File :-(, x, )
Demyx's Landmaster !!vjyCRKGc15d
Move over, Rexie, there's a new king in town.
>> Anonymous
>>304899

spinosaurus couldn't kill a t-rex in real life. firstly because they lived several million years apart, in different parts of the world.
>> Anonymous
>>304902
You forgot to mention their delicate bone structure and forward center of balance.

Tyrannosaur wins... Next challenger? (An enraged Deinocheirus?)
>> Demyx's Landmaster !!vjyCRKGc15d
     File :-(, x)
>>304903
It is I, the mighty Procompsognathus.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Demyx's Landmaster !!vjyCRKGc15d
It's funny if you watch the behind-the-scenes stuff about the Rex-Spino fight and see how they filmed a lot of footage using the robots, and in the movie the entire fight is completely CGI.
>> Anonymous
Tyrannosaurus also had teeth designed for crushing bones, while Spinosaurus had teeth designed for eating fish.

lol wut?
>> Anonymous
>>304906
I bet compys taste like chicken, I mean shit they look like scaley chicken.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>305165
>teeth designed for eating fish.
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>305165
Spinosaurus had one big advantage: long arms and good-sized claws. He could grab and slash or pull the Rex over.
>> Anonymous
>>305231

actually they probably wouldn't fight if they met face to face.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>305246
Mhmm true. Most large carnivorous animals would just roar around and appear menacing, eventually one would back down.
>>304899
Jack Horner's idea. I believe that I mentioned this a while back, but a personal conversation with him this summer shows that he advised the filmmakers to put in spino because IT LOOKS COOL. Horner hates rexes.

Pic related, Spinosaurus upper jaw.
>> Anonymous
>>305264
Spinosaurus appreciation thread.
Not JP3fag one, real one.
>> Nagi
>>305231

With the way the animals stands, those arms would be useless. The head sits way too forward and the arms hang way too low, so there's really no good way for it to get a decent swing in, assuming it could even reach past its own lower jaw in the first place.

I think people tend to place a bit too much emphasis on theropods' forearms as "major weapons." I don't doubt some species used them in a combative manner, but I can't see them being the real game-makers in a fight that people hype them up to be. Typical theropod posture, the placement of the arms, the extremely simplistic wrist structure, and no doubt the lack of any great manual dexterity on the part of most theropods most likely just relegated forearms to anchors when catching and dispatching prey, or possibly defensive weapons in a pinch.

But in terms of primary offense, all the killing power was in the head, hence the reason theropod skulls tend to be fucking huge (tyrannosaurs, carnosaurs) or ridiculously specialized (spinosaurs).
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>305264
Don't I know he hates T. rex.

"Tyrannosaurus was a pure scavenger because

1. His sense of smell is really good, and his eyesight is terrible (based on the side of the vision bulb of the brain, ignoring the stereoscopic vision). This is good for scavenging, not hunting.

2. LOOK AT THOSE TINY ARMS. GODDAMN. A hunter would want arms to grab and hold its prey, all T. rex has is its mouth, and you and I both know that if you were trying to catch a chicken you would want to be able to use your arms.

3. T. rex wasn't a fast runner, so he couldn't chase down prey. Scavengers don't need to chase things, so they move slowly.

Therefore, Tyrannosaurus only ate dead things"

>>305275
Spino and his relatives could walk on their hind legs and most likely rear up to intimidate or attack. True, they couldn't rotate their wrists or anything fancy like we can, but with the huge claws on the hands (if Spino was indeed very like Baryonyx and Suchomimus) all Spino has to do is get close and swipe with them to inflict damage.
>> Nagi
>>305300

That's a lot of really front-heavy weight to rear up just for one swipe, though. Again, I imagine an attack like that would have to be a defensive thing, as it would be far too slow and take away too much of the animal's balance to be effective in offense.

For slapping fish out of the water grizzley bear style, the forearms of spinosaurs would be absolutely superb. But for grappling with same-sized dinosaurs, they'd just be ungainly.
>> Anonymous
>With the way the animals stands, those arms would >be useless. The head sits way too forward and the arms hang way too low, so there's really no good way >for it to get a decent swing in, assuming it could even reach past its own lower jaw in the first place.

I think people tend to place a bit too much emphasis on theropods' forearms as "major weapons." I don't doubt some species used them in a combative manner, but I can't see them being the real game-makers in a fight that people hype them up to be. Typical theropod posture, the placement of the arms, the extremely simplistic wrist structure, and no doubt the lack of any great manual dexterity on the part of most theropods most likely just relegated forearms to anchors when catching and dispatching prey, or possibly defensive weapons in a pinch.

But in terms of primary offense, all the killing power was in the head, hence the reason theropod skulls tend to be fucking huge (tyrannosaurs, carnosaurs) or ridiculously specialized (spinosaurs).
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>305305
Perhaps, but in the end we'll never know for sure unless we can bring them back to life. I imagine that Spino would push up from a quadruped stance to swing his arms before dropping back down if he was truly that front-heavy. Doesn't Spino have a pretty large tail for counterbalance?
>> Nagi
>>305323

It's theorized it did, at least. I don't know if we have the fossil material to determine for sure, though; IIRC, the original find was very fragmented and I haven't heard of anything more recent that could be definitively attributed to Spinosaurus (some stuff credited to other genera that "may be synonymous with Spinosaurus," but nothing more from S.aegyptiacus, specifically). I could be wrong, though.
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>305325
Yeah, we don't have quite enough material for a complete grasp of the beast, but I imagine that Spino would have either a long or a thick tail to balance his front end, especially since his hands probably wouldn't be built for lots of walking on like Iguanadon and the duck-billed dinosaurs.
>> Anonymous
>>305300
T. Rex's sharpest senses were smell and hearing. Exactly what kind of noise does a carcass make? And what does a scavenger need binocular vision for? It's not like a corpse is going to run away! As for Tyrannosaurus' eyesight being terrible, the only thing pointing that way is ... wait for it ... not evidence from brain casts but Jack Horner's assertion. The analysis of the brain cast actually confirms that it had a fairly good eyesight.

Also, if lack of strong arms proves that an animal is a scavenger, then every single shark species has to be a scavenger: they have no arms at all! Funnily enough, the small arms of T.rex were actually remarkably strong, and study of the bones reveals they actually saw heavy use. Based on the evidence of the amount and quality of stress they had experienced, it seems likely that Tyrannosaurus did use them to latch onto the struggling prey while using its enormously powerful jaws to deliver the killing blow.

As for Tyrannosaurus not being a runner, well, why would he be one? He wasn't trying to catch antelopes but ceratopsians and hadrosaurs that were no faster than him. A T. rex started his life as a small, extremely cursorial creature, and slowly matured into a big hulking monster, which points out to a change in diet and hunting method as it grew.

For one final point: several lines of evidence reveal that Tyrannosaurus was endothermic just as every other coelurosaurian. However, an endothermic Tyrannosaurus would have starved to death if he was entirely reliant on carcasses.

tl;dr: Jack Horner fails at theropods but succeeds at paleo-trolling.
>> Anonymous
Intelligent discussion aside, I like t-rex better. He looks like a badass. When he lost in JP3 I was like ">:(FFFFFFFFFF"
>> Anonymous
I never really understood why T-rex would be so big if it was only a scavenger. Although I guess being big would be a big advantage at a kill, since it could scare other dinosaurs away. Maybe T-rex stole kills from other dinosaurs?

>>305345
A scavenger that could steal kills from other hunters would be much more successful than a dinosaur who mainly hunted.
>> Anonymous
>>305411
>>305345
Condors and vultures are the largest birds with the best eyesight, yet they too scavenge.
>> Anonymous
>>305415
And this proves what? That birds are better suited for being scavengers than flightless creatures, perhaps?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>305411
Stealing kills from smaller predators is probably what grown up T. rexes did at every opportunity, just like lions steal kills from smaller predators. The major difference is that those smaller predators were also T. rexes, only subadult ones. The end K large predator fauna was pretty much monospecific. So either it was T. rex doing the big game hunting or it was nobody.

>>305393
The film pretty much lost all credibility in my eyes when the Tyrannosaurus delivered what should have been a killing bite to the neck and the Spinosaurus shrugged it off. It's like hitting somebody with a sledge hammer squarely in the face and only managing to knock out one tooth. I hated the weak-jawed mutant tyrannosauroids in King Kong for the same reason.
>> Anonymous
>>305467
What are you stupid? The biggest birds are also scavengers, he's making a size comparison. Just because something's a scavenger doesn't mean it doesn't have to compete with other scavengers, in which case being a larger one is better.
>> Anonymous
>>2. LOOK AT THOSE TINY ARMS. GODDAMN. A hunter would want arms to grab and hold its prey, all T. rex has is its mouth, and you and I both know that if you were trying to catch a chicken you would want to be able to use your arms.
Snakes, sharks, and crocodiles say "hi".

>>305415
They can also cover a hell of a lot more ground than a terrestrial creature.

More likely, T-rex took his meals however he could get them (like most carnivores). Scavenge a carcass, chase another predator off their kill, ambush an unlucky hadrosaur, etc...
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>305509
Exactly. Like any good meat-eater, T. rex killed things to eat and took dead meat when he could, because you never know when you're going to get your next meal in the wild. There are only a very few carnivores today that will eat only something they have killed (like snakes) and all of them are cold-blooded and don't need a steady supply of food.

As for T. rex and endothermia, it's possible that Rex started as fully endothermic when young, then became only partially endothermic as it got bigger, since its size would allow it to retain heat much better than a smaller animal. Then it wouldn't need a s much food as a fully endothermic beast its size would need.

Another of Horner's reasons as to why T. rex was a scavenger was its jaw power and teeth shape. Thick armor-piecing spikes backed up by jaws that could exert several tons per square inch, excellent for penetrating thick skins and armored hides as well as crunching up bones to get the tasty marrow. Horner says "Since T. rex was a bone-crushing animal, he was a scavenger, because only scavengers need to break the bones to get what the predators can't get to after they have taken all of the meat." For this, I have to point out hyenas, who have the strongest bite force of any mammal, hell any land animal, regularly chomp up bones like the candy sticks that come with Lik-M-Aid, and are very successful predators, more so than lions.
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>305479
Science always takes a back seat to plot.
>> Anonymous
>>305518
>> As for T. rex and endothermia, it's possible that Rex started as fully endothermic when young, then became only partially endothermic as it got bigger

Well, there still isn't any real evidence to suggest that it was ever ectothermic or even just partially endothermic. Recent study revealed that endothermy most probably evolved in basal archosauria and was retained in several lineages, including dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurs certainly evolved from endothermic, feathered ancestors. Why endothermy would be lost in Tyrannosaurus alone does not make much sense. You might as well argue that elephants should become partially ectothermic, because it would save them a lot of energy.
>> Anonymous
>>305479
>I hated the weak-jawed mutant tyrannosauroids in King Kong for the same reason.

Yeah, either they had teeth made of silly putty or Kong was made of tempered steel.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Hey Demyx's Landmaster, what are you doing oustside of /cm/?
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>306089
Enjoying talking about animals, what?

>>305526
Didn't they find evidence of something like that, though, the bones are filled with blood vessels when other big meat-eaters were young but older specimens had a lot fewer vessels?

>>305532
Plot armor protects the heroes, don't'cha know?
>> Anonymous
>>305973
Every year, dinosaurs seem to get smaller and smaller in illustrations.
>> Anonymous
Studies show that a T-Rex is indeed a scavenger, akin to that of our present time Komodo Dragons.

The serrations on the T-Rex's teeth are grown in such a way that any meat it eat that got stuck will rot, causing bite wounds to any creature to fester and die from a massive infection.

In which afterwards it can smell out it's victim and eat.
>> Talec !gKQv5IanZU
     File :-(, x)
I have nothing to add except some nifty art
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>306139
Link to information? And that still means it hunts things, having a mouth full of killer bacteria is useless unless you bite something living.
>> Nagi
>>306139

Uhm, hate to break it to you, but that ain't scavenging. That's predation. The T.rex actually has to HUNT and ATTACK and BITE the living animal in order for its septic bite to work. And folowing the prey they themselves have mortally wounded until it can't go on is a tactic many, many, many active predators use routinely.
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>306151
Looks like something from World of WarCraft.
>> Anonymous
>>306139
Thank you so much for spreading misinformation that was already refuted in this thread. Also, Komodo Dragons are ambush predators, you fucking moron.

Also also:
"It had been thought that bites inflicted by these lizards were prone to infection because of bacteria in the lizards' mouths, but the research team showed that the immediate effects were caused by mild envenomation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon
>> Demyx's Blue-Marine !!vjyCRKGc15d
>>306402
Holy shit, Komodo dragons are venomous?
>> Anonymous
>>306415
not venomous per say, but their mouth is an infested contagion of bacterias that turns a wound septic to any creature the comodo bites.
>> Anonymous
>>306415
nope. Not venom, bacterial overload.
>> Anonymous
>>305532
That fight was awesome tho.
>> Anonymous
>>306421

One politely suggests that you review and update your knowledge base and sources. The komodo dragon, and other monitor lizards, all have venom, just not in deadly amounts. This was established in 2005.
>> Anonymous
>>306417
>>306421
LEARN TO FUCKING READ!

Komodo dragons produce venom in their mouths. They also have bacteria, but the preliminary sting in their bite comes from a snake-like venom. In fact monitor lizards are the closest surviving relatives of snakes.