"About the same size as an elephant"...surely you arent comparing a 6-7 ton Tyrannosaur to one of the elephants shown here, which are no more than 8 feet high and at maximum 3 tons each. Even a large bull would be lucky to hit 5 tons. T-Rex had more mass and it carried that mass on two legs, so comparing it's gait to an elephant is a losing battle.
To move like an elephant, you have to be built like an elephant.
T. rex wasn't built like an elephant, it was built like a giant bird - legs that only articulate in flexed posture, not a stiff straight one. And huge cnemial crests for powerful shin muscles, far bigger than you see on an elephant which barely has this crest at all. Lastly the metatarsals are huge, far longer than elephants or any other slow-moving animal. Every living creature with long metatarsals and flexed legs is FAST.
Fact: a quadroped can run faster than a biped. T-Rex was HUGE and maintaining its balance must have been tricky. I doubt if it was very fast or agile. This would have made it an ineffective hunter unless it got lucky. It was too big to sneak up on prey. Being a carnivore, the herbivores could smell it. I think small fast carnivores ganged up on big herbivores, then T-Rex would scare them away and eat. And no one would stick around.
@49kasey That's a valid point, though you must take into account Tyrannosaurus (clocked at 15-20mph) was faster than one of the most abundant prey out there at the time; Edmontosaurus. Not to mention it was faster than both Triceratops and Alamosaurus.
For instance think of Grizzly Bears today interacting with the Wolves of Yellowstone park. Probably the same situation going on in the Cretaceous with Tyrannosaurus and Dromaeosaurs.
@WaldronicTomotron Paleantologists say that there were herds of Triceratops so they must have found lots of fossils. T-Rex would have been pretty stupid to even think about going after a herd of big-horned beasts. What if a few of them turned on him? If nature had made him fast and maneuverable, he would have taken everything. That's not nature's way, he had weaknesses. Why have only 8 fossils been found? That's the most interesting thing.
@49kasey That's very true, though we have evidence of T. Rex's attacking Juvenile Triceratops, healed bite wounds etc. but I agree, I don't think that was its main foods source and T.Rex was far from vulnerable. I personally see them as solitary most of the time, so I doubt a male would risk fatalities in a fight with an adult three horns. Which is why half of their diet must've been from scavenging from the most successful hunters; the Dromaeosaurs :)
@WaldronicTomotron Like I said and I aver, Triceratops was a herd animal and as such would have been very protective of each other and especially of their young. It's very peculiar that they could have found fossil juvenile Triceratops remains with healed T-Rex bite wounds unless the Rex would have been driven off and probably killed, which supports my theory that T-Rex was understandably very wary of Triceratops, if he had even half a brain! So his live prey were the defenseless duck-bills.
@49kasey That's true they were, most of the time. But in BBC's 'Truth about Killer Dinosaurs' (I forget the name of the paleontologist who discovered such) they analysed a healed horn from a Tyrannosaurus attack.
T-rex is SUCH an interesting animal, i could watch these shows for hours! the same as some people play videogames for hours or play sports, thats how much T-rwex fasinates me
actually, t-rex was about as heavy as a modern day african elephant at around 5-7 tonnes, and it was just as tall at last by the hips with a hight of 12 or 13 feet. Also t-rex could defiantly hit speeds of 30-32 mph at least in a short burst then maintains a speed of 18-25 mph. Fast enough to catch up with it's prey after ambush when hunting alone!
@ceitiosaurus *Sue was 13 feet at the hips, she was not fully grown, secondly by enlarging a chicken (which is the closest known living relative to T,Rex) we can determine the speed ratio comparitively. T. Rex could hit 11-15 mph at best, I know this differs from Jurassic Park but...
Too bad chickens are NOT the closest living relatives of T. rex. Ostriches are far closer since they are among the most primitive birds alive. Chickens have much stumpier legs than a T .rex. So of course if you blew up a chicken to the size of a T. rex it would be slow. But T. rex didn't have short chicken legs. It had legs more like heavy-duty ostrich legs.
Hutchinson's chicken experiment's biggest fail is that he actually chose one of the worst bird models for a rex.
@susumu07 What? You just ignored the fact that Chickens are the closest living relative, through DNA, not through some popular believed, horse shit about Ostriches being bipedal and having similar looking legs >_>.
That's why I ended it there, because you ignore logic.
Ignore logic? Then why do you make crazy claims about chickens being "the closest living relative through DNA" of T. rex, when we don't HAVE T. rex DNA? There is no intact dinosaur DNA strand, so NOBODY has ever sequenced the T. rex genome (or any other extinct dinosaur genome).
Oh but I'm the one talking horse shit? Ostriches and other ratites are the most basal birds alive today, based on DNA studies with OTHER BIRDS - which puts them closest to non-avian dinosaurs. KMA.
Tell me something, kid. Have you actually READ Hutchinson's paper or any other scientific papers on T. rex? Do you know anything BESIDES Horner and Hutchinson's side of the argument? Have you ever actually handled dinosaur fossils or bird skeletons? Because based on your ostrich comments it sounds like you don't have clue what you're saying. Bird evolution in the Cenozoic is well documented and chickens are a more derived group than ratites (thus further from dinosaurs).
@susumu07 I'm the kid? I didn't realise you are an actual Paleontologist, or are you just some idiot who knows as far as the names you've dropped? 'Dervied group'? Did your mind shut off after 2006? You should also know that the traces of collagen proteins found in the soft tissue found in MOR 1125 closely matched those in Chickens more than ANY other creature on this planet that we have studied. Funny how you didn't mention that >_>
@susumu07 Hutchinson's report, who are you kidding? Have you actually read ANYTHING on the extraction of T.Rex soft tissue? You're bringing up the evolutionary line of birds with non-avian dinosaurs like its relevant even though it was internationally made news once Mary Schweitzer discovered that soft tissue from leg bone marrow in 2005 and eventually linked it to Chickens. You don't even have to find that out in your internet searched reports because it was globaly news...
What do you mean they "linked" it to chickens? The soft tissue thing is still very controversial, and far from widely accepted in the field (though I would like to believe that it IS real dinosaur soft tissue, there is a difference between hypothesis and tested, proven fact). Furthermore, they did not conclusively establish any more of a link to chickens than to other birds. To do that you need a complete DNA sequence, and nobody has ever sequenced the DNA of T.rex.
Hutchinson had already been using chickens before Schweitzer published her research. Ask any ornithologist and they will tell you chickens are not near the origins of bird evolution. The first birds were basically airborne raptors - so even the most basal birds today are closer to raptors than to T. rex. Second, whatever bird is genetically closest to the base of Aves is by default the closest living relative of ALL theropods. Did they even compare with Ostrich soft tissue?
@susumu07 You don't have to tell me about which groups evolved into Dinosaurs as we are talking about a T. Rex's closest living relative (TISSUE WISE, I never said we had conclusive proof of DNA). However they concluded the soft tissue beared more similarities to a Chicken, then a Newt, then a frog(I believe). Which sounds ridiculous I know, they've placed the soft tissue in between Alligators, Chickens and Ostriches. Like I said originally, the soft tissue of a T. Rex is closest to a Chicken.
That's a bit odd. Well of course it's closer to a chicken than to a newt or frog. Comparing dinosaurs with amphibians is a no-brainer. I find beyond ridiculous that they used only chicken, newt, and frog for comparison, I find that downright insane. I would have used more birds, if you want to keep 'gators and chicken in the study, then I'd do alligator, chicken, orstrich, stork, emu, cassowary, duck, pheasant, eagle, etc. to get a spectrum of ALL birds, not just chickens.
Assuming the T .rex soft tissue samples are reliable, then it makes some sense, but I would have compared it to soft tissues of all major families of birds to be sure, chances are the chicken would not be the closest match if they did that!
Furthermore, we're talking about 2 different things. Soft tissue makeup, and leg anatomy. Even if a T. rex had molecularly identical soft tissue to chickens, its leg proportions were far longer so anatomically it's built very different.
@WaldronicTomotron That's still way faster than a human. But a smaller dino could easily outrun him. I'm standing by my theory that T-Rex was very possibly wiped out by Triceratops (!!!). What I can't understand is why there are so few fossil remains.
@49kasey Because they were the largest predators in the area "supercarnivores", so their population was always low, or lower than other dinosaurs tha coexist with them.
@ceitiosaurus well the thing to look at is what makes up the 5-7 tons?muscle,maybe the skeletal structure may SUGGEST it was slow,but i believe it's muscles may have promoted it's speed.
"About the same size as an elephant"...surely you arent comparing a 6-7 ton Tyrannosaur to one of the elephants shown here, which are no more than 8 feet high and at maximum 3 tons each. Even a large bull would be lucky to hit 5 tons. T-Rex had more mass and it carried that mass on two legs, so comparing it's gait to an elephant is a losing battle.
sonbuhitsunei 3 months ago
if T rex was rapter fast no dinosaur was safe.
hotwhire 8 months ago
To move like an elephant, you have to be built like an elephant.
T. rex wasn't built like an elephant, it was built like a giant bird - legs that only articulate in flexed posture, not a stiff straight one. And huge cnemial crests for powerful shin muscles, far bigger than you see on an elephant which barely has this crest at all. Lastly the metatarsals are huge, far longer than elephants or any other slow-moving animal. Every living creature with long metatarsals and flexed legs is FAST.
susumu07 10 months ago
Fact: a quadroped can run faster than a biped. T-Rex was HUGE and maintaining its balance must have been tricky. I doubt if it was very fast or agile. This would have made it an ineffective hunter unless it got lucky. It was too big to sneak up on prey. Being a carnivore, the herbivores could smell it. I think small fast carnivores ganged up on big herbivores, then T-Rex would scare them away and eat. And no one would stick around.
49kasey 1 year ago
@49kasey That's a valid point, though you must take into account Tyrannosaurus (clocked at 15-20mph) was faster than one of the most abundant prey out there at the time; Edmontosaurus. Not to mention it was faster than both Triceratops and Alamosaurus.
For instance think of Grizzly Bears today interacting with the Wolves of Yellowstone park. Probably the same situation going on in the Cretaceous with Tyrannosaurus and Dromaeosaurs.
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron Paleantologists say that there were herds of Triceratops so they must have found lots of fossils. T-Rex would have been pretty stupid to even think about going after a herd of big-horned beasts. What if a few of them turned on him? If nature had made him fast and maneuverable, he would have taken everything. That's not nature's way, he had weaknesses. Why have only 8 fossils been found? That's the most interesting thing.
49kasey 10 months ago
@49kasey That's very true, though we have evidence of T. Rex's attacking Juvenile Triceratops, healed bite wounds etc. but I agree, I don't think that was its main foods source and T.Rex was far from vulnerable. I personally see them as solitary most of the time, so I doubt a male would risk fatalities in a fight with an adult three horns. Which is why half of their diet must've been from scavenging from the most successful hunters; the Dromaeosaurs :)
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron Like I said and I aver, Triceratops was a herd animal and as such would have been very protective of each other and especially of their young. It's very peculiar that they could have found fossil juvenile Triceratops remains with healed T-Rex bite wounds unless the Rex would have been driven off and probably killed, which supports my theory that T-Rex was understandably very wary of Triceratops, if he had even half a brain! So his live prey were the defenseless duck-bills.
49kasey 10 months ago
@49kasey That's true they were, most of the time. But in BBC's 'Truth about Killer Dinosaurs' (I forget the name of the paleontologist who discovered such) they analysed a healed horn from a Tyrannosaurus attack.
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
T-rex is SUCH an interesting animal, i could watch these shows for hours! the same as some people play videogames for hours or play sports, thats how much T-rwex fasinates me
ChooseCheese127 1 year ago
well rex is made of mostly muscle.elephant's have more fat than a rex for shure
REALxEMOxKID 1 year ago
Tyrannosaurus is definitely a different body structure than an elephant. T.rex was, also faster. 29 - 40 km/h
7Alx94 1 year ago
actually, t-rex was about as heavy as a modern day african elephant at around 5-7 tonnes, and it was just as tall at last by the hips with a hight of 12 or 13 feet. Also t-rex could defiantly hit speeds of 30-32 mph at least in a short burst then maintains a speed of 18-25 mph. Fast enough to catch up with it's prey after ambush when hunting alone!
ceitiosaurus 1 year ago
@ceitiosaurus *Sue was 13 feet at the hips, she was not fully grown, secondly by enlarging a chicken (which is the closest known living relative to T,Rex) we can determine the speed ratio comparitively. T. Rex could hit 11-15 mph at best, I know this differs from Jurassic Park but...
WaldronicTomotron 1 year ago
@WaldronicTomotron
Too bad chickens are NOT the closest living relatives of T. rex. Ostriches are far closer since they are among the most primitive birds alive. Chickens have much stumpier legs than a T .rex. So of course if you blew up a chicken to the size of a T. rex it would be slow. But T. rex didn't have short chicken legs. It had legs more like heavy-duty ostrich legs.
Hutchinson's chicken experiment's biggest fail is that he actually chose one of the worst bird models for a rex.
susumu07 10 months ago
@susumu07 Get your facts right at least before you respond to a valid point.
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
LOL gimme a valid point then!
susumu07 10 months ago
@susumu07 What? You just ignored the fact that Chickens are the closest living relative, through DNA, not through some popular believed, horse shit about Ostriches being bipedal and having similar looking legs >_>.
That's why I ended it there, because you ignore logic.
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
Ignore logic? Then why do you make crazy claims about chickens being "the closest living relative through DNA" of T. rex, when we don't HAVE T. rex DNA? There is no intact dinosaur DNA strand, so NOBODY has ever sequenced the T. rex genome (or any other extinct dinosaur genome).
Oh but I'm the one talking horse shit? Ostriches and other ratites are the most basal birds alive today, based on DNA studies with OTHER BIRDS - which puts them closest to non-avian dinosaurs. KMA.
susumu07 10 months ago
Comment removed
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
Tell me something, kid. Have you actually READ Hutchinson's paper or any other scientific papers on T. rex? Do you know anything BESIDES Horner and Hutchinson's side of the argument? Have you ever actually handled dinosaur fossils or bird skeletons? Because based on your ostrich comments it sounds like you don't have clue what you're saying. Bird evolution in the Cenozoic is well documented and chickens are a more derived group than ratites (thus further from dinosaurs).
susumu07 10 months ago
@susumu07 I'm the kid? I didn't realise you are an actual Paleontologist, or are you just some idiot who knows as far as the names you've dropped? 'Dervied group'? Did your mind shut off after 2006? You should also know that the traces of collagen proteins found in the soft tissue found in MOR 1125 closely matched those in Chickens more than ANY other creature on this planet that we have studied. Funny how you didn't mention that >_>
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@susumu07 Hutchinson's report, who are you kidding? Have you actually read ANYTHING on the extraction of T.Rex soft tissue? You're bringing up the evolutionary line of birds with non-avian dinosaurs like its relevant even though it was internationally made news once Mary Schweitzer discovered that soft tissue from leg bone marrow in 2005 and eventually linked it to Chickens. You don't even have to find that out in your internet searched reports because it was globaly news...
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
What do you mean they "linked" it to chickens? The soft tissue thing is still very controversial, and far from widely accepted in the field (though I would like to believe that it IS real dinosaur soft tissue, there is a difference between hypothesis and tested, proven fact). Furthermore, they did not conclusively establish any more of a link to chickens than to other birds. To do that you need a complete DNA sequence, and nobody has ever sequenced the DNA of T.rex.
susumu07 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
Hutchinson had already been using chickens before Schweitzer published her research. Ask any ornithologist and they will tell you chickens are not near the origins of bird evolution. The first birds were basically airborne raptors - so even the most basal birds today are closer to raptors than to T. rex. Second, whatever bird is genetically closest to the base of Aves is by default the closest living relative of ALL theropods. Did they even compare with Ostrich soft tissue?
susumu07 10 months ago
@susumu07 You don't have to tell me about which groups evolved into Dinosaurs as we are talking about a T. Rex's closest living relative (TISSUE WISE, I never said we had conclusive proof of DNA). However they concluded the soft tissue beared more similarities to a Chicken, then a Newt, then a frog(I believe). Which sounds ridiculous I know, they've placed the soft tissue in between Alligators, Chickens and Ostriches. Like I said originally, the soft tissue of a T. Rex is closest to a Chicken.
WaldronicTomotron 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
That's a bit odd. Well of course it's closer to a chicken than to a newt or frog. Comparing dinosaurs with amphibians is a no-brainer. I find beyond ridiculous that they used only chicken, newt, and frog for comparison, I find that downright insane. I would have used more birds, if you want to keep 'gators and chicken in the study, then I'd do alligator, chicken, orstrich, stork, emu, cassowary, duck, pheasant, eagle, etc. to get a spectrum of ALL birds, not just chickens.
susumu07 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron
Assuming the T .rex soft tissue samples are reliable, then it makes some sense, but I would have compared it to soft tissues of all major families of birds to be sure, chances are the chicken would not be the closest match if they did that!
Furthermore, we're talking about 2 different things. Soft tissue makeup, and leg anatomy. Even if a T. rex had molecularly identical soft tissue to chickens, its leg proportions were far longer so anatomically it's built very different.
susumu07 10 months ago
@WaldronicTomotron That's still way faster than a human. But a smaller dino could easily outrun him. I'm standing by my theory that T-Rex was very possibly wiped out by Triceratops (!!!). What I can't understand is why there are so few fossil remains.
49kasey 10 months ago
@49kasey Because they were the largest predators in the area "supercarnivores", so their population was always low, or lower than other dinosaurs tha coexist with them.
babehunter1324 3 months ago
@ceitiosaurus well the thing to look at is what makes up the 5-7 tons?muscle,maybe the skeletal structure may SUGGEST it was slow,but i believe it's muscles may have promoted it's speed.
REALxEMOxKID 1 year ago
@REALxEMOxKID that's right i was trying to say!
ceitiosaurus 1 year ago
Same size as a elephant? Hell no, T-rex was twice the size of a elephant
Bernieo153 1 year ago
@Bernieo153 African elephants are 5-7 tons for the bulls. Asian's are half that size. So the statement is true. Think before you talk!
BLowes45 1 year ago
Those are small, Asian elephants. Probably only about 1 1/2 tonnes.
supersmash43 1 year ago