T. REX (2 of 4) New Science, New Beast

As seen on Discovery Channel back in 2006, delve deep into the world of TYRANNOSAURUS REX (by studying "Sue") as we revisit the past to rewrite the history of this hulking beast. Discard your previous assumptions and explore the latest T-rex discoveries to reveal the true history, biology and mechanics of this massive creature.

With a new crew of paleontologists on the scene, see how breakthrough interdisciplinary research -- merging traditional paleontology with new engineering and biomechanics -- has uncovered new data on how quickly the T-rex grew, how fast it moved and how it survived while chronicling the surprising family tree that links this mighty creature to the graceful birds of flight we see today.

NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED! FOR EDUCATION, DISCUSSION & RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY!!!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Tyrannosaurus rex
• T-rex
• New Science New Beast
• T. rex
• T-rex vs. Giganotosaurus
• T-rex vs. Carcharodontosaurus
• Phil Currie
• Bob Bakker
• Paleontology
• fossil
• bones
• Jurassic Park
• Sue
• Velociraptor
• Raptor
• Triceratops
• Stegosaurus
• Godzilla
• King Kong
• Brachiosaurus
• Spinosaurus
• carnivore
• herbivore
• Triassic
• Jurassic
• Cretaceous
• Mesozoic Era
• dinosaur
• dinosaurs
• Sam Neill
• Alan Grant
• Jeff Goldblum
• Ian Malcolm
• Steven Spielberg

[babehunter1324]

@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.

[sonbuhitsunei]

"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.

[hotwhire]

if T rex was rapter fast no dinosaur was safe.

[susumu07]

@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]

@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.

[WaldronicTomotron]

@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.

[susumu07]

@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]

@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.

[WaldronicTomotron]

@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]

@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 >_>