|
Post by brobear on Aug 16, 2022 6:45:02 GMT -5
All the better to better eat you with -- dinosaurs evolved different eye socket shapes to allow stronger bites domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/1290/tyrannosaurus-rex?page=9 Large dinosaur predators, such as Tyrannosaurus rex, evolved different shapes of eye sockets to better deal with high bite forces, new research has shown. While in many animals -- and most dinosaurs -- the eye socket is just a circular hole in the skull housing the eyeball, this is very different in large carnivores. In a new study, published today in Communications Biology, researchers at the University of Birmingham reveal how the unusual elliptical, or oval eye sockets found in the skulls of these predators, could have evolved to help the skull absorb impact as they pounced on prey. Dr Stephan Lautenschlager, Senior Lecturer for Palaeobiology at the University of Birmingham and author of the new study, analysed the shape of the eye sockets of ca. 500 different dinosaurs and related species. "The results show that only some dinosaurs had eye sockets that were elliptical or keyhole-shaped," said Dr Stephan Lautenschlager. "However, all of those were large, carnivorous dinosaurs with skull lengths of 1 m or more." Using computer simulations and stress analysis, Dr Lautenschlager tested what purpose these unusual eye socket shapes could have. The results demonstrated that a skull with a circular eye socket was more prone to high stresses during biting. However, if these were replaced with other eye socket shapes stresses were considerably reduced allowing top predators, including Tyrannosaurus rex, to evolve high bite forces without compromising skull stability. The study also showed that most plant-eating species and juvenile individuals retained a circular eye socket. Only large carnivores adopted other morphologies, such as elliptical, keyhole-shaped or figure-of-eight-shaped eye sockets. Dr Lautenschlager added: "In these species, just the upper part of the eye socket was actually occupied by the eyeball. This also led to a relative reduction of eye size compared with skull size." The researchers also investigated what would have happened if eye size had increased at the same rate as skull length. In such a case, the eyes of Tyrannosaurus rex would have been up to 30 cm in diameter and weighing nearly 20 kg (instead of estimated 13 cm and 2 kg). Materials provided by University of Birmingham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2022 10:46:08 GMT -5
Tyrannosaurus rex is the largest terrestrial carnivore to have ever lived, it is now a scientific fact. It is the only theropod know from good remains to have approached 10 000kg. He is the most robust of all large theropods and his cognitive capacities are among the most developed among large theropods. It is incredible that a carnivor 10 times heavier than a short faced bear has existed. But like all others large carnivores, tyrannosaurus was not a killing machine and if he had lived with prehistoric humans, there is absolutely no doubt that the humans could have killed him. (end of the provocation ).
|
|
|
Post by arctozilla on Aug 25, 2022 12:04:06 GMT -5
Yes, T.rex is the largest land predator that ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 11, 2022 1:18:23 GMT -5
An interesting look at how T-rex was viewed in the past. Movies such as 'King Kong' (1933) portrayed T-rex just as he was portrayed by the Paleontologists of the time. Here are a few other examples, which I can remember from the drive-in theaters. 1956
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 11, 2022 1:20:08 GMT -5
1969
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 21, 2022 10:50:16 GMT -5
The Jurassic Park/World movies:
1- Jurassic Park (1993). Good. High quality special effects. The way the dinosaurs depicted, not perfect but good entertainment for the most part. 2- The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997). Good movie. Most unreal aspect, it would take only one cop with a high-powered rifle to kill T-rex. 3- Jurassic Park III (2001). I have one huge complaint. The producer decided that a new monster was needed, so they staged a fight between Spinosaurus and T-rex in which (unrealistically) T-rex came out second best. 4- Jurassic World (2015). Once again the producer decided that a new monster was needed, so he creates a home-made dinosaur using genetic manipulation: the Indominus Rex - a Frankenstein dinosaur. Now, the Jurassic Park franchise is doing a nose-dive. 5- Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018). I haven't watched this one. I lost interest after Jurassic World. 6- Jurassic World: Dominion (2022). Last night, I started to watch this one. However, just a few minutes into the movie, T-rex battles a Giganotosaurus and, once again, comes out second best. I stopped watching right then and there. No more Jurassic movies for me.
|
|
|
Post by skibidibopmmdada on Sept 22, 2022 12:22:20 GMT -5
Jurassic world 100 T rex faces goose and comes out second best.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 22, 2022 15:14:14 GMT -5
Jurassic world 100 T rex faces goose and comes out second best. Yeah, that does appear to have become the norm with them. After the first two movies, from there each movie has to have a new monster, and what better way to make this monster appear bad-ass than for it to kill a T-ex? By the way; Spinosaurus aegyptiacus (J.P.#3) was basically a giant goose.
|
|
|
Post by skibidibopmmdada on Sept 22, 2022 17:25:38 GMT -5
Oh god, imagine if it carried the aggressiveness of the goose....hippo has been dethroned.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 6, 2022 6:12:48 GMT -5
“Yutyrannus” The largest known dinosaur with direct evidence of feathers worldnewsroom.info/eng/106773/?fbclid=IwAR3idhUvQrtDFJra_Akqi3DqPTt2LTf3Ac-RNadBGfxK-JLD26PpKjQ7Sf0 The Yutyrannus huali was a theropod Tyrannosauroid that lived during the Early Cretaceous period 145 million years ago. The generic name Yutayrannus means ‘feathered tyrant‘ in Latin and huali means ‘beautiful’ in Mandarin; the complete name translates to ‘beautiful feathered tyrant.’ It was named by Xu Xing in 2012. The discovery of fossils was in the Liaoning Province of China which was formed around 140 million years ago. Paleontologists discovered that the dinosaur had display feathers. The structures were an early form of feathers that could form a downy cover on the body of the dinosaur to keep it warm or hold importance during mating displays. It is currently the largest dinosaur to provide direct evidence of feathers on dinosaurs. While tyrannosaurs can be found in warm and cold climates, this genus lived in cold areas. It was a carnivore and fed on small animals and other dinosaurs like sauropods. They had small feet and front limbs with three fingers. The nasal crest has a wavy pattern. The downy plumage of feathers covered its entire body. Its display feathers were some of the largest seen on a dinosaur fossil and were 7.9 in (20 cm) and had filaments. This tyrannosaurid has feather structures that predated the ones found in modern birds. The postorbital bone near the eyes has a small horn-like structure. Their feet were smaller compared to an advanced tyrannosaur, like Yutyrannus vs Rex. The feathered tyrant, Yutyrannus, the skull is deep and around 35.6 in (90.5 cm) long. Yutyrannus was a big theropod tyrannosauroid dinosaur. In comparison between Yutyrannus vs T-rex, the Tyrannosaurus rex is around 10 ft (3 m) larger than the Yutyrannus huali. The Yutyrannus was 29.5 ft (9 m) long and 13.12-16.4 ft (4-5 m) tall. Despite its size, the Yutyrannus could run at speeds of 30-40 mph (48-64 kph). As it grew older the leg length grew shorter and the range of motion reduced. They became better suited at tackling their prey rather than pursuing them. The feathered tyrant dinosaur, Yutyrannus huali, was a carnivore. Its diet consisted of small animals, other dinosaurs, and occasionally fish. The habitat of therapod Yutyrannus is cold and the feathers provide insulation. It lived in areas where the average annual temperature is 50 F (10 C). The climate of its habitat was similar to the modern-day forests of British Columbia. Yutyrannus had a fixed breeding season and were oviparous; they laid eggs after internal fertilization and the juveniles hatched from the Yutyrannus egg after an incubation period which differed depending on species. It is not known whether the species is polygynous.
|
|
|
Post by caninecat on Nov 23, 2022 14:31:42 GMT -5
I would like to express myself about the mass of the tyrannosaurus rex. The estimates of Spinosaurus published here refer to the work of Dan Folkes, who underestimates the appearance of Spinosaurus too much, as well as its weight, the defeat of its chest cells is very thin. For example, Nizar Ibrahim stated in an article that some of the existence mechanisms of Spinosaurus weighed more than 10,000 kg. So unfairly called tyrannosaurus more predatory than spinosaurus
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 24, 2022 4:31:13 GMT -5
I would like to express myself about the mass of the tyrannosaurus rex. The estimates of Spinosaurus published here refer to the work of Dan Folkes, who underestimates the appearance of Spinosaurus too much, as well as its weight, the defeat of its chest cells is very thin. For example, Nizar Ibrahim stated in an article that some of the existence mechanisms of Spinosaurus weighed more than 10,000 kg. So unfairly called tyrannosaurus more predatory than spinosaurus Thank you, caninecat, for your input. I have held some doubts as well about T-rex possibly outweighing Spino. However, with the new evidence being studied, I do believe that Spino was a hunter of fish and any other "meaty" prey that he can find in the water. Imo, Spino was a far cry from the JP3 movie-monster. However, my knowledge is limited, to say the least. Any data or information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Also note; I am seeking the truth. So, if you can prove me wrong, a BIG thumbs-up for you.
|
|
|
Post by skibidibopmmdada on Nov 24, 2022 12:13:49 GMT -5
T.rex is the rightful king of beasts. NO! God of beasts. It had eyesight possibly better than a hawk, a sense of smell possibly better than a bear, Largest FULLY terrestrial land predator, strongest biteforce of any land predator, Probably better at turning than an allosaurus who is a much smaller animal, might have been an endurance predator which means great stamina and they might have commonly fought amongst eachother and endured heavy wounds, etc etc... T rex was a UNIT!
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 28, 2022 6:47:01 GMT -5
Newly-Discovered Tyrannosaur Species Fills Gap in Lineage Leading to Tyrannosaurus rex Nov 25, 2022 by Natali Anderson www.sci.news/paleontology/daspletosaurus-wilsoni-11424.html Daspletosaurus wilsoni, a tyrannosaurid dinosaur that lived 76.5 million years ago in what is now Montana, the United States, displays a unique combination of ancestral and derived characteristics, and represents a transitional stage linking the ancestral Daspletosaurus torosus with Daspletosaurus horneri in an evolutionary lineage evolving from 77 to 75 million years ago.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 2, 2022 7:04:59 GMT -5
The Day T-rex died...
|
|
|
Post by Granolah on Dec 10, 2022 12:38:50 GMT -5
You should check out the tarrasque brobear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 16, 2022 13:37:55 GMT -5
Dinosaur teeth reveal what they didn't eat New analysis of T. rex and other dinosaur teeth gives insight into their eating habits Date: December 9, 2022 Source: University of Tokyo www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/12/221209094728.htm Scratches on dinosaur teeth could reveal what they really ate. Dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA) has now been used to infer the feeding habits of large theropods, including Allosaurus and T. rex. By taking 3D images of individual teeth and analyzing the pattern of marks scratched into them, researchers could reason which dinosaurs may have frequently crunched on hard bone and which may have regularly eaten softer foods and prey. This technique opens up a new avenue of research for paleontology, helping us to better understand not only dinosaurs themselves but also the environment and communities in which they lived. Scratches on dinosaur teeth could reveal what they really ate. For the first time, dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA) has been used to infer the feeding habits of large theropods, including Allosaurus and T. rex. By taking 3D images of individual teeth and analyzing the pattern of marks scratched into them, researchers could reason which dinosaurs may have frequently crunched on hard bone and which may have regularly eaten softer foods and prey. This technique opens up a new avenue of research for paleontology, helping us to better understand not only dinosaurs themselves but also the environment and communities in which they lived. From Fantasia to Jurassic Park, the T. rex is seen as a terrifying apex predator that would chase down its prey and crunch on it whole. But how much did this iconic dinosaur actually chow down on bones? And what about other predatory dinosaurs that existed long before it? Researchers from the University of Tokyo, in collaboration with teams from the University of Mainz and the University of Hamburg in Germany, have used dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA), a scanning technique to examine topographical dental wear and tear in microscopic detail, on individual dinosaur teeth from more than 100 million years ago to better understand what they may have eaten. "We wanted to test if we could use DMTA to find evidence of different feeding behaviors in tyrannosaurids (from the Cretaceous period, 145 million to 66 million years ago) compared to the older Allosaurus (from the Jurassic period, 201 million to 145 million years ago), which are both types of theropods," explained postdoctoral fellow Daniela Winkler from the Graduate School of Frontier Sciences. "From other research, we already knew that tyrannosaurids can crack and feed on bones (from studies of their feces and bite marks on bone). But allosaurs are much older and there is not so much information about them." DMTA has mainly been used to study mammal teeth, so this is the first time it was used to study theropods. The same research team from the University of Tokyo also recently pioneered a study on DMTA in Japanese sauropod dinosaurs, famous for their long necks and tails. A high-resolution 3D image was taken of the tooth surface at a very small scale of 100 micrometers (one-tenth of a millimeter) by 100 micrometers in size. Up to 50 sets of surface texture parameters were then used to analyze the image, for example, the roughness, depth and complexity of wear marks. If the complexity was high, i.e., there were different-sized marks which overlaid each other, this was associated with hard object feeding, such as on bone. However, if the complexity was low, i.e., the marks were more arranged, of a similar size and not overlapping, this was associated with soft object feeding, like meat. In total, the team studied 48 teeth, 34 from theropod dinosaurs and 14 from crocodilians (modern crocodiles and alligators), which were used as a comparison. The team was able to study original fossilized teeth and take high-resolution silicon molds, thanks to loans provided by natural history museums in Canada, the U.S., Argentina and Europe. "We actually started dental microwear research of dinosaurs in 2010," said Lecturer Mugino Kubo from the Graduate School of Frontier Sciences. "My husband, Dr. Tai Kubo, and I had started collecting dental molds of dinosaurs and their contemporaries in North and South Americas, Europe, and of course Asia. Since Daniela joined my lab, we utilized these molds to make a broader comparison among carnivorous dinosaurs." "It was especially challenging to carry out this research during the pandemic," said Winkler "as we rely on being able to gather samples from international institutions. The sample size might not be so large this time, but it is a starting point." Winkler says what they found surprising was that they didn't find evidence of much bone crushing behavior in either Allosaurus or tyrannosaurids, even though they know that tyrannosaurids ate bone. There may be several reasons for this unexpected outcome. It could be that although Tyrannosaurus was able to eat bone, it was less commonly done than previously thought. Also, the team had to use well-preserved teeth, so it might be that extremely damaged teeth that were excluded from this study were in such a condition because those animals fed more on bone. Something the team did find with both the dinosaurs and crocodilians was a noticeable difference between juveniles and adults. "We studied two juvenile dinosaur specimens (one Allosaurus and one tyrannosaurid) and what we found was a very different feeding niche and behavior for both compared to the adults. We found that there was more wear to juvenile teeth, which might mean that they had to more frequently feed on carcasses because they were eating leftovers," explained Winkler. "We were also able to detect different feeding behavior in juvenile crocodilians; however, this time it was the opposite. Juvenile crocodilians had less wear on their teeth from eating softer foods, perhaps like insects, while adults had more dental wear from eating harder foods, like larger vertebrates." Winkler says that the next step with dinosaurs will probably be to look in more detail at the long-necked sauropods, which the team has also been studying. But for now, she is experimenting with something much, much smaller: crickets. The insects' mouths may be tiny and don't have any teeth, but the researchers want to see if they can still find evidence of mouth wear using the same technique. "From what we learn using DMTA, we can possibly reconstruct extinct animals' diets, and from this make inferences about extinct ecosystems, paleoecology and paleoclimate, and how it differs from today." said Winkler. "But this research is also about curiosity. We want to form a clearer image of what dinosaurs were really like and how they lived all those millions of years ago."
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 26, 2022 10:00:42 GMT -5
T-Rex Arms Controversy: What Are Their Small Arms For? Joshua Stan Dec 24, 2022 www.sciencetimes.com/articles/41470/20221224/dec-24-t-rex-arms-controversy-what-small.htm?fbclid=IwAR1UgSY4_dxrMpB_-11gOHYvM0w1AjFzPLE_5lK5qzHQYJ8wbgO8EPCb7lQ Small Arms For Powerful Bite T. rex's teeth were serrated and designed for crushing bone rather than piercing or slicing flesh. The small arms may have allowed for the development of the powerful bite needed to crush bones and tear off chunks of flesh from their prey. T. rex's powerful bite required strong jaws and a lot of muscle to operate effectively. This led to the development of a large head and neck, which could be a problem for a two-legged animal like T. rex. Larger arms would have caused the front end of the dinosaur to tip forward, while a larger tail would have been needed to counterbalance the head's weight. To avoid these issues, T. rex evolved smaller arms, which may have helped it maintain its balance while still being able to deliver powerful bites with its large, serrated teeth. It is possible that the true function of T. rex's small arms may never be fully understood, as the context needed to understand their purpose may have been lost to the fossil record over the 66 million years since T. rex lived. It has been suggested that human beings may be particularly interested in the function of T. rex's arms because they place a lot of importance on their arms and hands, which are critical to their survival. As humans rely heavily on their arms and hands to interact with their environment, it is difficult for us to imagine willingly giving them up. T. rex's small arms may seem strange to us because they appear to have little use compared to the importance of our arms and hands. Despite this, T. rex was a highly successful and intimidating animal, suggesting that its small arms did not hinder its survival.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 29, 2022 23:58:27 GMT -5
New Study Finds That T. Rex Could Have Been 70 Percent Larger Than Fossils Suggest By Austin Harvey | Checked By Cara Johnson Published November 18, 2022 allthatsinteresting.com/t-rex-true-size New research estimates that the T. rex may have weighed as much as 33,000 pounds — more than two African elephants. The Tyrannosaurus rex is arguably one of the most famous dinosaurs, but new discoveries are constantly changing our understanding of these massive, prehistoric creatures. For instance, take new research from a team of paleontologists at the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, Ontario, which suggests that we’ve vastly underestimated the size of T. rex ever since its discovery in 1902. According to Live Science, the team presented their findings at an annual conference held by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology on November 5, where they told those in attendance that they estimate the T. rex may have been nearly 70 percent larger than previously thought. The largest T. rex specimen on record, nicknamed “Scotty,” weighed just under 20,000 pounds when it was alive, but the study’s authors say that other T. rexes may have weighed as much as 33,000 pounds. For reference, that’s heavier than two African elephants. Study co-author Jordan Mallon told Live Science that he and the team came to this conclusion by examining the fossil record, which estimates that around 2.5 billion T. rexes once roamed the Earth. Of those 2.5 billion, only 32 adult fossils have ever been discovered, meaning researchers’ knowledge of the dinosaur is based on incredibly limited information. It’s possible — and quite likely, Mallon and co-author David Hone figured — that these undiscovered T. rexes were a fair bit larger than the small fraction researchers have found. Mallon and Hone looked at population numbers and average lifespans to create a model of what could have been the largest T. rex. “We wound up building two models — one exhibiting zero dimorphisms and one with strong dimorphism,” Mallon said. These dimorphisms account for variations in size between the sexes. “If T. rex was dimorphic, we estimate that it would have weighed up to 53,000 pounds,” Mallon continued, “but we rejected that model because if it were true, we would have found even larger individuals by now.” Based on this data, they were able to create a growth curve model for the T. rex and estimate the largest possible size for an adult. They did, however, offer the reminder that until a fossil is found that can substantiate their estimate, the conclusion is nothing but speculation. “This reminds us that what we know about dinosaurs isn’t much at all, since the sample sizes are so small,” said Thomas Carr, a vertebrate paleontologist from Carthage College in Wisconsin. Carr was not involved with the new study, but he attended the conference and agreed that there is a possibility T. rex was much bigger than we tend to think. “Right now, we are nowhere near the sample size needed, especially when compared to other species of animals,” he said. “It’s truly a stupendous animal. To imagine a T. rex of that magnitude is extraordinary, and I think an animal of that size is within reach statistically.” Indeed, there is still much researchers don’t know about the T. rex, and their understanding of it changes every day. In fact, earlier this year, the Daily Mail reports, some researchers put forth the idea that T. rex was actually three separate species, including T. regina, or the “queen of the dinosaurs,” and T. imperator. The idea was largely refuted by other scientists, but it stands as another example of the ever-changing nature of paleontology. Other misconceptions about T. rex have been called into question in recent years as well, such as the notion that the dinosaur’s long legs helped it run quickly to chase prey. As it turns out, those long legs were used for extended periods of walking and stalking — not sprinting through the jungle. Mallon said on Twitter that he and Hone are still tweaking their final manuscript, but he feels that the 33,000-pound model is “mechanically feasible.”
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Feb 12, 2023 6:12:28 GMT -5
The mighty T-rex is the special guest star of a new movie....
|
|