Post by _Veritas_ on Sept 5, 2009 14:14:05 GMT -5
This thread is souly for discussing the Rex debate on hunter scavenger.
Honestly- to me there really is no debate. Rex was nearly completely a scavenger, but would hunt if need be.
But I'm gonna post what Dutch and I have said in the JP dinosaur thread here as well as a start off...
I'm not going to debate the fight itself here, since I think it's a most useless discussion. The movie went as the movie went, and it's 100% fictional. I'm not arguing here if Sauron should have known Frodo was carrying the ring while he was deep in Mordor. Or that Darth Vader couldn't have survived the burns he got near the lava stream. Let's keep it realistic folks. No heated, 100% useless discussions 
.
There is something based 100% of science that I would like to say here. It's proven the T-Rex was a scavenger. Now don't go mad at me, I'm just quoting the National Geographic and Nature.
[glow=red,2,300]Theory 1[/glow]
Scientists found out that the measurements of leg bones can be used to say whether or not a creature was ABLE to run. They based that theory on a lot of creatures, elephants, ostriches, deer, crocodiles, humans, monkeys and a lot more. The upper leg bone is compared to the length of the lower leg bone. It has to do with muzzles and muzzle attachments. Lets show it on a Velociraptor skeleton.
You can see the upper leg bone is shorter than the lower one. This means the creature was able to run. It doesn't tell you about the speed, but if the upper leg bone was LONGER than the lower leg bone, it wasn't ABLE TO RUN at all.
Let's show another one.
This Gallimimus, a known runner, matches the theory once again. The upper bone is shorter than the lower one.
But now the T-Rex.
You can see the upper bone is slightly larger than the lower one. That means it CANNOT RUN. However, because it needs a lot less energy to walk because of this, it would have been able to walk for days and days without getting exhausted. That would have been very useful if it had to find enough dead meat each day to keep it alive heh?
[glow=red,2,300]Theory 2[/glow]
Another thing these two magazines mentioned. They tested the strength of the teeth and the jaws of the Rex. It was a LOT, but what turned out? The jaws ánd teeth are not build to HOLD a fleeing creature. If there was some force on the teeth (equalizing the movements of a struggling creature) they would just BREAK! They couldn't hold anything alive, because their design was not capable of that. Compare it to a obelisk. It is strong enough to keep the roof up and can bear a lot of weight. But if I push the roof a bit sideways, (like what is done in earthquakes) it would break easily. Diagonal teeth, like the Velociraptor, can hold on easily.
However, because the teeth of the Rex work like obelisks, it was able to bite off entire legs of a creature that didn't move. That also proves it would have been a scavenger, because all those little scraps of meat wouldn't have kept it alive. Entire limbs however...
[glow=red,2,300]Theory 3[/glow]
Then I come to the third point I read in the National Geographic. In the movies it was told it had really poor eyesight. It did. In fact, they calculated it could barely see at all. It would have seen the world as a big blur. They also found out its ability to smell was superior to any creature we know nowadays. The brains supporting that sense were developed the same way as the vultures have nowadays. That means it would have been able to smell a dead, rotting corpse from enormous distances. With the ability to walk for ages with using little energy, it would have been able to scavenge enough food to keep it alive and healthy.
Like most folks, I refused to acknowledge the movie icon Tyrannosaurus Rex was just a lame scavenger. However, when I read these theories, I was proven wrong. In every museum I always look at the leg bones of a creature. And every time it matches. With us, humans, the leg bones are the same size (!). So that makes us able to run, but not for long, since we are not build sprinters. It also makes us able to walk for a long time, but also not for ages because we use up too much energy for walking.
Like I told you guys, I'm not debating the fight in the movie. In fact, I heard a theory that the Spinosaurus skeleton was actually a mix of bones from the Baryonyx and the Ouranosaurus. I don't know whether or not this is true, I need more information for this. But what I'm trying to show you, is that the Rex which most of you so fiercely protect, is most likely not the one as seen in the movies at all.
Plain fiction. All the movies.
Good information Dutch.
If I remember correctly though, it was said before that Rex probably could run in short bursts though, like us humans to an extent. It was stated in several documentaries and such that it may have been able to run up to 20 mph in shot bursts. SHORT being the key word.
We also do know that Rexes HAVE gone after live prey before though. To an extent it kind of proves and disproves fact 2. The rexes have gone after live prey, and if they know they couldn't catch it... why go after it?
We know that they went after live prey because the bones have healed. Bones with rex puncture wounds from teeth have been found- and the patterns show healing. Now, in a way that goes to prove that the rex may not have been able to hold on...
For the most part I do agree- rex is a scavenger. But I do have a hard time believing that he was 100% scavenger. I think he would scavenge every chance he got, and even go great distances/out of his way to do so. But I don't think a rex would starve to death before trying to hunt.
And here is something to take into consideration as well.
IF Nanotyrannus is indeed a juvi rex like everyone thinks it is- look at it's leg bones....
They are almost equal, if the upper bone isn't mildly smaller in fact. This means it probably was able to run more than an adult would. This would help support a "juvi's go after prey" theory....
The only thing I'm a bit.... "meh" -ish on is the eye sight thing.
That has been SOOO flip flopped around within the last decade or more... that I'm sure, given another decade it will change again.
During the time of the first JP, it (Tyrannosaur) had fair to poor eyesight- leading to the theory "Can't see us if we don't move."
Then a few years later that theory was discredited, and it was said that Rex actually had fairly good eyesight, along with positioning (Rex's had binocular vision.)
Now they say it had poor eyesight again...
Honestly- to me there really is no debate. Rex was nearly completely a scavenger, but would hunt if need be.
But I'm gonna post what Dutch and I have said in the JP dinosaur thread here as well as a start off...
.There is something based 100% of science that I would like to say here. It's proven the T-Rex was a scavenger. Now don't go mad at me, I'm just quoting the National Geographic and Nature.
[glow=red,2,300]Theory 1[/glow]
Scientists found out that the measurements of leg bones can be used to say whether or not a creature was ABLE to run. They based that theory on a lot of creatures, elephants, ostriches, deer, crocodiles, humans, monkeys and a lot more. The upper leg bone is compared to the length of the lower leg bone. It has to do with muzzles and muzzle attachments. Lets show it on a Velociraptor skeleton.
You can see the upper leg bone is shorter than the lower one. This means the creature was able to run. It doesn't tell you about the speed, but if the upper leg bone was LONGER than the lower leg bone, it wasn't ABLE TO RUN at all.
Let's show another one.
This Gallimimus, a known runner, matches the theory once again. The upper bone is shorter than the lower one.
But now the T-Rex.
You can see the upper bone is slightly larger than the lower one. That means it CANNOT RUN. However, because it needs a lot less energy to walk because of this, it would have been able to walk for days and days without getting exhausted. That would have been very useful if it had to find enough dead meat each day to keep it alive heh?
[glow=red,2,300]Theory 2[/glow]
Another thing these two magazines mentioned. They tested the strength of the teeth and the jaws of the Rex. It was a LOT, but what turned out? The jaws ánd teeth are not build to HOLD a fleeing creature. If there was some force on the teeth (equalizing the movements of a struggling creature) they would just BREAK! They couldn't hold anything alive, because their design was not capable of that. Compare it to a obelisk. It is strong enough to keep the roof up and can bear a lot of weight. But if I push the roof a bit sideways, (like what is done in earthquakes) it would break easily. Diagonal teeth, like the Velociraptor, can hold on easily.
However, because the teeth of the Rex work like obelisks, it was able to bite off entire legs of a creature that didn't move. That also proves it would have been a scavenger, because all those little scraps of meat wouldn't have kept it alive. Entire limbs however...
[glow=red,2,300]Theory 3[/glow]
Then I come to the third point I read in the National Geographic. In the movies it was told it had really poor eyesight. It did. In fact, they calculated it could barely see at all. It would have seen the world as a big blur. They also found out its ability to smell was superior to any creature we know nowadays. The brains supporting that sense were developed the same way as the vultures have nowadays. That means it would have been able to smell a dead, rotting corpse from enormous distances. With the ability to walk for ages with using little energy, it would have been able to scavenge enough food to keep it alive and healthy.
Like most folks, I refused to acknowledge the movie icon Tyrannosaurus Rex was just a lame scavenger. However, when I read these theories, I was proven wrong. In every museum I always look at the leg bones of a creature. And every time it matches. With us, humans, the leg bones are the same size (!). So that makes us able to run, but not for long, since we are not build sprinters. It also makes us able to walk for a long time, but also not for ages because we use up too much energy for walking.
Like I told you guys, I'm not debating the fight in the movie. In fact, I heard a theory that the Spinosaurus skeleton was actually a mix of bones from the Baryonyx and the Ouranosaurus. I don't know whether or not this is true, I need more information for this. But what I'm trying to show you, is that the Rex which most of you so fiercely protect, is most likely not the one as seen in the movies at all.
Plain fiction. All the movies.
If I remember correctly though, it was said before that Rex probably could run in short bursts though, like us humans to an extent. It was stated in several documentaries and such that it may have been able to run up to 20 mph in shot bursts. SHORT being the key word.
We also do know that Rexes HAVE gone after live prey before though. To an extent it kind of proves and disproves fact 2. The rexes have gone after live prey, and if they know they couldn't catch it... why go after it?
We know that they went after live prey because the bones have healed. Bones with rex puncture wounds from teeth have been found- and the patterns show healing. Now, in a way that goes to prove that the rex may not have been able to hold on...
For the most part I do agree- rex is a scavenger. But I do have a hard time believing that he was 100% scavenger. I think he would scavenge every chance he got, and even go great distances/out of his way to do so. But I don't think a rex would starve to death before trying to hunt.
And here is something to take into consideration as well.
IF Nanotyrannus is indeed a juvi rex like everyone thinks it is- look at it's leg bones....
They are almost equal, if the upper bone isn't mildly smaller in fact. This means it probably was able to run more than an adult would. This would help support a "juvi's go after prey" theory....
The only thing I'm a bit.... "meh" -ish on is the eye sight thing.
That has been SOOO flip flopped around within the last decade or more... that I'm sure, given another decade it will change again.
During the time of the first JP, it (Tyrannosaur) had fair to poor eyesight- leading to the theory "Can't see us if we don't move."
Then a few years later that theory was discredited, and it was said that Rex actually had fairly good eyesight, along with positioning (Rex's had binocular vision.)
Now they say it had poor eyesight again...
