #2


    I have 1 in my back garden (But it is asleep now):D


  • #2


    Carpenter wrote: »
    I have 1 in my back garden (But it is asleep now):D


    Mine chases cats.


  • #2


    The neighbours complained about mine leaving presents on their lawn.

    So it ate them.


  • #2


    Good article on it here (yes, Fox News can be surprisingly good with their palaeontology stories).
    I wonder how closely related to Tarbosaurus this new dinosaur (it's name hasn't beeen formally given yet, so damed if I'm typing it unless absolutely necessary!)? It appears to be a couple of million years older. Perhaps it's a possible ancestor?


  • #2


    Looks quite like my mother in law


  • #2


    In that picture it looks like a T.rex in a clown suit to entertain the kids.

    Can it tell jokes? No
    Can it juggle balls? No
    But it keeps the little blighters quiet!

    :D:D:D


  • #2


    Kess73 wrote: »
    Mine chases cats.

    lol!


  • #2


    Whilst debate is ongoing as to whether or not Nanotyrannus of Cretaceous North America is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus or not, a similar debate has emerged in relation to two Asian tyrannosaurs.
    Raptorex kreigsteini was believed to be a 'primitive' small bodied ancestor type to the giant tyrannosaurs of the late Cretaceous. However, a new paper (available for free at PLoS ONE) questions this conclusion. It appears that Raptorex is almost certainly a juvenile of something larger, possibly Tarbosaurus. Another idea is that it does represent it's own valid genus, but reports of it being adult or close to adult age look to be erroneous.

    Raptorex_Trex.jpg&sa=X&ei=ifsVTrr6H4WBhQeO7qhY&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGHjR6kd83YEDYPItHVo0rHmtQSRw


  • #2


    Yeah, the critter always looked like a baby tyrannosaurid to me. The fact that no one is sure of where the fossil came from doesn´t help either.


  • #2


    As you know I have a problem with the recent reclassifiation of all of these dinosaurs. So please can someone more intelligent than me please tell me why T-Rex sudenly seems to be the only animal capable of fossilizing!!!

    Is it some bizzare burial rite that these animals had?

    "Oh dear, Granny is dead."
    "Better bury her in mud at the bottom of the river then...."
    "Should we leave out every other rib, and maybe her head like we did with Uncle Tommy?"
    "Yeah, that'll piss off the paleontoligists."
    <Joint Snicker>


  • #2


    Plenty more is being discovered, but few get anywhere near the attention and media backing that tyrannosaurs do.
    A recent and interesting theory has also suggested the reason that tyrannosaur fossils are uncharacteristically commonin their fossil beds in comparison to herbivores (in some areas tyrannosaurs make up 40% - the usual ratio to expect from an apex predator is about 10%) is that tyrannosaurs tended to eat their entire prey item, bones and all. Evidence of this is found in fossilized tyrannosaur dung, which is always comprised of a large amount of bone fragments from other dinosaurs. In other predatory dinosaurs we do not see such a high ratio of bone matter in fossilized dung. Bone eating en masse appears to be rare among most theropod dinosaurs, but very common among tyrannosaurs who had the teeth to do it.


  • #2


    But would that alone contribute in any meaningful way to the discrepency in numbers....
    Tyranosaurs can only eat so much.

    It's a matter of so many bodies so little time....

    But then again, how does one explain the fact that Tyranosaurs ended up fossilized if the reason that other animals didn't make it was that Mr. & Mrs Rex were disposing of the evidence....

    The other side of the coin is that in every other region during every other epoch there were multiple (ok at least two) large or medium carnivores active concurrently. Except in North America during the Cretatious where there was only one.......

    Weird.


  • #2


    Surely if it is a primitive ancestor it will be a lot older than a bigger creature? Doesn't it's age give it away? If it is about the same age it is more likely to be a young 'un. Mind you being the same age does not preclude it being a different species, just that it is unlikely to be an ancestor species.


  • #2


    Rubecula wrote: »
    Surely if it is a primitive ancestor it will be a lot older than a bigger creature? Doesn't it's age give it away? If it is about the same age it is more likely to be a young 'un. Mind you being the same age does not preclude it being a different species, just that it is unlikely to be an ancestor species.

    The problem with Raptorex is that the one specimen we have was bought from a fossil dealer. As such it's place of origin is not entirely certain, calling into dispute as to what age it lived in.


  • #2


    An idea just popped into my head regarding the disproportionate number of tyrannosaur skeletons found in relation to herbivores. Perhaps the herbivores were migratory and as such would leave the area during the dry season, while the tyrannosaurs would wait at the dried up rivers and lakes for their return. Many would succumb to starvation, dehydration etc. and then when the rainy season returned their bodies would be lying in perfect fossilization conditions.


  • #2


    Galvasean wrote: »
    An idea just popped into my head regarding the disproportionate number of tyrannosaur skeletons found in relation to herbivores. Perhaps the herbivores were migratory and as such would leave the area during the dry season, while the tyrannosaurs would wait at the dried up rivers and lakes for their return. Many would succumb to starvation, dehydration etc. and then when the rainy season returned their bodies would be lying in perfect fossilization conditions.

    If that was the case, wouldn´t we find more evidence of cannibalism in T-Rex? If they were "left alone" so to speak during dry season, I would imagine they would eat each other. There IS evidence that they were cannibalistic, but not that much evidence. Shouldn´t we find many more bite marks and chewed bones and all?


  • #2


    Or none... if they really ate the bones.Maybe they dined exclusively on other predators during these months? :pac:


  • #2


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Or none... if they really ate the bones.Maybe they dined exclusively on other predators during these months? :pac:

    Hmm I can imagine hadrosaurs and ceratopsians migrating, but... for some reason I imagine ankylosaurs and others would stay. They don´t seem adapted to long distance migrations... maybe T-Rex fed mostly on them during dry months, then when softer, meatier prey returned the ankylosaurs had their break?


  • #2


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Hmm I can imagine hadrosaurs and ceratopsians migrating, but... for some reason I imagine ankylosaurs and others would stay. They don´t seem adapted to long distance migrations... maybe T-Rex fed mostly on them during dry months, then when softer, meatier prey returned the ankylosaurs had their break?

    My guess is that they behaved more like wolves in that they followed the heards. A T-Rex would have needed a shed load of calories each week to stay alive if he was warm blooded and active as we think he was.
    My guess is that something that big doesn't have the choice of toughing it out over the lean months till the heards come back.

    Just a feeling is all.


  • #2


    My guess is that they behaved more like wolves in that they followed the heards. A T-Rex would have needed a shed load of calories each week to stay alive if he was warm blooded and active as we think he was.
    My guess is that something that big doesn't have the choice of toughing it out over the lean months till the heards come back.

    Just a feeling is all.

    Actually this is what I think too :D


  • #2


    Lions can go months without food FWIW


  • #2


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Lions can go months without food FWIW

    No they can´t. That's crocodiles :D Lions can only survive about one week without food.


  • #2


    Just did a quick google, apparently it's two weeks, but they get absolutely ravenous after one. Must have been thinking of the Great Migration episode of Nature's Great Events where they go months with very little food (because their main prey items have all migrated away for the dry season).
    Hmmm, didn't Horner(yeah, yeah boo hiss!)'s research suggest that Tyrannosaurus was adapting to be a better walking animal. Walking after migratory herds perhaps?


  • #2


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Just did a quick google, apparently it's two weeks, but they get absolutely ravenous after one. Must have been thinking of the Great Migration episode of Nature's Great Events where they go months with very little food (because their main prey items have all migrated away for the dry season).
    Hmmm, didn't Horner(yeah, yeah boo hiss!)'s research suggest that tyrannosaurus was adapting to be a better walking animal. Walking after migratory herds perhaps?

    That's exactly how I imagine it.


  • #2


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Lions can go months without food FWIW

    Nope, only cold blooded creatures can do that. Warm blooded ones shed a load of calories just keeping their core temp up.

    You can reduce your activity to stretch out your reserves, but again it comes up a aginst the old "Calories in Vs Calories out" equasion, and eventually you have to ballance that. Reduced activity = less hunting = less eating.

    The alternative to that is hybernation, but cats don't do that. And even with Hybernation, there is a limit to how long an animal can last.


  • #2


    Anyone has a million dollars to spend?

    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/05/02/Dinosaur-skeleton-in-New-York-auction/UPI-56701335990600/
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRZLc6KUqdh503S3aUOm94Yxncr7BAS81Ofuf_yXVFOKxYevI37Q

    I love how they call it Tyrannosaurus bataar. They could have used Tarbosaurus, but Tyrannosaurus would draw the masses, right? :D


  • #2


    I do hope a museum gets it and shares it with the public.


  • #2


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I do hope a museum gets it and shares it with the public.

    35cfkx.jpg


  • #2


    If I was extremely wealthy, I'd buy it. Anyone ever see those fossil replicas? They look great - very expensive though!


  • #2
Society & Culture