|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 3, 2021 7:33:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 12, 2021 3:32:47 GMT -5
Yeah the juveniles would be more likely to hunt us. True, but I would love to raise one from a young chick. I would probably simply call him REX.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 24, 2021 13:24:24 GMT -5
moneyversed.com/s/t-rex-news-different?as=6dap23849145535680233&utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=6dap23849145535680233&utm_medium=z020108&fbclid=IwAR2BncL7BPjt5VQMOPCnaIjTa-777-TFzHDC5bjCp5kNW4n_p80DtgWIbYM&bdk=z020108_61663fee1788d40008dfda7b T. Rex Fossils Show That They Were Much Different Than Our Cinematic Depictions. Within that three-decade lifespan, the T. rex spent most of its time packing on the pounds. In their journey from fuzzy hatchling to a gargantuan terrifying beast, the T. rex would gain around 1,700 lbs, topping out at a staggering 9 tons. But before we get too impressed by their size, consider their comically puny little arms. Thankfully, experts have answers about those, too. Why were T.rexes cursed with embarrassingly short arms? Well, according to paleontologists, the short arms actually served no purpose at all! Just like the fairly unnecessary human appendix, short arms were a trait passed down from an early tyrannosaur species that could function with a tiny wingspan. But even with the shortest arm-to-body ratio of all time, nobody dared cross the T.rex. Arms didn't matter when they had the gnarliest jaws in existence. The T. rex perfected the eating process by scooping prey up in its menacing jaws. As Mark Norell, a curator for the American Museum of Natural History, explained, “the predator had the rare ability to bite through solid bone and digest it," a fact they learned by doing some pretty dirty work. That fascinating bit of information came from studying fossilized dinosaur poop. Who knew that existed!? Chemical testing determined that the excrement held pulverized bits of bones that had been exposed to digestive acids in the stomach. All that chomping must have done a real number to the T.rex's teeth, and thankfully they regrew sets fairly frequently, as experts learned.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 31, 2021 4:59:02 GMT -5
By Danah Smith - Prehistoric Facts ( Facebook group ) Random Fact #1 A Tyrannosaurus Rex's bite force has been calculated to have been around 12,800 PSI, which is the strongest bite force of anything living on land.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 31, 2021 5:02:58 GMT -5
Prehistoric Facts: The Spinosaurus, the largest therapod by length. Since very little was known about the Spinosaurus when Jurassic Park 3 was being made, it isn't surprising that the Spinosaurus shown in the movie is very inaccurate. The InGen Spinosaurus has a body shape similar to that of most other therapod dinosaurs. The real Spinosaurus was quite unique, having a different body shape to even its closest relatives like Baryonyx and Suchomimus. In the movie, the InGen Spinosaurus is shown killing a Tyrannosaurus, breaking its neck. In reality, this would be impossible. Firstly, Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus both lived in different places in different times, but, even if they were to fight, Spinosaurus wouldn't stand a chance. A Spinosaurus' jaws and teeth were probably unable to be of much use in a fight, as they evolved to catch their prey, which could have been Onchopristis. The claws on its hands wouldn't be that useful either, it would be very unlikely that a Spinosaurus would get a chance to kill a Tyrannosaurus before being killed first. If you saw my Random Fact #1, you'd probably understand how. Again, with the arms, but I probably don't have to go over those again. The sail, the movie Spinosaurus' sail almost looks like half of a circle just got attached to the back of an inaccurate overgrown Baryonyx. Although the real shape of the sail is yet to be found out, a 2020 discovery reveals that the sail wasn't just on the Spinosaurus' back, but the tail aswell. I'm not going to complain that the Jurassic Park 3 Spinosaurus is inaccurate, as I said before, we didn't know much about it when the movie was made.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 17, 2021 8:50:47 GMT -5
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-giant-carnivorous-dinosaur-was-terror-smaller-tyrannosaurs-180978599/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&fbclid=IwAR0z_tqDfIaJsRm9LdtUxtk2Y1ygqIsKo3A83yBN7hzEEbXLx6MbBLC83L8 New, Giant Carnivorous Dinosaur Was a Terror to Smaller Tyrannosaurs. A fossil jaw reveals the large predator lived 90 million years ago. Despite their fearsome reputation, tyrannosaurs were not always the largest or fiercest carnivores of the Mesozoic world. For tens of millions of years, the earlier relatives of Tyrannosaurus lived in the shadow of larger carnivores with serrated, knife-like teeth. These predators were the carcharodontosaurs, or “shark-toothed lizards,” and paleontologists have just named a new species from a pivotal point in dinosaurian history. The new dinosaur, represented by a bone found in the 90-million-year-old rock of Uzbekistan, is a carcharodontosaur estimated to be about 30 feet long. But that’s hardly all. This new dinosaur species also lived alongside a much smaller tyrannosaur and helps narrow down when the fearsome carcharodontosaurs began to cede the role of apex predator to bigger, badder tyrannosaurs. Named Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis, the new dinosaur is described today in Royal Society Open Science by University of Tsukba paleontologist Kohei Tanaka, University of Calgary paleontologist Darla Zelenitsky and colleagues. So far, the dinosaur is only known from a single bone—part of the upper jaw uncovered in the sandy reaches of the Kyzylkum Desert. Nevertheless, the anatomical details of the bone indicate that it belonged to the largest predator of its environment. Ulughbegsaurus is not the first dinosaur to be found in the area. The fossil was preserved in what paleontologists known as the Bissekty Formation, a stack of 90- to 92-million-year-old rocks that preserves the remains of horned dinosaurs, duckbill dinosaurs, long-necked sauropod dinosaurs and more. “The Bissekty Formation represents one of the best-known ecosystems in Europe and Asia of its time,” Zelenitsky says. Among the most notable finds in the geologic section are the bones of Timurlengia, a tyrannosaur that grew to about ten feet in length. That’s roughly a third of the body length of Ulughbegsaurus.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 20, 2021 15:50:20 GMT -5
www.studyfinds.org/old-age-t-rex-tyrannosaurus-fat-feet/?fbclid=IwAR2jvKXF5zwbkSWRo3vrqVD_rbysqtIivykOsITU0Yqkle14R5wZPOSmAn4 Old age wasn’t kind to the T. rex: Fearsome dinosaur was slowed by fat feet in elder years. T. rex is believed by many to be the deadliest animal that ever lived. It reached more than 40 feet from nose to tail, was bigger than a bus, and weighed up to eight tons. Its five-foot-long head housed 60 gigantic dagger-like teeth shaped like bananas. Its bone-crunching bite would crush a car. Massive jaw muscles could chomp down with a force of over six tons, turning armored animals into packed lunches. The latest findings shed fresh light on how the iconic creature aged and moved. They back a growing theory that adolescents were sleeker, speedier predators. Previous research has suggested they had sharper, blade-like teeth, making them even more deadly.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 10, 2021 5:54:18 GMT -5
/\ The picture and comparison above was probably what closed the debate during my long absence from the forums.
|
|
|
Post by kesagake on Dec 10, 2021 12:10:47 GMT -5
Reply #160, T.rex would rekt the Spinosaurus with no effort.
T.rex is a bulky land predator with crushing bone bite while Spinosaurus is a sort of giant duck slowed down by a sail.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 12, 2022 2:31:06 GMT -5
Note: There is now a huge fan-base of Spinosaurus fans ( mostly a group of young enthusiasts ) who totally idolizes Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. These guys cheering for the huge sail-backed monster are all either tragically misinformed or else in total unyielding denial of the facts. Spinosaurus fans are cheering for a Hollywood monster that has never existed in reality. They are cheering for a Jurassic Park monster no more real than Godzilla or Gorgo. Spinosaurus fans need to spend some time away from comic books and video games and research some real science.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 22, 2022 1:47:28 GMT -5
Over at Wildfact, GuateGojira posted on the topic of the famous giant shark Megalodon, in which I am in full agreement with all he had to say. Due to a mislead comparison of Megalodon with T-rex by another poster, Guate had this to say: 1 - You say that Megalodon was more dominant and formidable than T. rex. There is no such a thing, check that in the habitat and timeframe of T. rex (late Cretaceous in North America) there was no other predator that matched its size and power, no other, in fact the nich for middle sized predators was occupied by juvenil T. rex! The next predator in the food chaing will be Dakotaraptor with only 350 kg (compare that with the 9 tons of Rex). In the case of Megalodon, it had a competitor, it was Livyatan, which matched its size and mass, so there were two predators in the same enviroment and based on this, T. rex will be more "dominant" from your point of view. In fact, the case of Megalodon will be more like Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, two big similar sized predators sharing the same area.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 22, 2022 1:51:02 GMT -5
Meet Dakotaraptor: the feathered dinosaur that was 'utterly lethal' www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/05/dakotaraptor-feathered-winged-carnivore-south-dakota Prehistoric carnivores had 9.5in ‘sickle claw’, and quill knobs on lower arm bones are first documented evidence that a large raptor had feathers. A dinosaur discovered in South Dakota had feathers on a raptor’s body, large claws and wings, according to a study published by the University of Kansas Paleontological Institute. “It really was the Ferrari of competitors,” said Robert DePalma, head of the research team that discovered the fossils and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Palm Beach Museum of Natural History. “It could run very fast, it could jump incredibly well, it was agile and it had essentially grappling hooks on the front and rear limbs. These claws could grab on to anything and just slice them to bits. It was utterly lethal.” The Dakotaraptor was discovered in 2005 in the aptly named Hell Creek Formation, also known as the home of the famed Tyrannosaurus rex and the three-horned Triceratops. Dakotaraptors were carnivores that walked the Earth about 66m years ago. They were about 17ft long, making them among the largest raptors in the world, and their wings stretched about 3ft. The only known raptor larger than the Dakotaraptor was the Utahraptor, which was 23ft long, but it died out approximately 60m years before the Dakotaraptor came along. Scientists believe Dakotaraptors were feathered because of “quill knobs” found on the lower arm bones. These usually indicate where feathers attach to the bone. The discovery is the first time scientists have documented evidence that a large raptor had feathered wings, according to DePalma. Despite having feathers and wings, however, the dinosaurs could not fly, because of their size. The purpose of their wings remains unclear but the study hypothesized that they could be for prey capture, protecting eggs or even mate attraction. According to David Burnham, a study co-author and paleontologist, “the most scary thing” about Dakotaraptors was their sickle claw. It measures about 9.5in along the outer curve and is “bigger than anything” Burnham has seen in this category of dinosaur. “It’s very laterally compressed so that means it was probably made for piercing flesh,” Burnham said. “It’s not a big, fat claw like on a T rex or something. It’s not just going to stomp you to death or bone-crush you to death. No, these things would slice and dice.” It is not clear if the dinosaurs performed their gruesome hunting in groups, but Burnham said there was some evidence that they travelled in packs, as the discovery of their fossils usually yields more than one raptor in the same area. The discovery proved that the terrifying animals used to live in South Dakota. They probably lived in other regions too. Now that scientists know what Dakotaraptor teeth and bones look like, discoveries from the past century can be classified. Teeth and bones found in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota can be traced back to the Dakotaraptor, according to Burnham. “They’ve been assigned to different animals not really knowing what they were,” he said. “Now we can be fairly confident they belong to this giant raptor.” The discovery also filled a niche in the ecological system that scientists “thought was empty”. The Dakotaraptor fit into a predatory hierarchy as it was larger than some carnivorous creatures but smaller than the Tyrannosaurus. It was also built for running and could chase down prey other predators could not. “Here you are throwing the most lethal animal you can possibly imagine into the paleoecology of that time period, so obviously it has dramatic effects on our interpretations of the paleoecology,” DePalma said. Despite all of these discoveries, Burnham said there was more to learn. The researchers would like to “have a better idea of exactly how Dakotaraptors lived” but most importantly, they would love to find the still-missing skull. “We found some loose teeth but we never found the skull,” he said. “It’s kind of the lottery prize for paleontologists if you get the head of the animal.”
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 22, 2022 1:53:02 GMT -5
Prehistoric carnivores had 9.5in ‘sickle claw’, and quill knobs on lower arm bones are first documented evidence that a large raptor had feathers.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 22, 2022 1:54:07 GMT -5
A replica of a Dakotaraptor skeleton. Photograph: Robert DePalma.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 22, 2022 8:16:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 7, 2022 14:39:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 25, 2022 5:35:15 GMT -5
Here we go - another bullcrap movie from Jurassic Park... this time Giganotosaurus kills T-rex. Sorry, J.P. losers. You will not make so much as a shiny penny from me.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 3, 2022 2:35:16 GMT -5
Tyrannosaurus remains hint at three possible distinct species www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220228220252.htm A new analysis of Tyrannosaurus skeletal remains reveals physical differences in the femur, other bones and dental structures across specimens that could suggest Tyrannosaurus rex specimens need to be re-categorized into three distinct groups or species, reports a new study. Tyrannosaurus rex is the only recognised species of the group of dinosaurs, or genus, Tyrannosaurus to date. Previous research has acknowledged variation across Tyrannosaurus skeletal remains in the femur (thighbone) and specimens with either one or two slender incisor teeth on each side of front ends of the jaw. Gregory Paul and colleagues analysed the bones and dental remains of 37 Tyrannosaurus specimens. The authors compared the robustness of the femur in 24 of the specimens, a measure calculated from the length and circumference that gives an indication of the strength of the bone. They also measured the diameter of the base of teeth or space in the gums to assess if specimens had one or two slender incisiform teeth. The authors observed that the femur varied across specimens, some with more robust femurs and others with more gracile femurs. The authors found there were two times more robust femurs than gracile ones across specimens, which suggests that this is not a difference caused by sex, which would likely result in a more even split. The authors also suggest that the variation in femurs is not related to growth of the specimen as robust femurs were found in some juvenile specimens two thirds the size of an adult and gracile femurs were found in some specimens that were full adult size. Dental structure also varied across specimens, although those with both femur measurements and dental remains was low (12 specimens). Specimens with one incisor tooth were correlated with often having higher femur gracility. Of the Tyrannosaurus specimens, 28 could be identified in distinct layers of sediment (stratigraphy) at the Lancian upper Masstrichtian formations in North America (estimated to be from between 67.5 to 66 million years ago). The authors compared Tyrannosaurus specimens with other theropod species found in lower layers of sediment. Only robust Tyrannosaurus femurs were found in the lower layer of sediment (six femurs). The variation of femur robustness in the lower layer was not different to that of other theropod species, which indicates that likely only one species of Tyrannosaurus existed at this point. Only one gracile Tyrannosaurus femur was identified in the middle layer with five other gracile femurs in the upper layer, alongside other robust femurs. The variation in Tyrannosaurus femur robustness in the top layer of the sediments was higher than what was observed in some earlier theropod specimens. This suggests that the Tyrannosaurus specimens found at higher layers of sediment physically developed into more distinct forms compared to specimens from lower layers, and other dinosaur species. Gregory Paul, lead author, said: "We found that the changes in Tyrannosaurus femurs are likely not related to the sex or age of the specimen. We propose that the changes in the femur may have evolved over time from a common ancestor who displayed more robust femurs to become more gracile in later species. The differences in femur robustness across layers of sediment may be considered distinct enough that the specimens could potentially be considered separate species." The authors nominate two potential new species of Tyrannosaurus based on their analysis. The first, Tyrannosaurus imperator (tyrant lizard emperor), relates to specimens found at the lower and middle layers of sediment, characterised with more robust femurs and usually two incisor teeth. The authors argue these features have been retained from earlier ancestors (tyrannosaurids). The second, Tyrannosaurus regina (tyrant lizard queen), is linked to specimens from the upper and possibly middle layers of sediment, characterised with slenderer femurs and one incisor tooth. The recognised species Tyrannosaurus rex (tyrant lizard king) was identified in the upper and possibly middle layer of sediment with specimens classed as retaining more robust femurs while having only one incisor tooth. Some specimens could not be identified based on their remains so were not assigned to a species. The authors acknowledge that they cannot rule out that the observed variation is due to extreme individual differences, or atypical sexual dimorphism, rather than separate groups, and they also caution that the location within sediment layers is not known for some specimens. The authors discuss the difficulties of assigning fossil vertebrates to a potential new species. The authors conclude that the physical variation found in Tyrannosaurus specimens combined with their stratigraphy are indicative of three potential groups that could be nominated as two new species, T. imperator and T. regina, alongside the only recognised species to date, T. rex.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 3, 2022 2:37:03 GMT -5
Tyrannosaurus imperator - Tyrannosaurus regina - and Tyrannosaurus rex.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 24, 2022 4:58:57 GMT -5
Dense bones allowed Spinosaurus to hunt underwater www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220323125107.htm Spinosaurus is the largest predatory dinosaur known -- over two metres longer than the longest Tyrannosaurus rex - but the way it hunted has been a subject of debate for decades. In a new paper, published today in Nature, a group of palaeontologists have taken a different approach to decipher the lifestyle of long-extinct creatures: examining the density of their bones. By analysing the density of spinosaurid bones and comparing them to other animals like penguins, hippos, and alligators, the team found that Spinosaurus and its close relative Baryonyx from the Cretaceous of the UK both had dense bones that would have allowed them to submerge themselves underwater to hunt. Scientists already knew that spinosaurids had certain affinities with water -- their elongate jaws and cone-shaped teeth are similar to those of fish-eating predators, and the ribcage of Baryonyx, from Surrey, even contained half-digested fish scales. In the last decade University of Portsmouth palaeontologist and National Geographic Explorer Dr Nizar Ibrahim unearthed different parts of a Spinosaurus skeleton in North Africa's Sahara Desert. The skeleton Dr Ibrahim and his team described had retracted nostrils, short hind legs, paddle-like feet, and a fin-like tail: all signs that firmly pointed to an aquatic lifestyle. Dr Ibrahim said: "We battled sandstorms, flooding, snakes, scorpions and more to excavate the most enigmatic dinosaur in the world and now we have multiple lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction -- the skeleton really has "water-loving dinosaur" written all over it!" Based on its highly specialised anatomy, Dr Ibrahim and his team previously suggested that Spinosaurus could swim and actively pursue prey in the water, but others claimed that it was not much of a swimmer and instead waded in the water like a giant heron. Researchers have continued to debate whether Spinosaurus spent much of its time submerged, pursuing prey in the water, or if it just stood in the shallows and dipped its jaws in to snap up prey. "In part this is probably because we were challenging decade-old dogma -- so even if you have a very strong case, you kind of expect a certain degree of pushback," Dr Ibrahim said. This continuing debate led lead author Dr Matteo Fabbri, based at Chicago's Field Museum, senior author Dr Ibrahim and an international team of researchers to try to find another way to infer the lifestyle and ecology of long-extinct creatures like Spinosaurus. Dr Fabbri said: "The idea for our study was, okay, clearly we can interpret the fossil data in different ways. But what about the general physical laws? There are certain laws that are applicable to any organism on this planet. One of these laws regards density and the capability of submerging into water." Across the animal kingdom, bone density can tell us whether an animal is able to sink beneath the surface and swim. "Previous studies have shown that mammals adapted to water have dense, compact bone in their postcranial (behind the skull) skeletons," said Fabbri, an expert on the internal structure of bone. Dense bone helps with buoyancy control and allows the animal to submerge itself. The team assembled a very large dataset of femur and rib bone cross-sections from 250 species of extinct and living animals, including both land-dwellers and water-dwellers, and covering animals ranging in weight from a few grams to several tonnes including seals, whales, elephants, mice, and even hummingbirds. They also collected data on extinct marine reptiles like mosasaurs and plesiosaurs. The researchers compared bone cross sections of these animals to cross-sections of bone from Spinosaurus and its relatives Baryonyx and Suchomimus. Dr Ibrahim said: "The scope of our study kept expanding because we kept thinking of more and more groups of vertebrates to include." The scientists found a clear link between bone density and aquatic foraging behavior: animals that submerge themselves underwater to find food have bones that are almost completely solid throughout, whereas cross-sections of land-dwellers' bones look more like doughnuts, with hollow centres. When the researchers applied spinosaurid dinosaur bones to this paradigm, they found that Spinosaurus and Baryonyx both had the type of dense bone associated with full submersion. Meanwhile, the closely related African Suchomimus had hollower bones. It still lived by water and ate fish, as evidenced by its crocodile-like snout and conical teeth, but based on its bone density, it wasn't actually swimming much. "That was a bit of a surprise" according to Ibrahim, "because Baryonyx and Suchomimus look rather similar." But the team soon realised that it was not out of the ordinary and similar patterns can be seen in other groups. Other dinosaurs, like the giant long-necked sauropods also had some dense bones in their limbs, but this simply reflects the huge amount of stress on those limb bones. Dr Ibrahim said: "Some of these animals would have weighed as much as several elephants so adding extra load-bearing capacity to the bones makes a lot of sense!." Dr Jingmai O'Connor, a curator at the Field Museum and co-author of this study, says that collaborative studies like this one that draw from hundreds of specimens, are "the future of palaeontology. They're very time-consuming to do, but they let scientists shed light onto big patterns." Dr Ibrahim is already thinking about the next questions. "I think that, with this additional line of evidence, speculative notions that envisage Spinosaurus as some sort of giant wader lack evidential support and can be safely excluded. The bones don't lie, and now we know than even the internal architecture of the bones is entirely consistent with our interpretation of this animal as a giant predator hunting fish in vast rivers, using its paddle-like tail for propulsion. It will be interesting to reconstruct in a lot more detail how these river monsters moved around -- something we are already working on."
|
|