stegosaurus had a brain the size of 4 or 5 walnuts.one of the deadlyest dinosaurs was utahraptor other raptors are megoraptor,veloceraptor,deinonycus,uulapsens,eoraptor.the only bird-hipped dinosaur of the triassic period was pisanosaurus.
from Austin V, age 7, Lewis Center, Ohio, USA; September 30, 2000

Assuming T.Rex could close it's jaws as rapidly as an aligator snapping, which is 5 microseconds, it means the tip of the jaw has to move a distance of 1 meters (assuming a conversative 50 degree gape) in 0.05 seconds. That's 20 meters a second, or 45 miles an hour! T-Rex's lower jaw weighed about 300 kilos, meaning the momenteum of the bite from the speed of the jaw itself is, using the fromula mass multiplied by velocity----300 * 20=6000 NEWTONS!

As you can see, the velocity of the bite itself is aready creates 6 kilonewtons of force, this is not counting in the powerful jaw muscles used to force the jaws together to create even more force! All together, T-rex could probally muster up to 12000 Newtons of force in a killing bite.

Can we be sure T-Rex did really use so much fore in a bite? Yes! All of T-Rex's teeth have the potential to grow to roughly the same size, save for those daggers at the sides of its mouth. However, as you notice, the front teeth of all the T-Rex skulls we found are all smaller. This is because they were younger teeth than the back ones. The front of the jaws are where most of the force from the bite is exerted, thus we see the teeth infront are newer, as they occosionaly fell out during a bite at such force. So I can conclude that T-Rex did bite at extreme forces far above its determined feeding bite of 3000 newtons. Now my question you ALL you scavenger believers out there. Why would T-Rex use such excessive force if it was a pure scavenger? Mabye it wanted to make sure the carrion was really dead? Or more likely, and more obviously, it used this super-bite to kill other animals.............

To put this in prespective, a armour piercing shell fired from a tank gun travelling at 1000 meters per second weighing 2 kilograms has a momentium of 2*1000=2000 newtons.

This is evidence put forward by me, an O'level pure physics student.

>From my findings, I say it's highly likely T-Rex was not a dedicated scavenger.
from Shian W., age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2000

The offical scientific name of Tyrannosaurus imperator is actually Tyrannosaurus Honkie! Ha ha ah juz kiddin' hey, looks like somebody just sarted another debate!
from Honkie Tong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2000

Big Bodies Unbalance Modern Theories Big bodies fascinate James Farlow. As a child, he watched the dinosaur segment of Walt Disney's movie Fantasia, and a curtain opened on what he wanted to do for the rest of his life. Now an Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) professor of geology, Farlow attempts to unlock mysteries written in rock-- mysteries of bodies that died 65 million or more years ago. Farlow researches dinosaurs: the bigger and nastier, the better. The star of his big-screen dream is Tyrannosaurus rex. Farlow has studied extensively how fast T. rex ran, how deep it dug its teeth into its prey, and how it scavenged for meals. He has developed theories on how a meat eater the size of a large African elephant could survive in the Mesozoic era, and he sees lessons in extinct animal bones that can be applied today. For a quick explanation of how scientists' current view of dinosaurs evolved, let us revisit the movie theater. The original King Kong portrayed dinosaurs as slow-moving behemoths who postured and roared. Recently Jurassic Park showed scientists' mouths drop open at a T. rex that could run 32 miles per hour. Farlow endorses, with some important reservations, Steven Spielberg's portrayal. Along with IPFW Professor of Physics John Robinson, and Matt Smith, a scientific artist from Bozeman, Montana, Farlow tried to determine how fast tyrannosaurs could have run. Using a 1/20-scale model of the dinosaur, sculpted by Smith, the team first calculated the body's volume. The scientists measured the difference between the weight of the the model in air and when submerged in water. To check the accuracy of this method, the team estimated volume again by collecting water displaced from a container when the model was completely submerged. The scientists then calculated the volume of a ful! l-size creature by multiplying the model's volume by the cube of the inverse of the model's scale (twenty to the third power).

Assuming that the living T. rex would have had a specific gravity (density as compared to water) between 8.5 and 1.00, the scientists arrived at an estimated mass of 6,000 kg. for the animal represented by the model. Plugging the mass estimate into a mathematical equation, the team calculated the animal's "strength indicator," a measurement of how well a skeleton handles the stress of physical activity. They found the T. rex femur claimed a strength indicator of 7.5 to 9 m2/giganewton. (A giganewton is the force needed to move 112,000 tons--roughly the weight of two steam locomotives--one meter.) By comparison, a runner like an ostrich boasts a femur with a strength indicator of 44 m2/giganewton, a muscle-bound mammalian femur like that of a white rhinoceros measures 26 m2/giganewton, and a human femur boasts a strength indicator of 15 m2/giganewton.

The team also calculated how speed would put T. rex at risk should the big hunter fall. Considering the vertical impact that the torso and head would suffer, the horizontal force of impact, and the skid distance, the team created several scenarios set at varying speeds. At 20 meters/second (approximately 44 miles per hour), the body of a fallen T. rex would slide faster than its head. In other words, a skidding stop alone might break the animal's neck. Farlow and his collaborators concluded that T. rex could not afford to run at such speed. Most likely, the feet of the big carnivore never left the ground simultaneously. However, with its long limbs and tail held out behind for balance, T. rex could probably walk or trot up to 10 meters/second (22 miles per hour), with short surges that might reach 15 meters/second (33 miles per hour). (This is the entire report on the fall down go boom theory. Not the reserchers say T-Rex could burst-sprint at 33miles an hour, a lightning 52kph! Now even I agree that's the upper speed limit for a tyrannosaur Niel, what do you have to say?)
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2000

Hey, guys lay off him! He is only a 11 year old guy with some misconceptions with T-Rex. However, I do not find your points very strong as they are too one dimentional(meaning T-Rex would have found a way around it, making it not revalant)and some of them are factually innacucrate.(Triceratops running faster than a rhino)
from Honkie Tong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2000

Hello Neil, why aren't you answering? Is your dinner that long? Or have all your points been blown out of the water?
from Rex Defender, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2000

Hey Neil, Tyrannosaurus had thick teeth because it bit down at such speed and force during hunting, any less would break a tooth. It appears its thick teeth had a dual function. It could crush bones and resist stresses that would have left Gigantosaurus with a broken jaw and a toothless grin.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2000

Your points make no sense, pound for pound, T-Rex has the most firepower for any land-based carnivore. Your point about the thick teeth is incredibily stupid. Thick is not the same thing as blunt. The tooth tip would have penetrated the flesh of the prey, followed by the tapering tooth, widening the wound. This means its teeth would cause far more damage than a slashing tool like a raptor claw or a allosaur tooth. Furthermore, the backward curving teeth means once the meat is hooked on, it has to go backwards into the mouth of the Rex to unhook itself. This feature works better in hunting than scavenging, as dedicated scavengers have no need to have meat stuck on their teeth, unless they want their prey to have a hardtime breaking free. The serations on the teeth also help to trap meat, which would have rotted and made T-rex's bite very infectious, meaning one bite would cause infection and death within a few hours. Predators like the monitor lizard also employ this tatic. Why would a dinosaur of T-Rex's size require such a system if it was a scavenger, certainly not in self defence, as other T-Rex have immunity to this posion-bite. Also, powerful jaw muscles allowed the jaw to close extremely snappily, like an attacking aligator. Furthermore, T-Rex's blocky skull gave the neck a lot of leverage and allowed the skull to absorb tremendus stress beyond the simple task of bone crushing. T-Rex's short and powerfully muscled neck allowed the animal to shake its head like a shark to help break up its prey in an attack. Furthermore, we seriously suspect T-Rex could run up to 35miles per hour, not 35 kilometer an hour, making it fast enough to capture prey like hardosaurs. Ostrich dinosaurs are not a regular part of T-Rex diet, as he would chase an ostrich dinosaur like a lion would waste it's energy trying to capture a mouse, it dosent happen. Lastly, Triceratops could not run faster than a rino. To compair Triceratops to a rhino is not valid, as Triceratops ran more like an elephant, it trotted instead of galloped like an rhino. Most people agree triceratops could not run faster than 40km/hr, easy meat for T-Rex. Come to think of it Neil, most of your points make no common sense and are obviously shallowly thought through. It appeared you did not allow the evidence to speak for itself, but instead tried to fit the evidence into your theory. From careful study of Tyrannosaurus, I find it is more likely for T-Rex to be a dynamic hunter-scavenger, hunting when it had to and scavenging when convient.Now, that's the life of a king!
from Rex defender, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2000

In force tests, Tyrannosaurus could bite up to forces to 12000 newtons in a killing bite. Your point that T-Rex would have had trouble penetrating tense, life flesh due to its thick teeth seems contray to the findings of the experts. In fact, a lot of your points about T-Rex are actually big misconceptions or either conceptions of your fantasy. Long story short, thick teeth do not cause feeding pronlems at 12 kilonewtons of force. T-Rex's teeth were shaped like sabers, which passed easily through flesh one the intial penetration had been made by the tooth tip. Agian, your points seem contray about all we know about T-Rex. You are badly decluded.
from Ian, age 16, ?, ?, NZ; September 29, 2000

Grrrr, who said I am a full time scavenger? Ok, ok, I admit it, I might have scared a few raptors away from their kills and ate the odd dead Anatotitan, but I did bring down my fair share of Triceratops, Hardosaurs (not ankylosaurus though, except in Dino Warz). In fact I can run up to 50km/hr, who said I was this lower than a dog scavenger, I must have a talk with him.
from Sue, age 67,340234, Hell Creek, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

I seriously think triceratops could not run faster than a rino, firstly, it could not gallop which was the only way to reach such speeds. Secondly, it did not have the brain power to handle such a big body. I think triceratops would have trotted along like an elephant at speeds of 30-40km/hr. In fact, fossil trackways show Triceratops has a walking speed of 7-10km/hr while T-Rex has a walking speed of 12-15km/hr, it seems that to suggest Triceratops was faster seems to be contray to all the facts we have WHAT GAVE YOU SUCH A IDEA THAT TRICERATOPS COULD RUN AT 50KM/HR IN THE FIRST PLACE?!!!
from whAT THE....., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

No problem Neil, Thick teeth may have medium difficulty for going into life flesh but T-Rex had powerful jaw muscles for clamping down at speeds approaching 80 miles per hour. At such speeds and stresses, the thickness of the teeth wouldnt matter, as it would have blasted right through to the bone. I suspect the teeth were thick to avoid them shearing off under the extreme stress. T-Rex has, in fact, one of the strongest jaw and neck muscles in the fossil record. T-Rex also had keener hearing, eyesight and smell than other predators or prey of its time. Suggesting it was a deidcated scavenger seems contary to all these equipment. A dedicated scavenger would not need keen eyesight or hearing, only super smell.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

I suspect Tarbosaurus is actually a subspecies of T-Rex than a actual seprate species. Like different breeds of Malay Chickens.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

HUH? You are saying thick teeth are used for scavenging? I dont think so! The saber toothed cat had thick teeth used for stabbing. I suspect T-Rex used its teeth to inflict a incredible flesh wound, a fatal one at that.
from HUH?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

Excuse me? Tyrannosaurus teeth could punch through 2inch steel plate like it was paper. One bite from Rex would cause a wound 1 feet deep and 3 feet across. And that's just a feeding bite. The scrrations in T-Rex's teeth do not help it to cut meat better, but in fact help it to store rotting meat to make it's bite lead to fatal infection within hours. For your info, Rex would not chase ostrich dinosaurs anymore than a Lion would chase mice, it's a waste of energy on a low energy source. Scientist now agree Triceratops could not gallop, as the resulting strain would be harmful. The best a triceratops could do is to trot along at 40 km/h max. Rex's maximum running speed was 35miles per hour, not 35km/hr as previously thought, using the fall down go boom theory. Somehow the units got converted wrongly and even I was misled. That's a lightning 52km/hr! Which is faster than my 48.7km/hr estimate! No no no, T-Rex did hunt. You really shouldn't base your r! esearch on one source Neil, that's bad science. We don't see too alot of dedicated scavengers around in any ecosystem, because dedicated scavenging for big animals is a risky venture. In evolutionary terms, a total conversion to scavenging means specialisation, which is extremely riskly. Tyrannosaurus certainly did scavenge, but to say he relied totally on it is a sweeping statement. It's most likely he scavenged when it was convienent, and hunted when he had to. Anyway, T-Rex's main source of food are actually the hardosaurs. Numerous hardosaur skeletons have been found with T-Rex bite marks on them. Some have even been found with HEALED bite marks on them. This certain demostrates predatory behaviour. Anyway, T-Rex had a slight speed advantage on the hardosaurs, which made them prime targets for him. This is reflected in the statistic that hardosaur bones are more likely to be found with bite marks than bones of dinosaurs like triceratops, why is this so? Did T-Rex have a food prefrence or did he prefer to hunt the defendless hardosaurs than risk a possible injury hunting triceratops. The facts are in, make your conclusion.
from Honkie Tong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

Brad, I got Raptor Red out from the library and I LOVED IT! Have you got any other dino novel reccomendations? I have reserved Dino Summer and have already read Jurassic Park (which had millions of mistakes and misconceptions), The Lost World (ditto), and all of the Dinotopia books. The myth of Archeoraptor is known to everybody who goes onto this website, BUT, it only was posted in the Toronto Star today!?!?! Now you know about the time delay! Just to remind you all, I believe that Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger. Many of you will not agree with me, but look at the points, one by one. One: Tyrannosaurus had such thick teeth that they would have had little other use than to crunch bone and scavenge carrion (rotting meat). They would have medium difficulty going into live, tense, flesh. Two: It wouldn't be able to run after prey that could run faster than 30 km an hour. For example, Triceratops could run faster than a rhinoceros, and the ostrich dinos would operate at blinding speeds compared to it. I would post more but I have to eat dinner. I'll be back later.
from Neil M., age 11, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 28, 2000

Brad: T. luanchuanensis is now synonymous with T. bataar, T. novojilovi is synonymous with T. bataar, and T. turpanensis is synonymous with T. bataar. The only 3 valid species of Tyrannosaurus are T. rex, T. bataar (I personally consider Tarbosaurus as a synonym to Tyrannosaurus), and T. efremovi.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

Just looking around, I'd say the average CoolDinos user is over 10, although I'm not sure about the voting booth. Yes, T-Rex is an informal nickname that will be around for a long time. And as of now, I am sure Tyrannosaurus imperator is also informal. I wonder what will happen when someone votes for it? (Note: Actually, I'm curious as to what would happen if anyone votes for any species of Tyrannosaurus other than T. rex. The voting page lists Tarbosaurus as distinct, so it is logical to assume votes for Tyrannosaurus bataar would go there. There is also ?Tyrannosauurus novojilovi, ?Tyrannosaurus turpanensis (dubious), and ?Tyrannosaurus luanchuaensis. I am not sure if these have been synonomized with any other tyrannosaur, although they probably are. I'll try to post some information on them soon.)
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 28, 2000

Sorry mano, public opition wins over, the people using this page are 5-10 years old, so if they call Rex T-Rex or Sharp teeth, it dosent matter. We just have to understand what they are saying and get their vote through. Though to clear your doubts Brad, I am quite sure T-Rex is an imformal nickname for Tyrannosaurus Rex, unlike T.Rex, which is a short form. If you have any further doubts, you can have a talk with Sue
from Chavez, D., age 19, DC, ?, US; September 28, 2000

Did you get a load of the votes in the favourite dinosaur page? They keep getting weirder and weirder!
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

Common, give the kids a break, they are just voting for their favourite dinosaur Brad (t-rex/t.rex)
from HonkieTong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

HA HA BRAD, common, admit it, T.Rex/T-Rex, Tyrannosaurus Rex is the most popular of all dinos. That's a fact. I which Albertosaurus would receive more votes, but he does not. I am not complaining!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2000

i think this site is one of the best sites of the world wide web. I think this is because there are lots of things to do like play games and look at jokes. My best two dinosaurs are the steg and t-rex
from Dean L., age 12, Darwin, N.T., Australia; September 28, 2000

I just noticed that almost everyone who voted for T. rex recently called it T-Rex.... which isn't a valid dinosaur at all. Genera are abbreviated with periods, and species are always in lowercase letters. T. rex probably doesn't have any more votes than any other dinosaur. Its the ficticous T-Rex we must worry about!
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2000

Billy's script is pretty good. There are very few scripts and stories about dinosaurs around. Can anyone post another?
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2000

That's very interesting Eve. In Calvin and Hobbes, tyrannosaurs fly F-14 fighers, not F-16s!
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2000

Polyonax means "master over many", making it a worthy opponent for "tyrant lizard king". Vote Polyonax! Nothing is cooler than a nomen dubium! :)
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2000

What does T-Rex and a F-16 fighter have in common? Answer: They were both built to be unstable. It's true, an F-16 fighter has it's center of gravity shifted to the rear to make it more unstable than normal aircraft. THis makes the F-16 extremely nimble and gives it a great advantage in a dogfight. A T-Rex has a unstable hip joint, making its center of gravity unstable. In life, muscles in the hip region allow it to delebrately shift its hips "off" moving it's center of gravity. It also steered its legs from its hips, not it's ankles, which birds do. THis would have made T-Rex surprisingly nimble for a creature of its size, allowing it to turn tighter corners. It's big brain also proves that T-Rex had enough brain-power to handle this system. Non tyrannosaurods like Gigantosaurus do not have this ability. Raptors also adopt this center of gravity trick in their tail bases.
from Eve, age 13, ?, ?, NZ; September 27, 2000

I know T-Rex is my favourite dinosaur, and I have seen some pretty creative votes for it, but this one by Billy M. takes the cake! I laughed like crazy reading it!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2000

All right man, your closing statement wraps up this debate....(Until the next IDI*T asks the same question again. Say, Don't you think Gigantosaurus was overrated by the media too? Let's wait and see. I mean, T-Rex was thought to be 55 feet long and 15 tons at first, then 7 tons and 46 feet and finally 5.7tons and 41 feet. That's the media folks! (ps: but overall, I expect T-Imperator to be the biggest carnivore found so far!)
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2000

My take on the T. rex debate never showed up, something I have known to happen here when the disk gets full. I now believe that Tyrannosauurs did run, scavenged when it was convenient, hunted when it had to, and T. imperator has been greatly exaggerated by the media. Just my guesses.
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2000

Now, Dinosaurs do not exist! We all know that the earth is not older than 35000 years, its impossible for dinosaurs to exist. I say dinosaur fossiles were all elaborate hoaxes put to decieve and confuse people!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2000

The comet didn't cause an ice age, it caused a nuclear winter! The last ice age happened much later.
from Honkie Tong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2000

Oh yes Brad, what's your outtake on this T-Rex debate?
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2000

Ya, but I wanted my friend to get a scope of how long the dinosaurs really lived. Ok, better antalogy. imagine a piece of mouldy cheese left for two weeks, that's us. Now the dinosaurs have a piece of cheese that is 20 years old, better?
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2000

Brad, tsk tsk tsk. Humans will live longer than that, Humans can live FOREVER! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH.
from bRAD,TSK,TSK,TSK, age TSK, TSK, TSK, TSK; September 26, 2000

I think that dinosaurs died when a comet hit earth and caused an ice- age, so that is why I think that dinosaurs died.
from Ashleigh, age 9, Wellington, ?, New Zealand; September 26, 2000

I really don't think that it is valid to compare the length of the dinosaurs existance to the length of time humans have existed. We are one species. And even including the extinct homonids, there might be only about a dozen. Dinosaurs were thousands of species, hundreds of genera, and two entire orders (and perhaps a class, but since Linnean is pretty much out we don't need to debate that). Not really fair, is it? It might be fair to say "Dinosaurs, including birds, have existed for 230 million years. Mammals have existed for about the same time, perhaps ten or fifteen million years less." Not all that impressive. Or, you could say "Mammals have spent more time on the earth than the non-avian dinosaurs." And that's true, mammals existed about 213 (or around there, but I wouldn't be off by much) million years ago to the present, dinosaurs existed 228 million years ago to 65 million years ago. And who can prove humans don't still have ano! ther 150 million years to go (okay, it's doubtful, but can you prove it)?
from Brad, age 13, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2000

I think dinosaurs are great.
from Brittany W., age 9, Houston, Texas, U.s; September 26, 2000

Dinosaures lived for 3 time periods, the tirassic, jurassic and the cretacious. This three periods streched for over 120 million years. Humans on the other hand, have only been around for 300,000 years. Nobody really knows how the dinos died, but the most accepted theory is where a huge rock miles across from space hit the earth. The explosion threw up so much dust, it covered the earth and blocked out all the sunlight. The plants, without the sun, died. The plant eaters soon followed as they had no plants to eat. Then the meat eaters, when they also ran out of meat to eat. By the time the dust settled, there were no more dinosaurs left. However, this is just a THEORY!
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 25, 2000

i like your web site.
from charlotte s, age 7, new york, briarwood, usa; September 25, 2000

how long did they stay a round and why did they die?
from craig, age 13, Gerogetown, South Carlina, Santee; September 25, 2000

Hey, I juz thought 'bout this, I am quite sure T-Rex couldn't jump and the Raptors could. However, how did Megaraptor jump? I find it kind of hard to picture a one to two ton animal leaping onto its victim! Should it fall off its victim, it risked a high chance of injury due to its size and weight. The best I can figure megarator do is todo a slight hurdle above its hip level, any higher would be dangerous!
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 25, 2000

Hey, check this out. I have calculated Rex's walking speed. Assuming Rex moved its legs at the same rate as an elepant, that's 1 stride per sec,(we do 1.5 strides) and his stride was 14 feet or 4.8meters. It would give him a walking speed of 17kph. Should he run, he would take 2 strides per second, each stride would be an estimated 1.4times wider, makind it 6.7meters, it would make his speed 48.2 kph or 30 miles per hour. Fast enouh to catch a trike (estimated speed 40kph) or a large hardosaur (50kph).
from HonkieTong., age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 24, 2000

I seriously suspect dinosaurs died when they stop breathing. Though there is no fossil evidence to show this, I think this is very possible.
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 23, 2000

How did they die.
from JB&JC, age 10 &7, Oshkosh, WI, U.s.a;

Big eggs= social life? Hey, did T-Rex take care of it's young? I mean, T-Rex probablly produced big eegs in small quantity rite? Unlike snakes. So it means that big eggs were likely to be spotted and raided if they werent taken care off. So if T-Rex was born, it was about the size of a big cat, easy meat for other dinos. So if they got picked off easy and didnt produce eggs in large number, then T-Rex would be extinct eariler! I seriously T-Rexs have extended parenting roles. Sue was found near another young T-Rex. Does this mean T-Rex had a social life and was not as solo as I thought?
from Shian W, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 22, 2000

IS it just me or is Tyrannosaurus Rex the most talked about dinosaur here? And why?
from Jarrel .T, age 12, ?, ?, ?; September 22, 2000

Hey Samuel, if you think Avimimus looked like a bird, wait till you see a less know creature, it's called m- M-something. People are still debating weather it's a bird or a dino!
from HonkieTong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 22, 2000

I used to think that T-Rex was a scavenger, mainly due to the fact that he is the most popular dinosaur on earth and I didnt like it that way. I prefered to think of T-Rex as a lowly scavenger for I couldn't bear the though of it chasing down and killing a trceratops, my favourite animal. In fact, what certain scientists said about T-Rex as a scavender helped to renforce that belief. Well, that was the past. After reading all this opposing arguments about T-Rex not being a dedicated scavenger, I must say my view of T-Rex has changed greatly. I now have a clearer picture of what a powerful predator this animal once once, thanks guys!
from Abrams, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 22, 2000

Thank you guys, but are there any other people that may make opposing statement to all that is being said here, please write in. Seriously speaking, I think the case for T-Rex being a dynamic, hunter-scavenger seems far stronger than the scavenger theory.
from Hinkie T., age 16, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; September 22, 2000

I agree, the Scavenger side has long accused the other side of this debate as being blinded by predatory bias. I think this is not true as most of us accept T-Rex as a hunter-scavenger. It's the scavenger side who is insisting rex was a dedicated scavenger. They are fighting a bend here, refusing to let go of their theories. Those are the blinded ones, now, that's BAD SCIENCE.
from I agree, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 21, 2000

I believe the theory that T-Rex would have been hurt if it ran above 35kph and therefore it didn't is a simplistic and premature way of judging the animal's true running behaviour. Though it IS a fact that T-Rex would have been seriously hurt in a fall above 35kph, saying it didnt go above 35kph due to that is not a entirely logical concluusion. It's like saying non swimming birds do not fly above the ocaean because when they drop down, they will drown. Now it's a fact that non-swimming birds will drown if they fell into the sea, but is that the reason to say that these birds therefore did not fly above the sea? NO! The main reason being that the odds of a bird falling into the sea are very slim, because they are good fliers. The same applies to T-Rex. Though it means he will be hurt if he fell while running dosent mean he WILL FALL while running, When was the last time you fell while sprinting. Have you ever seen a running bird like the ostrich fal! l while running,\? NO! This is because the odds of this happening is very small. T-Rex had the advantage of a tail to work as a counterweight, which ostrichs dont have. I believe the odds of Rex falling during a run is so small that he regulary ran above 35kph(in a short burst). And thus could catch his food. The idea of him putting in bursts of speed also fits nicely into the theory that he was an ambush hunter. I think the T-Rex is a scavenger camp is going too far on this "fall down go boom" theory as it seems to be their only hope, with now evidence pointing towards T-Rex not being a dedicated scavenger. To poke more holes in the scavenger theory, save for the vultures, there are almost no pure scavengers in the world today. Even hyenas hunt often. Being a pure scavenger seems to give an animal a narrow scope of potential food choices. Also, Tyrannosaurus' super keen sense of smell has been sited as a main reason its is a scavenger. On closer invesgitation, anybody can find this assumption to be premature and now well thought out. A keen sense of smell is not really needed for sniffing for rotten meat because rotten meat smells! In fact a super sharp sense of smell seems more suitable for snifing out prey! A bloodhound has a super sharp sense of smell (though not as good as T-rex.) But does this make it a scavenger? NO! In fact, a super sharp sense of smell seems to be good equipment for a hunt! Another scavenger camp trick. They claim that T-Rex's puny arms were no good for catching life prey, but is this true? I dont think so, taking a closer look at mordern day armless predators like the croc and the shark, who use their jaws to capture their prey, a lack of good ars dont seem to be a problem. In fact, T-Rex's skull seem to support this. T-Rex had power neck and jaw muscles, in addition to strong teeth. All this enable T-Rex to actually capture Prey in its jaws! T-Rex's teeth also curved back, which means the only way a prey animal to escape it's jaws while caught, is to actually GO BACK into the aminals throat inorder to unkook itself. Yes, One T-Rex head certainly more than made up for arms. T-Rex certainly seemed liek overkill for a lowly scavenger. Prehaps we should go into more solid evidence. A hardosaur skeleton with healed T-Rex bite marks in its tail show predatory behaviour in Tyrannosaurus. If T-rex was a dedicated scavenger, why did he then, chomp on the tail of a hardosaur? This is very compelling evidence. The scavenger camp has long sited many reasons to show rex as a dedicated scavenger or a hunter-scavenger with heavy leanings towards scavenging. These range form weak teeth, slow speed, lack of arms...and so on. One by one, these reasons have been shot down. In fact, their arguments have more holes than a target ship. I say it's time the scavenger camp stops cluching at straws and accept T-Rex as a hunter-scavenger which was extremely good at hunting.
from Debater, age 16, ?, ?, ?; September 21, 2000

No'its not, why you ask, alvinmimus was aready weird, how much weirder can you get?
from hehe, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 21, 2000

I read a book on dinos and it showed Avimimus almost like Archeopterix! Is that crazy or what?
from Samuel C., age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 21, 2000

Thay are very cool .Do you like them or not?Well I do.
from Trevor S, age 10, Mavern, AR., U.S.A; September 21, 2000

WHY ARE DINOSAURS EXTINKED
from NATHAN W, age 10, MALVERN, ARKANSAS, UNITED STATES; September 21, 2000

These are animals, not monsters The T. Rex was the most highly evolved of all the Therapod dinosaurs and, although its almost certainly the most powerful and deadly hunter ever to walk this earth, it is still an animal.

Often forgotten in the Hollywood glitz and crowd-pleasing moments of wonton destruction and beastly roaring, is the fact that this creature really lived on this same land that we now walk, some sixty-five million years ago.

If such animals lived in herds then a prime source of carrion would be if one of the herd dropped dead. Why, then, do we not find a significant number of Rex skeletons with Rex tooth marks in the bone? This points towards a hunter-killer. Similarly, we find skeletons of unarmoured hadrosaurs are twice as likely to bear Rex tooth marks than the powerful, horned Triceratops are. No bite marks have been found on the heavily armoured ankylosaurus. Why would this be the case if T. Rex only fed off the dead?

Furthermore, conclusive evidence of predacious behaviour exists in the form of partially-healed T. Rex tooth marks on the bones of an edmontosaurus, demonstrating an unsuccessful attack on a live animal. Advocates of the scavenger theory say that such puny arms would have negated effective killing and that the animal would not have been fast enough to run down prey. Conversely, studies of the arm and knee of the T. Rex and the accompanying musculature built around them, it can be deduced that the animal's arms could curl 180 Kg and it would have been able to reach running speeds of between 30 and 40 mph in short bursts, faster than any other animal of the time. I believe there is a much stronger body of evidence that suggests a hunter. However, which ever way an animal is categorised, as scavenger or hunter, it will always do both in order to survive.
from Rex Defender, age 16, Sing, Sing, Sing; September 21, 2000

My favourite dinosaur is a Triceratops because he head butted the other dinosaurs. T-Rex was the most dangreous dinosaur of them all. There was also some swimming dinosaurs. One of the swimming dinosaurs could climb out of the water without it dying. There was some very strange dinosaurs like the Iguanadon (I hope my mum's spelt it right!) The stegasaurus had bony plates on his back to stop the T-Rex from eating it.
from Luke, age 5, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England; September 21, 2000

Yes, stats could also prove beyond doubt that T-Rex did hunt and kill other dinosaurs. Skeletons of hardosaurs are twice as likely to be found with T-Rex bite marks than triceratops skeletons. Ankylosaur skeletons havent been found with bites marks at all. Why is this so, did t-rex have a taste for dead hardosaurs or did he prefer to hunt down unarmoured, defenceless dinosaurs compaired to a potential blood fight with a triceratops?
from Statman, age 19, Sing, Sing, Sing; September 21, 2000

I really dont think an asteriod killed the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs were too up to the challange. Should a disaster would have killed off the snails and the frogs, as they were most prone to the negative effects of such a disaster. I believe the extintion has more to do with dinosaur behaviour than an external occurance. Fossils only tell us about a dinosaur's physical form and almost nothing about it's behaviour. It's like a picture album. We know that life occurs in between the pictures but after a while, the pictures are all we have and we start to remember life by looking at the pictures. Soon, we start to base our conclusions on the pictures. This is the same with the dinosaurs, we only have their fossils, but we know so little about how they bread, slept of fought.That's also why we assume it was something external that killed them, a metor, a change in wether, a disease. We never thought that a change in behaviour could speel their doom. Take! the ice age for example. When the ice age happened, there was no mass extintion, it was only when the ice age ended then there was a mass extintion. This was because of the ice age changing the animals behaviour, pushing them towards the edge of chaos. When the ice age ended, the return to normal wasnt a return to normal after all, it was another big change and for many animals, it was the last straw. Should we know how the dinosaurs behaved. In these are the keys to unlocking the true reason behind their extintion.
from Levine, age 24, ?, ?, ?; September 21, 2000

As a paleontologist studying Tyrannosaurus, I surmise that Tyrannosaurus was a ambush hunter, meaning that it would not spend more than ten seconds running in a chase. I suppose the risk of falling during the chase would then be small, meaning that T-Rex could afford to run above it's "safe speed". Take leopards and tigers for example. They are master ambush hunters, creeping up to within 12 feet of their prey before chasing. I don't see them falling while they are running, as compired to other hunting cats who chased their prey over a longer distance. The shorter the chase, the smaller the chances of falling. (I agree that T-Rex would be seriously hurt if it fell while running above its "safe speed".)
from Osborne Jr, age 42, ?, ?, America; September 21, 2000

As an physics engineer, I have to agree with Honkie. I have done determined that Tyrannosaurus' tail was almost half it's length, and took up one third of its mass. Now with its center of gravity at it's hips, whenever Tyrannosaurus used it's tail as a counterweight, the hips would act as a pivot and apply correcting force to its body. I estimate the tail could apply at least 35000 newtons of correcting force in a split second, making it extremely unlike for Tyrannosaurus to fall during sprinting. In fact, I think that when running flat out, Tyrannosaurus was at a lower risk of falling then when it was standing still, for it's center of gravity would be constantly shifting as its hips moved, allowing its tail to work to full advantage. It is highly likely Tyrannosaurus could have sprinted above it's so-called "safe speed".
from Norman, age 27, ?, ?, ?; September 21, 2000

I have been following this Tyrannosaurus debate in this room for some time and would like to add that I appuld the speakers for their knowledge. Now I would like to have my say. I believe that T-Rex was not a dedicated scavenger. Most people would say so due to it's large smell lobes in its brain. I have also heard that T-Rex had small eyes and was trefore a scavenger. This is not true! T-Rex had eyes the size of your hear, and they faced forward. When T-rex explored the world, It was nose first, but his braincase showed that his other senses were better developed,even better than most of the predators of its day. No sense having a super sense of smell when rotten meat smells more than a live hardosaur. It just dosent make sense! I say Rex lived in an area which was heavily forested, making it good for an ambush. Good eyes were good but not as good as a keen sense of smell, which could sniff out prey through the forest. T-Rex's above adverage hearin! g also helped it to lacate the prey. Like a shark, or a polar bear, using its non optical senses to track down its pey. Finally after locating it with its keen eyesight, Rex would have charged it suddenly. Avoiding damage for the prey was unlikely. And if it did survived one bite, infection and loss of blood will take its toll. All T-rex had to do was to follow the animal until it dropped dead. No, a good nose should not be used as an argument to push T-rex as a scavenger. Dogs have poor eyesight but a good sense of smell but are they all scavengers? I say T-rex would be happy to hunt as he would be as happy to scavenge. Some people would argue that T-rex couldnt run fast due to its leg arangements. True, but I didnt thinl rex found it too big a disadvantage at all. His legs were adopted for walking and long distance tracking and stalking. While he cant keep a turn of speed for long, I suspect he would have done 45kph in a full charge. Also, his main prey had a disadvantage of responding to an ambush, accelerating to esacpe that ambush and stop whatever it was doing. I say Rex would have been able to chase whatever he was stalking down with a high rate of sucess. Not to mention the hardosaurs he hunted couldnt run much faster than him.
from Mardoka, age 22, ?, ?, America; September 20, 2000

I have been following this Tyrannosaurus debate in this room for some time and would like to add that I appuld the speakers for their knowledge. Now I would like to have my say. I believe that T-Rex was not a dedicated scavenger. Most people would say so due to it's large smell lobes in its brain. I have also heard that T-Rex had small eyes and was trefore a scavenger. This is not true! T-Rex had eyes the size of your hear, and they faced forward. When T-rex explored the world, It was nose first, but his braincase showed that his other senses were better developed,even better than most of the predators of its day. No sense having a super sense of smell when rotten meat smells more than a live hardosaur. It just dosent make sense! I say Rex lived in an area which was heavily forested, making it good for an ambush. Good eyes were good but not as good as a keen sense of smell, which could sniff out prey through the forest. T-Rex's above adverage hearin! g also helped it to lacate the prey. Like a shark, or a polar bear, using its non optical senses to track down its pey. Finally after locating it with its keen eyesight, Rex would have charged it suddenly. Avoiding damage for the prey was unlikely. And if it did survived one bite, infection and loss of blood will take its toll. All T-rex had to do was to follow the animal until it dropped dead. No, a good nose should not be used as an argument to push T-rex as a scavenger. Dogs have poor eyesight but a good sense of smell but are they all scavengers? I say T-rex would be happy to hunt as he would be as happy to scavenge.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2000

Sorry I wanted to add this in. A cheetah using its front limbs to break a fall at 115kph would have experienced an adverage stucutal stress of 20gs! This would have, at best dislocated the cheetah's front limbs or shread some tendoons. At the worst, caused multiple fractures in its front limbs at the base. Either way, the cat will not be hunting again and will die. I have read of one cheetah dying like this after it hit a patch of ground rock in the grasslands while chasing its meal. The writer said the cat flew into the air like a cannonball after failing to adapt to the suddenly hard ground. When it landed about 30 meters away, its was aready dead. These accurances are rare, why? Because the animals couldn't afford to fall or risk death. The cheetah only spends a few seconds above its safe speed, too short qa time for anyting to go wrong. It the event something did, I am quite sure it would be a spectular show. This also applies for T-rex.
from HonkieTong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2000