Honkie Tong actually I think that the two comments I replied to earlier where both made up by you to help your case. Please don't do that Honkie, there's nothing I don't dislike more than a lie.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"I don't think people want to, but people have outrun elephants before."

It wasn't very hard for them, probably because the elephant wasn't chasing them but was just playing, or going about it's business and ignoring them.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"AND WHERE ... DID YOU GET THAT ELEPHANTS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF 12-15 MILES PER HOUR?"

Probably by doing research, in my case."

Your research is wrong Honkie. You probably have read a lot of misinformation, I guess the book you got that from was one of those cheap books that are made in vast quantities to make profit, with all the facts in them wrong. I've got real, expert books here, only the best, so I wouldn't bother trying to stick up for lies like "elephants couldn't run more than 15mph.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Uh... Muay Thai is actually English for Thai-boxing. If I tried to write it in Thai I wouldn't be able to because the Thai language doesn't use the English alphabet. I think my post sounded funny without Muay Thai....
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 31, 2001
Never heard of it. Are you the same Nick who just sent me those dinosaur pictures? JC

"I am a bit of a wildlife nut, I am obsessed with wildlife. I know more about currently existing animals than dinosaurs."

Same!!!!

Whales, Dolphins and Porpises are my favourite kinds of animals. The Killer Whale (or Orca) is my favourite animal.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Even as he claims to be seventeen, Nick shows the maturity of a seven year-old. I think he's just making up his age to sound older and more respectable, but his behaviour proves otherwise. That guy is a thug and da masta best protect his own reputation by not endorsing such people, no matter how they may share his view. Such hooliganism will not be tolerated here. This is your first warning.
from James Corteu, age 24, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"You can check for youself Honkie, Gregory Paul does agree with triceratops having at least some speed. I never said triceratops was break-neck fast!!"

Neither did I say he was break-back slow. I'm just saying he wasn't tuned for speed, that's all. He would probably be capable of some speed, like all animals we expect not to run well. Since when did I said you said Triceratops was break-neck fast?

"I'm just saying it can run fairly fast for its size."

Actually, if you take the extinct giant rhinos that were roughly Triceratops size, they would most probably be faster. Fairly fast is a relative term. How fast is fairly fast for an animal like Triceratops? 15 mph? 20 mph?

"If you look at an elephant limbs and can't tell that's it's weaker than triceratops, then you are just too dumb and ignorant to mind and I'll just ignore your posts for now on(shhesh, argueing that the facts are wrong just to prove your point, pitiful)."

Really, I would like to see why you think elephant limbs are weaker? Because of their design or simply because Triceratops had to support more weight? And hence its limbs had to be stronger? In that line of argument, I would say that the sauropods had stronger limbs then Triceratops. You aren't being chorent and clear at all, merely screaming out a few simple lines without clarifying your point. And why match Triceratops up with elephants in the first place? Why not rhinos? What exactly does matching up two so different locomotors prove besides they were different?

"AND DON'T YOU EVER COMPARE ME TO THOSE RAPTOR FANS!! I USED FACTS, LOGIC AND REASON!! WHY YOU GOTTA GO AND INSULT A FELLOW T .REX FAN LIKE THAT!! AND WHAT HAVE YOU GOT AGAINST TRICERATOPS BUD???!!! WANT ME TO THRASH YOU UP WITH SOME ...!!!"

It seems to me by your language you are just a very angry, angry person who wants to make people feel bad when they contradict you rather then somebody really using facts, logic and reason. Besides, I was responding to da masta, not you about the raptor fans, any association with them of you is by your own overfertile imagination and I claim no responsiblity for your own associating. Get a glass of water will ya?
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Hey, JC why'd you edit out Muay Thai? You know it's just thai-boxing right?
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 30, 2001
No, I don't read Chinese (and neither do a lot of people who read this page). If you want to say kick boxing, say it in English (otherwise I have to assume that an inknown term is as insulting as many of the words I have to edit out of the English-language posts). JC

Raptor fans aren't always making stuff up. Some are, I know, and they really don't know about the facts.
from Some sensible Raptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

You can check for youself Honkie, Gregory Paul does agree with triceratops having at least some speed. I never said triceratops was break-neck fast!! I'm just saying it can run fairly fast for its size. If you look at an elephant limbs and can't tell that's it's weaker than triceratops, then you are just too dumb and ignorant to mind and I'll just ignore your posts for now on(shhesh, argueing that the facts are wrong just to prove your point, pitiful). AND DON'T YOU EVER COMPARE ME TO THOSE RAPTOR FANS!! I USED FACTS, LOGIC AND REASON!! WHY YOU GOTTA GO AND INSULT A FELLOW T .REX FAN LIKE THAT!! AND WHAT HAVE YOU GOT AGAINST TRICERATOPS BUD???!!! WANT ME TO THRASH YOU UP WITH SOME ...!!!
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 30, 2001

"Elephants usually walk slowly, at a rate of about 6kmph. They can run at more than 40kmph when angry or frightened, but only for a short distance."

That's probably fiction. Animal speed estimates have been commonly fudged because of the difficulty in observing them (hence, take the figure in your book or the documentry with a pound of salt). The observed speed range for elephants (or any other large animal) is huge. I believe the credible speed estimate for elephants is 15-20 mph, and as you can see there's a big fudge factor in the speed estimate. Not to mention there's a tendency for estimates to solidify into fact, which is repeatedly published over and over again. 25 (40kph) mph seems to be the most overpublished figure, but I find that estimate quite high. That's quite close to the speed of a charging rhino (45-48 kph), all without suspension and doing so with three feet on the ground? I wouldn't be surprised the 25 mph figure was simply a high estimate that got grabbed whenever a speed figure was required and solidified into fact.

"I am amazed that such a sensible person as Honkie Tong would argue for such a stupid point."

Hmm...jumping into conclusions aren't we? I wasn't the one who posted the first post on elephant speeds, thought I would second a 15mph by that person as it falls into the range.

"But we need to stay calm, and hit 'em with solid scientific fact. They will never admit to being wrong, our objective is to make it obvious to anyone that they are wrong. And some of them really think that they are right. We've gotta wreck their self-confidence..."

Prehaps the current predicament of some of the people here is because they did not start out with the facts. Case in point: The raptor fans.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"THEN YOU WOULDN'T CARE TO EXPLAIN WHY TRICERATOPS HAVE SUCH POWERFUL LEGS!!! AND I COMPARED TRICERATOPS TO ELEPHANTS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALMOST THE SAME SIZE. NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD SIMILAR LEGS, THEY DIDN'T!!!"

In that case, that comparism is not rally valid, nor intelligent isn't it? Because both animals didn't move in really similar ways. One might as well go match up a greyhound and a sloth of similar size. Nope, it's a pretty poor way to do compare animals. It slews results unfairly. Picking up the popular line, size does not matter, anatomy does.

"I'M JUST COMPAIRING THEM TO SHOW IF AN ELEPHANT IS CAPABLE OF SOME SPEED,"

But the speed Elephants are capable of are really kinda not much, if you bothered to study them. Yes, the 12mph figure is quite close to the truth.

"TRICERATOPS WITH ITS STRONGER LEGS COULD HAVE BEEN FASTER!!!"

Big acomplishment huh? Against an elephant. Besides, whatever gave you the idea Triceratops had stronger limbs? Because it was bigger? More built for speed? Have you considered anything before posting that idea or was it just idle banter?

"BESIDES MOST PALEONTOLOGISTS WOULD AGREE THAT TRICERATOPS WAS CAPABLE OF SOME SPEED(ESPECIALLY PAUL & BAKKER),"

I'm not sure about Paul, but Bakker speed estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. Triceratops was probably capable of a fast motion phase, but not as fast as Bakker would have liked. (On the other hand, I don't think T.rex runs as fast as Bakker said at all)

"NOTICE I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS AS FAST AS T .REX?."

Since when was that the issue?

"AND WHERE ... DID YOU GET THAT ELEPHANTS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF 12-15 MILES PER HOUR?"

Probably by doing research, in my case. Elephants are slow-movers. They do look threatening when they charge/trot towards you but are really moving much slower then they appear. 12-15 mph is a good figure. Prehaps if you are only remotely near any source material, a primitve source of elephant speed would be the making of Walking With Dinosaurs, observe how fast the elephant really moves when its' told to run for the people to observe its movements. But really, elephants are not fast.

"WANNA RACE AN ELEPHANT AND FIND OUT?"

I don't think people want to, but people have outrun elephants before.

"AND HOW EXACTLY IS TRICERATOPS SPEED ADAPTATION OPPOSITE FROM A RHINO? THINK BEFORE YOU POST AND DON'T MAKE ^@$ UP!!!"

Prehaps you should take a glass of water. The limb bone ratios of Triceratops are indeed opposite that found in fast runners, and in rhinos. Meaning (let me belabour this as you have obviously not done your research): "Their feet are short, their humerous is long compared to their ulna and their femur long compared to their tibia, all features which are the opposite to those found in running animals."

Seesh...
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I love dinosaurs.My favorite toy now is a large spinosaurs it is number 200.I am interested in the croc-like dinos.I love this site.
from Da Supersaur, age 9, LEVITTOWN, NewYork, U.S.A.; December 29, 2001

I am amazed that such a sensible person as Honkie Tong would argue for such a stupid point.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 29, 2001

I am a bit of a wildlife nut, I am obsessed with wildlife. I know more about currently existing animals than dinosaurs.

I knew that a lot of people here where wrong, and that you must have been misinformed or, as Nick and I think, you had made it up that elephants where slow, for your own convenience (I think that that is a VERY dirty thing to do.)

I knew that there is very reliable information from naturalists and field biologists of elephants reaching speeds of up to 30kmph, but I felt the need to check in one of my numerous wildlife books, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ELEPHANTS, BIG CATS, BEARS AND WHALES, by Barbara Taylor, Robin Kerrod, Michael Bright, and Rhonda Klevansky.

A quote:

"Elephants usually walk slowly, at a rate of about 6kmph. They can run at more than 40kmph when angry or frightened, but only for a short distance."

Watch a nature documentary for once and if it mentions elephant speed it'll back me up.

There, you've got to beleive me.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 29, 2001

Nick, I just want to help.

Against these guys, the best thing is to remain calm and not to lose your head, it's vital. I know from personal experience...

I'll try to find the evidence for and against a sprawling stance and sort this out, and show them why triceratops didn't sprawl.

I know, these guys really make you mad, they made me mad, and not because of their argument, because of their slippery natures, they are hard opposition. But we need to stay calm, and hit 'em with solid scientific fact. They will never admit to being wrong, our objective is to make it obvious to anyone that they are wrong. And some of them really think that they are right. We've gotta wreck their self-confidence...
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 29, 2001

"Nope triceratops does not look built for speed"

THEN YOU WOULDN'T CARE TO EXPLAIN WHY TRICERATOPS HAVE SUCH POWERFUL LEGS!!! AND I COMPARED TRICERATOPS TO ELEPHANTS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALMOST THE SAME SIZE. NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD SIMILAR LEGS, THEY DIDN'T!!! I'M JUST COMPAIRING THEM TO SHOW IF AN ELEPHANT IS CAPABLE OF SOME SPEED, TRICERATOPS WITH ITS STRONGER LEGS COULD HAVE BEEN FASTER!!! BESIDES MOST PALEONTOLOGISTS WOULD AGREE THAT TRICERATOPS WAS CAPABLE OF SOME SPEED(ESPECIALLY PAUL & BAKKER), NOTICE I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS AS FAST AS T .REX?. AND WHERE THE FREAKIN' HECK DID YOU GET THAT ELEPHANTS ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF 12-15 MILES PER HOUR? WANNA RACE AN ELEPHANT AND FIND OUT? AND HOW EXACTLY IS TRICERATOPS SPEED ADAPTATION OPPOSITE FROM A RHINO? THINK BEFORE YOU POST AND DON'T MAKE ^@$ UP!!!
from Furious Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 28, 2001

"Look at elephants, yes an elephant has longer legs, so what? Their legs are way weaker than triceratops and their knees aren't flexed nor are their ankles flexible. Elephants have been known to be quite fast for their size (faster than people) and they don't even have the speed adaptations that triceratops do."

Maximum elephant speed noted is 12 mph (19.2 kph), anything more is a myth. Most cases of elephant-caused human deaths are not caused by running, but rather when the elephant attacked in close-proximity. The fastest humans max out at 25 mph and can outrun the elephant by a large margin (though typical untrained adult humans (not americans, who are the slowest and laziest people around by population) run at anywhere from 12-15 mph, still faster then an elephant) Elephants cannot outrun people usually.

Besides, elephants are the worst comparism for Triceratops, who resembled a more-sprawed rhino better. However, the speed adaptations of Triceratops were OPPOSITE that you see in fast quadiped runners like rhinos, indicating speeds of 20-30 mph attatined by rhinos could not be attained by Triceratops. More likely, Triceratops was limited to a more conservative speed of 12-15 mph, and not for long. Stress fractures found on the foot of Triceratops caused by the animal moving at its maximum speed were inconsistent with a suspension mode of movement, meaning that Triceratops, unlike rhinos, did not have a ballastic phase in its movement. Meaning it did not gallop like a rhino, but trotted instead, limiting its speed. Nope, Triceratops does not look built for speed.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Wow. I hope nobody complains about my post to Ari-because at least I didn't list a multitude of facts concerning the three carnivores or type up a violent post like Mac C. (Not that I think either is wrong)
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

I not trying to say triceratops was faster than T .rex, STOP COMPAIRING IT WITH THE FREAKIN' REX!! All I'm saying is triceratops have WAY stronger limbs relative to their size than the WAY bigger sauropods (which are notorious for their low speed). NOT an adaptation for a just walking around. They could probably run 15-20 Miles per hour. You have to understand that big bipeds and big quadropeds adapt for speed in different ways. The speed adaptations for a big 2 legged animal is to evolve relatively long limbs (like rex there)but a big four legged animal don't really need long legs to be fast they just have to be sturdy enough to withstand the impact of hitting the ground look at triceratops' legs, you mean to tell me that an animal having such thick, sturdy legs is just gonna walk around all its life without being capable of any speed!! Look at elephants, yes an elephant has longer legs, so what? Their legs are way weaker than triceratops and their knees aren't flexed nor are their ankles flexible. Elephants have been known to be quite fast for their size (faster than people) and they don't even have the speed adaptations that triceratops do. When you compare the cnemial crest(you should already know what) of these 2 animals you can instantly tell that Triceratops have way bigger crests for way more powerful knee opening and lower legs than the elephant. Elephants can run (or fast walk) even when it's legs aren't built for speed. WHY DO YOU TRASH AND INSULT TRICERATOPS LIKE THAT? DO YOU KNOW THAT THANKS TO TRICERATOPS AND OTHER DEADLY PREY T .REX EVOLVE INTO WHAT IT WAS, THE MOST EFFICIENT PREDATOR KNOWN TO SCIENCE!!! I AM A T .REX FAN BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME IGNORANT AND PUT DOWN OTHER DINOS SO I CAN FEEL BETTER ABOUT MY FAVORITE!!
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 27, 2001

T-rex..I'm not a Rex fan but it is not a scavenger. Horner says that Spino is the biggest, then he goes on about T-rex being a scavenger, I didn't believe him for a second. And it's not the smallest either, T-rexes have been found to be bigger than Giganotosaurus.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Joe Bob B is another remarkable person. His relentless pursits to annoy the Tyrannosaurus people do not seem to work, ... According to my work in the archives, this is the very person who lost virtually every argument he put up and throughly discredited indeed. ...
from Mac C., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Wow Ari B. your "facts" are rubbish! Nice attempt to "clear" the air by setting up more fires to put smoke into it. Harh, did you think anybody would buy that for even a moment? Simplistic, overly simplistic and naive. ...
from Mac C., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Bad sight (needs to sense motion)"

The creators of Jurassic park conjured up this myth for their movie, and now some people believe it! T-rex at least had satisfactory vision, and most likely, even had quite good vision. (T-rex had stereoscopic vision)

"Scavenger"
I have proof against this statement, I'd like to see the proof you have to defend it...
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

I think the true facts are more like this:

Facts:

Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn (1905)
Maastrichtian
Size: Lenght:12 meters(42 feet), Height: 4 meters(13 feet)

Weight: 5.5-6.5 tons

Evidence: Over 30 specimens, mostly incomplete. However, more then enough material has been recovered both from Tyrannosaurus and closely related Tyrannosaurids to build up an accurate picture of the animal. Recent spurts of finds have been cropping up all over, with about seven extremely intact animals currently being excavated. Recent discoveries indicate Tyrannosaurus rex may have gotten much bigger then previously thought.

Sensory adaptations

Smell: Excellent smell, largest dinosaurian smell processor known to the fossil record. Sense of smell is probably comparable or even superior to that of modern super noses, including bloodhounds and even turkey vultures.

Hearing: Wonderfully intact inner ear bones in Sue and Stan skulls shows that Tyrannosaurus ears have a high degree of sophistication. Tyrannosaurus ears are specialized to pick up lower frequencies of sound then most other dinosaurs can probably hear, giving it long range pre-emptive alert to possible prey.

Sight: Contrary to the Jurassic Park, Tyrannosaurus almost certainly had very good vision. Much larger visual lobes then other dinosaurs in the brain and very large eyes have led some paleontologists to suggest that Tyrannosaurus had comparable or even superior eyesight to modern day raptors (due to the similarities in their neural visual lobes). Eyes faced forward like a mammalian predator with an overlap of over 60 degrees, more then enough to give Tyrannosaurus good stereoscopic vision to accurately judge distances.

Physical Abilities

Speed: Tyrannosaurus was the most gracile animal of it's size that ever lived, Mesozoic or Cenozoic! Relative to its size, Tyrannosaurus had incredibly long and gracile limbs, which was tipped off by a small, ornithomimid-like feet which were considerably lighter and slimmer then other more primitive foots, leading to an massive increase in energy savings when swinging the foot. Like most Tetanura, Tyrannosaurus also had advanced metatarsal constructions known collectively as the arctometatarsalian condition that gave it a biomechanical advantage over the primitive foots. Tyrannosaurus was the speediest of its class.

Agility: Tyrannosaurid designs are more muscled in proportion to the generic "carnosaur", with a significantly larger area in its brain for motor control. This translates to enhanced motor agility.

Intelligence: Tyrannosaurus has the largest dinosaurian brain, larger then that of more primitive dinosaurs such as Allosaurus or Giganotosaurus by a two times, excluding the smelling lobe, which was immense.

Offensive weaponry: The deadliest bite known to man. Tyrannosaurus had a massive and heavily built skull design to resist the incredible forces its massive abductor muscles moved the jaw at. Bite force tests for feeding bites run at over 13,000 N, with an attack bite figured at much higher. Tyrannosaurus was capable of removing up to 250 kilos of meat in a bite, and destroying bone, flesh and internal organs in the arc of the powerful bite. The teeth themselves were heavily built and strongly rooted to resist such forces, and as an added advantage, Tyrannosaurid serrations have no role in cutting meat cleanly like serrations in most other dinosaurs, rather, they specialize in ripping flesh raggedly and trapping significant amounts of food material in the mouth to rot and go septic, making Tyrannosaurus bites extremely poisonous. A tatic, monitor lizards and komodo dragons observe too. A bite from a Tyrannosaurus has no equal, it was the clear and undisputed king of bite. Even Triceratops frill fails to stop a Tyrannosaurus bite (evidenced by a damaged frill). Only the tank-like armour of Ankylosaurus stood a chance of resisting Tyrannosaurus attack.

Feeding behavior: Predatory behavior is virtually certain, following finds of Hardosaur fossils indicating attack on a live animal. Opportunistic scavenging is probably in the menu too; however the idea of an obligate scavenger is almost certainly out of the question.

Fossil History: The most wildly successful family of predatory dinosaurs ever, the Tyrannosaurids rose rapidly into dominance and ousted all virtually all their ecological niche-counterparts wherever they moved into. They reached a level of predatory niche-dominance never before observed in the history of the Mesozoic. Species like Tyrannosaurus showed that the Tyrannosaurids showed no signs of abating their blanket rule.

============================================================

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus Stromer (1915)
Albian to early Cenomanian

Size: Accurate extrapolation is difficult, due to fragmentary data; however, size is estimated to be from 12-17 meters (42-57 feet). The gigantic Spinosaurus has been estimated at up to fifty feet long. It was possibly the longest theropod, but not the biggest, since it was more lightly built than the heavier Tyrannosaurus and carcharodontousaurines.

Weight: 5.5-6.5 tons

Evidence: Teeth, fragmentary dentary, vertebrae, hindlimb elements, teeth (destroyed in World War II); neck vertebra, fragmentary dentaries, dorsal neural arch. Recent rumored discoveries indicate an 8-foot skull, hence the 17-meter estimates.
Sensory adaptations:
Smell: Nothing is known about Spinosaurus smell, but extrapolating from its close relatives it is suspected to be, like all carnivorous dinosaurs, quite good.
Hearing: Once again extrapolating it's hearing from its relatives must be done, but there is probably nothing special about Spinosaurus hearing.
Sight: With some certainty, the morphology of Spinosaurid skulls suggests they do not have stereoscopic vision and do not have general depth perception. The general size of the Spinosaurid eyes themselves does not suggest anything other then average vision.
Physical Abilities:
Speed: One notable morphological feature of the Spinosaurids in general is the relative shortness of their limbs to their size. This could be seen as perhaps a specialization for their piscivorous way of life, affording them a lower center of gravity when navigating mid water or in muddy ground. Feet are the primitive theropod feet, and coupled with their relatively short limbs, would make them slower then even their Allosaurid counterparts, let alone the Tyrannosaurids.
Agility: Spinosaurids in general aren't as heavily muscled in proportion in size to the other groups of carnivorous dinosaurs, so with less available power possible, they would not have been as nimble. The low, long slung over frame of Spinosaurus would have inhibited some agility as well, compared to its shorter, more compact and powerfully built counterparts.
Intelligence: Spinosaurus supposed intelligence was pretty typical of "carnosaurs" (A very generic term) That would have put him on par with other dinosaurs like Allosaurus or Giganotosaurus but losing out massively to the Tyrannosaurids.
Offensive weaponry: For attacking prey, Spinosaurus has the choice of two weapons, the jaws and very impressive arms tipped with a large claw. However the Spinosaurid jaw, though long and possessing large and numerous teeth, were not built to tackle large prey. The teeth themselves were large but not deeply rooted like Tyrannosaurus, and had little recurvature nor significant serrations, and were conical. This suggests adaptations good for skewering fish, but not for heavy duty use on sizeable prey. The Spinosaurid skull itself is long and slim, highly laterally compressed, and almost paper thin in the more primitive Suchomimus tenerensis. and despite similar appearances to that of crocodiles, the similarity in appearance seems to only be an adaptation to catch fish rather then large prey. (Spinosaurids show more similarity in their skulls to fish catching crocodiles then large prey species) And the skull itself was lightly built and quite fragile. Spinosaurus was never intended to bite hard.
The arms of Spinosaurus, tipped with their large claws, are probably Spinosaurus' best weapon, but the use on large prey also seems to be limited, for they were slung too low under the animal for easy use, and cannot flap. Because this animal is no kangaroo, rearing up is no possibility either. This severely restricts the use of the strong arms. (They would be good for fishing, though!)
Feeding behavior: Spinosaurus appears to be adapted to be largely piscivorous, at the expense of its ability to hunt large prey. However Spinosaurus should have no problem killing small or juvenile dinosaurs and scavenging.

Fossil History: Little is known about Spinosaurus or the Spinosaurids in general, due to the lack of hard data, but there is no evidence they were in any way dominant predators. The role probably went to the Carcharodontosaurinae in their area.
=========================================================
Giganotosaurus carolinii Coria & Salgado (1995)
Albian

Size: 13.5-14.3m (43-47 feet)

Weight: 6.5-7.5 tons

Evidence: Partial skeletons found in Argentina.

Sensory Adaptations:

Smell: Giganotosaurus, like all carcharodontosaurinae, probably had a good sense of smell.

Hearing: Expected of a predator, Giganotosaurus probably had good hearing, though it is probably not as advanced or sensitive as the extremely advanced ears of Tyrannosaurus.

Sight: Carcharodontosaurinae are closely related to Allosaurids, and do not have stereoscopic vision. Unfortunately, Giganotosaurus does not break this trend and has eyes on situated on both sides of its narrow skull facing outwards. Despite some confusion over a paleontologist's erroneous statement that stated Giganotosaurus differed from Tyrannosaurus by having stereoscopic vision while the Tyrant lizard did not! This was quickly rebuffed by a quick look at the skulls of the animals. The brain of Giganotosaurus does not show exception size or complexity in the visual lobes, unlike Tyrannosaurus, so it's quite likely this animal had average vision.

Physical Abilities:

Speed: Giganotosaurus and carcharodontosaurinae in general are closely related to earlier dinosaurs like Allosaurus. And their feet were typical of the primitive theropod foot. Giganotosaurus had less gracile limbs then Tyrannosaurus, a bigger, broader foot, and lacked the arctometatarsalian condition and other advanced speed adaptations present in the Tyrannosaur limb. It is quite safe to assume Giganotosaurus was quite a bit less fleet-footed then Tyrannosaurus.

Agility: Giganotosaurus, despite its size and weight, had a lightly built and muscled frame in relation to dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus. This translates to a worst power-to-weight ration and a decrease in agility and nimbleness.

Intelligence: Giganotosaurus did not have a large brain, even by Allosaurid standards. The brain of Giganotosaurus resembled a withered banana and counting everything in, was only half the size of a Tyrannosaurus brain without counting the Tyrannosaurus' smelling lobe, which made up a large part of the Tyrannosaur brain!

Offensive weaponary: Giganotosaurus had a large and narrow skull that was relatively lightly built compared to a Tyrannosaurus skull, despite being bigger. Scientists have determined that Allosaurids and carcharodontosaurinae in general have a surprisingly weak bite force (despite the size of the skull, had a bite force equivalent to that of a modern wolf!) due to their fragile lower jaws and small abductors. Strong enough to eat meat, but entirely inadequate for attacking large prey directly. The puzzle of how they attacked their food when they were incapable of biting hard was figured out when the upper skull of these dinosaurs were found to be built to resist shock despite being very lightly built and was connected strongly to powerful muscles in the neck. The strong upper jaw was slammed down into the prey like a hatchet and the smaller, laterally compressed teeth of the upper jaw would penetrate and do most of the damage while the animal ripped back, causing more damage. A few connections like these and the prey could easily bleed out. The fragile lower jaw was kept out of the way by opening wide and played little role in the actual attack. However, this method of attack only works well attacking large and slow-moving prey, of which the sauropods and stegosaurs are prime candidates. Smaller prey can be dispatched by biting directly. The hatchet-style attacks' effectiveness decreases dramatically when attacking large quick-moving or agile prey which are hard to hit and employ the full effectiveness as the prey animal tends to foul the attempt to wound it either by negating the force of the hatchet-style blow or moving away after contact and preventing the predator from ripping out a sizeable chunk of meat. However, no such potential prey items existed in Giganotosaurus' world, which was either filled with small animals that could be killed in a bite or large, slow ones that could not avoid the full force of the hatchet blow. Though it is possible they could make dentations on bone by biting, the damage they did with their jaws were mainly tissue and stopped at the bone.

Feeding behaviour: Giganotosaurus most probably used the hatchet-style method on large and slow moving prey like sauropods and stegosaurs and killed the smaller dinosaurs by biting. Like virtually all large terrestrial carnivores, Giganotosaurus didn't have much reason not to scavenge when the opportunity arises.

Fossil History: Giganotosaurus belonged to a lineage that was extremely successful in the Jurassic, but faced increasing ineffectiveness and obsolesce towards the end of that period, as the prey they specialized in hunting started being replaced by the very prey selection they could not hunt effectively (the big and fast ones) and the appearance of more advanced families of predatory dinosaurs, mainly from the Coelurosauria, who in the end finally evolved the Tyrannosaurids. Giganotosaurus and his relatives survived in a time-locked southern-American continent which lacked the advanced dinosaurs appearing up north and had an abundance of his optimized prey type to hunt. Some of his Allosaurid relatives managed to elk out a living up north, though their dominance was long over, being faced with a bewildering range of advanced predators before finally being knocked off when the first Tyrannosaurids appeared and proved to be the final straw.
==========================================================

How do they match up?

Actually, a fight is not very possible, these animals being in different era and geographic locations, and for animals, self-preservation is a major issue, rather then being king-of-carnivore hill. However, for the sake of an argument, and to find out the best amongst the contenders, basic survival instincts has been abandoned in all the animals for a full on theoretical fight, just for the sake of an argument to see which is the better dinosaur.

>From the outset of the theoretical fight, its' apparent that the ball is first in Tyrannosaurus' court, the superior advanced senses of the animal (including yes, its' keen eyesight) would give it ample warning of any of the other two contenders and remove any element of surprise and may well give it the edge by allowing it to set up an ambush on its own account. This may well and truly end the argument, but just for the sake of an argument, we'd assume the challengers are all facing each other off on equal ground.

And onto the fight!

Immediately, it's apparent Spinosaurus will get the shortest end of the stick here. Though he appears to be the larger of the three, the size is pretty much an optical illusion. His abilities as discussed above show that he's disadvantaged in almost all areas against the other two. He's the slowest and least-agile of the lot, and his firepower department seems to be optimized for large fish and small dinosaurs, not large, fast and mean carnivorous dinosaurs. His size may buy him some time, but he's in no way the meanest of the lot and he will rapidly succumb to either Giganotosaurus or Tyrannosaurus, even if he was 57-feet long. Horner's ascertains of Spinosaurus as the meanest predator that ever lived prove to be premature. Spinosaurus is eliminated first.

And it boils down to Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Though this fight is more balanced then Spinosaurus versus the either two, this will be a quick fight. As it happens, the ability of Giganotosaurus to kill sauropods many times its size will be a liability here, not an advantage! Being optimized for the role, Giganotosaurus works wonderfully against slow, clumsy targets. As of such, he did not need to run fast and was not adapted to (hence the later Allosaurid-descendants south showed no advanced feet- there was simply no evolutionary pressure to be extraordinarily fast like the Tyrannosaurids). Neither was he as agile as Tyrannosaurus. The problem is compounded by the fact that his hatchet-style of attacking is diminished when used on fast moving and agile targets like Tyrannosaurus. The target just moves too much for him to effectively use his upper skull to rake off any amount of flesh. Given the fact Tyrannosaurus accelerates and moves faster then him, thanks to the ad! vanced limb design, he'll be lucky to land one.

Tyrannosaurus, on the other hand, was perfect for attacking targets like Giganotosaurus that moved at a rate. He was faster then his target and more agile. He also possessed stereoscopic vision to enable him to accurately determine where he wanted to strike on moving targets. Giganotosaurus, lacking dept-perception could not have the degree of precision in attack Tyrannosaurus could employ. He didn't need it when attacking slow targets the size of a barn door, but Tyrannosaurus is quite a different case indeed. And that's a bad thing.

The fight becomes more apparent as it goes on. Tyrannosaurus has major trumps over Giganotosaurus he can play: He can engage and disengage at pleasure as he is faster and more agile, and most importantly, he has the most powerful set of jaws ever mounted on a dinosaur. If Tyrannosaurus employs the run in, bite the tight and retreat method, there's little Giganotosaurus can do to defend himself against such an attack. He can't effectively hurt the Tyrannosaurus much with his jaws or his hatchet-style hunting method, while the Tyrannosaurus carries the most powerful jaws that can cripple in a single bite and has dept perception and the speed and agility to carry it like a smart-bomb to the spot it wants.

What will happen is that Giganotosaurus will be lucky to get off any bites on Tyrannosaurus, if any at all. And these will most likely be non-fatal, given the fact that Tyrannosaurus was faster and more agile, hits on it would be more of what was presented to Giganotosaurus by Tyrannosaurus, not what Giganotosaurus really wanted to hit, and I doubt an experienced Tyrannosaurus would present much for the slower Giganotosaurus to bite.

In the end, it's only a matter of time. After a single 250 kilo block is removed, and bone smashed and broken at the site of the bite, the story is over. Giganotosaurus will be crippled if the bite is on a limb and will be bleeding out extremely quickly, going into shock from the rapid blood loss and soon will be too weak to fight back. Abilities matters here, not size, and it's apparent Tyrannosaurus, with his superior speed, agility and most importantly, firepower, is clearly out on top here.

So the champion on carnivore hill remains Tyrannosaurus…for now…
from Ceratosaurus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

I would like to take a point of fact off the fact tree and hand it to you to clear things up about T-Rex, Spinosaurus, and Gigantosaurus.

FACTS:
TREX;Late Cretaceous Age(85-65 millionYA)

3-5 meters height

38-45 ft long

Scavenger

Bad sight(Needs to sense motion)

Smallest

14,000 lb(min esta.)
SPINOSUARUS;50ft long

Preadetor

medium

4-6 tons

Diet of fish(science theroy linked to sail on back
GIGANOTOSAURUS;
12-? meters
6-8 tons
preadetor
biggest
WAlked the earth 110 million years ago(30 before TREX)
from Ari B., age 12, Carlsbad, California, USA; December 26, 2001

"Anyway triceratops may had have good speed for its size, because the limbs were built strong and more muscular than the heavier and slower sauropods. Plus the knees joints are always flexed and cannot completely straighten, characteristic of an animal with some speed unlike the sauropods and stegosaurs who can straighten their knees (but with inflexible ankles). I don't think it matters that triceratops' front legs are shorter than its back ones because it has mobile shoulder blades that allows the front legs to extend a little away from the trunk."

Actually, I seriously doubt Triceratops was "built-for-speed", as you would put it, but regardless of the stance of the forelimb, the limbs of neoceratopsians are not like modern mammals which run. As qouted "Their feet are short, their humerous is long compared to their ulna and their femur long compared to their tibia, all features which are the opposite to those found in running animals." The scapula mobility of these animals is also questionable, and at best, certainly more limited then those of our modern huge runners like rhinos. This does not mean that Triceratops must have been nail-bitingly slow, but it does suggest that running or galloping was not it's speciality. If you are looking at Triceratops for speed, you're looking in the wrong area. Unlike commonly assumed wrongly, it's indeed very unlikely that Triceratops could outrun a predator like Tyrannosaurus (not counting the even smaller Tyrannosaurids, which would have been lightning fast). The speed of Ceratopsi! ans probably didn't serve as big a role in defense as once thought.
from Honkie Tong, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

I think Triceratops did have a slight (read, Slight) sprawl where its elbows bow out slightly and its front feet would bow in slightly, so in the tracks (If there is any found that has been confirmed) it would look like there is no sprawl at all. Triceratops' front limbs were not like the crocodiles' semi-sprawl and certainly not like the old ceratopsian mounts. Anyway triceratops may had have good speed for its size, because the limbs were built strong and more muscular than the heavier and slower sauropods. Plus the knees joints are always flexed and cannot completely straighten, characteristic of an animal with some speed unlike the sauropods and stegosaurs who can straighten their knees (but with inflexible ankles). I don't think it matters that triceratops' front legs are shorter than its back ones because it has mobile shoulder blades that allows the front legs to extend a little away from the trunk. Triceratops used to be my favorite dinosaur so I know a little about it. Just because my favorite is T .rex doesn't mean I will go and lower its preys' running abilities or defense. T .rex and Triceratops was one of the greatest predator and prey match ups ever.
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 26, 2001

It's gonna take you a lot to annoy me JOE BOB B., I like T-rex. But you won't annoy too much because I'm in my raptor mood.

(what I mean by raptor mood is when I think about raptors all day and sometimes I'm in my T-rex mood when I think about rex all day. or Dilophosaurus mood, like that.)
from Diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Some people here should try to get their points across intelligently, instead of resorting to childish insults. Sorry I did not manage to post enough today, I'll try to catch up with my answers to everyone tommorow.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

Uh, WAHAHAHA, please send intelligent posts instead of being Honkie's yes-man all the time.

P.S.Yes, I am back to annoy you, T-rex fans.
from JOE BOB B., age Still 10, Menlo Park, You figure it out., See previous answer.; December 25, 2001

"Is the French FA-MAS rifle legal in the US?"

I believe there is no federal law banning assault rifles, but I'm not entirely sure. Here in California, automatic weapons of any kind are banned; but next door in Nevada, you have full access to automatic weapons (in the shooting ranges anyway).
from Ten-Shun, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

"What animals are those?"

Could they be refering to the the extinct giant indricothere rhinoceri which stood on flexed legs? In any case, even if it's not the example they were siting, it does seem to soundly refute Da Masta's assertations that extreme weights could only be supported by a strict, pillar-like elephant limb.

And I believe 5.5 tons seems rather light for Triceratops. 9 tons seems to be a closer estimate.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

"Apparently, unlike to what you think, a great deal of animals have been supporting weights in excess of 15-20 (makes 5.5 seem whimpy)tons on non-straight limbs for millions of years."

What animals are those?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; December 24, 2001

Guys, lay off Da Masta will ya, it's his loss if he wants to go on being a subborn jerk, you don't have to bother to try to change him. I don't think it's worth it anyway, it's like casting pearls to swine.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

"Hmm, if that was even remotely true, we won't be digging Triceratops out of T.rex dung then..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! DINGDARNIT HONKIE!!!! THAT'S A GOOD ONE!!!!!
from WAHAHAHA, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

Actually not-so-adept-at-dinosaurs Masta, in a short article on dinosaur mechanics and computer programs, a two-page article mentioned the allosaur bite-force study, the sauropod neck mechanic study, and a new (to me, anyway) study using the Smithsonian Triceratops computer data, that decided that the forelimb stance has to be somewhat sprawled. It wasn't a slight rhino spraw, it was a noticable spraw greater then that of a rhino (besides, rhino limbs spraw (or flex) inwards, not outwards clumsily like Triceratops), it wasn't a 90 degree spraw, but the spraw was more of a semi-spraw. Apparently, unlike to what you think, a great deal of animals have been supporting weights in excess of 15-20 (makes 5.5 seem whimpy)tons on non-straight limbs for millions of years.
from Roack, age 15, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

"as heavy as an elephant. Do you see an elephant sprawling? Even with all it's adaptions, like the fleshy pads on it's soles?) with a sprawling stance is ludicrous."

There is a good deal to consider in measure of the forelimb
posture and general carriage (and thus gait and speed) in any
ceratopian, especially the ceratopid *Triceratops.* Rohlf
Johnston argues (in 1990) that the forelimb of *Torosaurus* was
completely incapable of an erect, strait-legged posture as seen
in elephants. Paul and Christiansen (1999) show that, which
Bakker (1986, Dino Heresies) did not consider, the rhinoceros
(Bakker's main comparison) does not have an erect-legged
forelimb, unlike an elephant. Get this in your numb skull, Triceratops was no elephant.
from Ville S., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

... Da Masta ... keeps droning on about how Triceratops=Elephants and how good a match they make when Triceratops limbs don't remotely configure like Elephants (rhinos are a better match, but it's still extremely different). For starters Triceratops had shorter and smaller front limbs (don't see that on Elephants) and not to mention the elbows are splayed out when fitted together. Biomechnically, Triceratops limbs don't even WORK like Elephants do, rendering all his "HEY HONKIE, HAVE YOU SEEN A 5.5 TON ELEPHANT...5.5 ELEPAHNT...ELEPHANT...BLAH" arguments that he has been relentlessly driving home entirely moot and useless, like most of his other causes.

I'm not a T-Rex fan (like the way he says all the people who oppose him are), but this guy is a jerk.
from Op, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

T-Rex has Triceratops for breakfast!

Bite is Might
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 24, 2001

Actually it's very feasible for Triceratops to have a semi-sprawing position in it's front limbs. Triceratops didn't spraw with all four legs, only the front, as of such, the energy issues arent that major. But Da-Not-Masta's idea of a rhino-spraw is certainly not feasible. The latest and most upright reconstructions of Triceratops put it at a semi-spraw, somewhere in between that of a croc and a rhino. A rhino-spraw is not possible for Triceratops.

As for Triceratops jockeys like Dave, I suggest you go take a look at a Triceratops fossil before even daring to suggest an upright stance. You'd have to break the ribs of a Triceratops to do that. But that's perfectly fine, small minded Triceratops fans don't mind destroying a priceless fossil just as long as it fits there idea of a charging, extremely dangerour animal. Let's see what leading paleontologist (Don Lessem) has to say about T-Rex vs Triceratops:

"Q: Who usually won in battle, tricerotops or T. rex?

A: I imagine T. rex could have beaten triceratops any time, since triceratops horns weren't really positioned or designed to do much damage, frightening as they looked. Plus, T. rex was stronger and faster... (Don Lessem)"

I think the kill/loss ratio for Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Triceratops was more of the other way round.

When you use the jaw, the whole dinosaur just comes alive, the target just shudders and there is Triceratops blood and gore and guts and stuff flying everywhere, the sight would have been just amazing... -A Paleontologist after examining T-Rex bite marks on a shattered fossilized Triceratops hip bone.
from King, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

"Is the French FA-MAS rifle legal in the US?"

That's a legal question isn't it? Besides, I'm not even American so how should I know? In my country, they hang you if you discharge a firearm of any sort without a license (thus we don't get too much school shootings around, it's a pretty good detterant). Pretty cool eh? BTW, I don't think having a automatic assualt rifle is even legal in any state in the US, so a FA-MAS is out of the question for the typical civillian. But I don't like the idea of firearms and kids at all, they don't mix one bit.

"If I had dino problems I'd chose a Barrett 82 .50BMG rifle, I heard it can go through a man hole cover and keep going!! I certainly don't want something like a missile launcher given the fact that I can blow myself up and they can't be used at very close range(say a few yards). How about you?"

I'd be using the Rheinmetall 120 mm M256 smoothbore gun and throwing APFSDS or HEAT rounds at any animal that dared cross the path of my M1A2 Abrams. >:)

"T.Rex was great but Diplocids, Trikes, and Ankylosaurs could make mincemeat of him. He wasn't invincible.
Oh, BTW, T.Rex probably had a 1:100 kill/loss ration when pitted against the king of herbivores, TRICERATOPS!"

Hmm, if that was even remotely true, we won't be digging Triceratops out of T.rex dung then... I believe the truth is more in the reverse, T.rex commonly preyed on, and killed Triceratops.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

"And your spelling is correct Nick"

No no no, it's Dromaeosaurs!
from Raptor Red, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

Did you guys(and gals) know that there is a rifle cartridge named in honor of T .rex? It's called the .577 tyrannosaur. It works with bolt-actions and is used for stopping BIG game during a charge. There is a website that shows these middle-eastern guys shooting it. One of them is really cool, he answered my email in the next day!
Go check it out!!
www.ACCURATERELOADING.com
Oh yeah, here's a couple of questions for weapons expert Honkie Tong:
Is the French FA-MAS rifle legal in the US?
If I had dino problems I'd chose a Barrett 82 .50BMG rifle, I heard it can go through a man hole cover and keep going!! I certainly don't want something like a missile launcher given the fact that I can blow myself up and they can't be used at very close range(say a few yards). How about you?
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 23, 2001

Da Masta no offense but I ve been reading your posts and i think you should calm down
from DanW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

Oh, BTW, T.Rex probably had a 1:100 kill/loss ration when pitted against the king of herbivores, TRICERATOPS!
from Dave P., age 13, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

I hate to interrupt your completly biased arguments but Triceratops was only vulnerable against groups of raptors, sauropods, and ankylosaurs. T.Rex was great but Diplocids, Trikes, and Ankylosaurs could make mincemeat of him. He wasn't invincible.
from Dave P., age 13, Oak Park, Illinois, U.S.A.; December 23, 2001

"I think the "Raptors" are too hyped. I mean this one time I saw this scupture of a quartet of dromaesaurs(spelling?) attacking a huge hadrosaur, and the size different is like a cat to a deer. I don't think "raptors" were this damned efficient!! Give the herbivores some credit man...from the size different the Hadrosaur looked like it could just fart and a "raptor" would die."

That is quite a considerable exaggeration, but generally, I agree. See my theory about them hunting small mammals on the dinotalk forum! However, I think that deinonychus and utahraptor could hunt reasonably large herbivores, probably not 45 foot hadrosaurs, though! And your spelling is correct Nick.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

At last someone who sees sense. Thank you Dan W. If we get swarmed, by the way, the best strategy is to ignore it. It does not offend anyone, and they get bored after a while. I know from personal experience.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

"Don't be too sure, it may not be your intention, but you not insulting anything is anything but obvious. After all, I don't think anybody likes having what he's saying being denounced as "A LOAD OF RUBBISH" out of the blue and apparently from a person who does not know much about what's going on. That's extremely rude and becoming of a jerk."

Honkie Tong, I've respected you ever since I came here, you can even check if you want, and you're calling me a jerk. You know how that makes me feel? When people attack me you ignore it, and often side with them. And I do know what is going on, just I'm not as well informed as you. I've appealed on the main forum for more sites with hot dino news now though, so I should be more up to date. And when I said that it was a load of rubbish that's what I felt. I apologise for the insult, but I still feel the same way. And I still feel now that triceratops supporting it's 5.5 tonne weight (as heavy as an elephant. Do you see an elephant sprawling? Even with all it's adaptions, like the fleshy pads on it's soles?) with a sprawling stance is ludicrous. Maybe a slight, rhino - like semi - sprawl, then. But never a sprawl, or even a full semi - sprawl. You know what a semi - sprawl is? Crocodiles walk in a semi - sprawling way. Do you see an elephant, or a trike, walking like a crocodi! le? Thought so.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 23, 2001

I think the "Raptors" are too hyped. I mean this one time I saw this scupture of a quartet of dromaesaurs(spelling?) attacking a huge hadrosaur, and the size different is like a cat to a deer. I don't think "raptors" were this damned efficient!! Give the herbivores some credit man...from the size different the Hadrosaur looked like it could just fart and a "raptor" would die.
from Nick, age 17, denver, CO, USA; December 22, 2001

Hey stop making fun of da masta. triceritops did not have sprawl stance. it's a 5 ton animal for Pete's sake!!!!!!!!!!!
from DanW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 22, 2001

"John, I think it's very obvious that I was not insulting anyone."

Don't be too sure, it may not be your intention, but you not insulting anything is anything but obvious. After all, I don't think anybody likes having what he's saying being denounced as "A LOAD OF RUBBISH" out of the blue and apparently from a person who does not know much about what's going on. That's extremely rude and becoming of a jerk.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 21, 2001

John, I think it's very obvious that I was not insulting anyone.

And I really didn't care for that attack on me you did.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 21, 2001

"*CARTILLAGE. DINOSAURS DID NOT HAVE CLEAN - FITTING JOINTS LIKE MAMMALS, THEY HAD A LOT OF CARTILLAGE THERE. THE HUMERUS WAS JUST CAPPED AND CUSHIONED WITH CARTILLAGE.*"

Actually, having a humerous capped with cartilage would not do much to correct the posture. The problem was in the fit. And an complete improved stance is also impossible due to the ribs (there will still be rib obstruction even if the ribs were articulated subvertically) The cruel surgical solution to give Triceratops an complete improved stance would be to actually sand down the humerous and enlarge the socket, not cap it off with more material, not to mention remove a few ribs. On the other hand Paul & Christiansen made use of cartilage in their reconstruction to realign the ribcage and spine of Triceratops, leading to the improvement of the posture of the animal for a better stance. However, not that Paul & Christiansen hardly argue for an improved stance for the ceratopsian, mainly a spraw to a lesser degree. Triceratops will be bound to have a sort of a spraw, no matter the reconstruction. In this case, the degree of the spraw is open to content, but a improved stance or! a slight spraw is quite out of the question. (On the other hand, I can't picture a completely sprawed 9-tonne Triceratops doing something as ungainly as sidewindering as it moves along.)

The curosial ability of such animals are more clear though, if not sadly marred by an over-excited media buying the Bakker speed "estimates". Triceratops was certainly not the Bakkerian elephant-limbed, flexible spine animal that could gallop at speeds approaching 45 kph (slightly faster then a modern rhino 4 times lighter then it????) , a view to which many have sadly seemed to have subscribed, and even some surprisingly accucrate dinosaur games like Primal Prey (which contained pretty up-to-date info, but a springy-spined Triceratops gallops in suspension in the game!). The relatively immobile spine and considerably less gracile limbs of Triceratops would have precluded them from doing any type of serious speed. A trot? Prehaps.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"Yes, I would say that I am highly biased. Maybe that's not good, but I think that triceratops was, if sprawling, then only very slightly."

Look Da Masta, face the facts, it's impossible to mount a Triceatops fossil without a sort of a spraw to some noticable degree (not only very slightly). It's impossible to mount it in an upright position, it just won't fit. You don't know anything about Triceratops, it did spraw to some sort, it did spraw, it did spraw. Seesh, you sound exactly like that Lewis guy doing Iguanadon standing upright, and when it was obviously imbossible, it broke the tail to make it fit. Look Da Masta, you aren't letting the facts speak for themselves, you're just forcing in your own opinion based on what you think you know. If Triceratops was a dinosaur and did spraw with it's forelimbs, what's to stop us? Some old idea that ALL dinosaurs must stand upright? Come on, everybody is tired with the way you confront people with your ignorance. You dunno anything about the matter and just charge in, guns-a-bazing and thinking you know it all screaming and shouting: "*RECENT? SO WHAT? AAACCCUUURRRAAATT! EEE? WHAAAT! YOU THINK TRICERATOPS HAD A SEMI - SPRAWLING STANCE! I NEED A GLASS OF WATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I REALLY DON'T LIKE THEM NOW. FROM NOW ON I DON'T TRUST ANYTHING THESE TWO PALEONTOLOGISTS SAY... RUBBISH. I'M SORRY, BUT IT'S A LOAD OF RUBBISH. NO OFFENSE"

Please, while people ae puzzling over how Triceratops would have stood, because it humerous can't fit into the socket in an improved stance, you are running around insulting people, go read up about it next time. All you seem to know is some primary school textbook "fact" about dinosaurs all standing upright, eluding the idea that such "facts" are overgeneralized and there are obvious exceptions to the rule, namely Triceratops and co.
from John, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

""Tetrapodosaurus" is probably Sauropelta tracks, so has nothing to do with ceratopids."

If that's the case, then I plead my ignorance. Ford (1999) refers to the tracks of Tetrapodosaurus, and that's what I was basing some of my oppinion off of. Where did you find your info, Brad?
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"*JEEZ, YES, IT'S VERY INEFFICIENT!*"

What's your reason for saying so?

"*THEY DON'T MOVE AROUND SO MUCH. THEY ARE AMBUSH PREDATORS, WAITING FOR HOURS AND THEN LUNGING. THE REST OF THE TIME THEY BASK, MOTIONLESS."

Geez, kinda reminds you of an endothermic lion, doesn't it?

"AND TAKING A FEW STEPS SPRAWLING TAKES UP MUCH MORE ENERGY THAN TAKING A FEW STEPS UPRIGHT, AS IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM IN LONDON, IF ANYONE ELSE HERE HAS BEEN THERE.*"

I'm assuming you're talking about sprawling crocs, here. If that's the case, then I strongly recommend you check out the following two sites. They should shed some light on such an old viewpoint:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/crocsonfilm.html

http://reptilis.net/

"*CARTILLAGE. DINOSAURS DID NOT HAVE CLEAN - FITTING JOINTS LIKE MAMMALS, THEY HAD A LOT OF CARTILLAGE THERE. THE HUMERUS WAS JUST CAPPED AND CUSHIONED WITH CARTILLAGE.*"

It's my understanding that Paul & Christiansen made use of cartilage in their reconstruction.

"MAYBE IT WAS ONLY SLIGHTLY SEMI - SPRAWLED. I'M ONLY GIVING MY OPINION, I MAY BE WRONG.*"

As am I.

"*GO ON THE SITE HONKIE RECOMMENDS FURTHER DOWN THE PAGE. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE AGAINST A SPRAWLING STANCE, GO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF.*"

Yes, I've seen it and read it. Ages ago. But I'm arguing for a semi-sprawled stance. Not a sprawled one. There is a difference.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"Triceratops had a lot of unprotected rump and it would be fair to say it was one dead animal the moment a predator managed to get out of range of it's horns."

Which reminds me: _T. rex_ has been shown to have been able to outrun just about any and all of its prey anyhow (especially _Triceratops_). If _T. horridus_ was to turn its back and run, as some will argue, there's no way it would have escaped ol' _T. rex_.
Turn face and fight, I say.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"It is my speculation though, that if we ever were to find any ornithomimds similar in size to Tyrannosaurus, with well enough preserved limbs, their limb ratios would be identical. Given their virtually identical gracility/size curves plotted by Holtz.

Of course, Tyrannosaurus is certainly still the most gracile (and dare I say speediest?) 6-ton critter that ever lived known to man so far."

I have a tendency to agree with you on this one. :)
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"...'Which stance corresponds with trackways of Tetrapodosaurus?' A sprawling stance, as used by Johnson and Ostrom (_Torosaurus_ mount), is too wide. To compensate for the fore foot print, the ulna and radius must match a Tetrapodosaurus trackway, but the in-between stride would make it impossible. The upright stance, initial stride and end portion of the stride are all consistent with the nature of Tetrapodosaurus prints. The Bakkerian stance would have required a
chest that was too wide proportionately to compensate for the prints, and the legs would have had to have been bowed out. The stance that works best is the one that Greg Paul supports. The legs bow out a little then come inside to match the tracks of Tetrapodosaurus."

"Tetrapodosaurus" is probably Sauropelta tracks, so has nothing to do with ceratopids.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; December 20, 2001

Although I do beleive the theory of evolution, (read the pages of the dino science forum on the very first day it was opened,) I think it is flawed, and we do not fully understand it yet.

Chrichton may be wrong often in his TLW book, but there is one very excellent point in it, I think.

In the book, Ian malcolm says about bats: How they are so specialised, their throats and lungs modified to make the squeking noise, the ears and brain modified to receive the echoes, the wings, all that stuff, how did bats get there? If evolution was the way we understand it, then it would be that all those remarcable features of bats evolved randomly and indipendently. As Chrichton puts it: "It's like if a missile hit a junkyard, and all the parts flew together to make a perfectly functioning Boeng 747." It would be too much of a coincidence in real life.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

Yes, I would say that I am highly biased. Maybe that's not good, but I think that triceratops was, if sprawling, then only very slightly.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"Inefficient? Hardly.*JEEZ, YES, IT'S VERY INEFFICIENT!* Crocs and whatever else have you do just fine with a semi- to sprawled stance*THEY DON'T MOVE AROUND SO MUCH. THEY ARE AMBUSH PREDATORS, WAITING FOR HOURS AND THEN LUNGING. THE REST OF THE TIME THEY BASK, MOTIONLESS. THE REST OF THE TIME THEY ARE SWIMMING, WHERE LIMBS AREN'T IMPORTANT; CROCS USE THEIR TAILS TO SWIM. AND TAKING A FEW STEPS SPRAWLING TAKES UP MUCH MORE ENERGY THAN TAKING A FEW STEPS UPRIGHT, AS IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM IN LONDON, IF ANYONE ELSE HERE HAS BEEN THERE.*. Besides, how else do you explain the impossibility of being able to fit the humerus within its socket?*CARTILLAGE. DINOSAURS DID NOT HAVE CLEAN - FITTING JOINTS LIKE MAMMALS, THEY HAD A LOT OF CARTILLAGE THERE. THE HUMERUS WAS JUST CAPPED AND CUSHIONED WITH CARTILLAGE.*
And take note: a semi-sprawled stance would give _Triceratops_ the ability to maneuver itself much more capably, being able to whirl around and face its opponents in the heat of battle.*MAYBE IT WAS ONLY SLIGHTLY SEMI - SPRAWLED. I'M ONLY GIVING MY OPINION, I MAY BE WRONG.*
Personally, I like to side with whatever the evidence suggests, and not what I'm most passionate about*GO ON THE SITE HONKIE RECOMMENDS FURTHER DOWN THE PAGE. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE AGAINST A SPRAWLING STANCE, GO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF.*. You've got to keep an open mind about these things.*I DO. AND I THINK THAT TRICERATOPS DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING MORE THAN MAYBE A SLIGHTLY SEMI - SPRAWLING STANCE, LIKE A RHINO OR SOMETHING."
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"a semi-sprawled stance would give _Triceratops_ the ability to maneuver itself much more capably, being able to whirl around and face its opponents in the heat of battle."

This would have given it the ability to change facing extremely quickly to face the threat, and make it far more stable. It makes far more sense then to charge in a straight line towards a predator that would easily avoid the attack and turn the tables anyway (Classic overshoot and get on his tail move). Triceratops had a lot of unprotected rump and it would be fair to say it was one dead animal the moment a predator managed to get out of range of it's horns. Why risk that by charging when all you needed to do was to stand your ground and dare the predator to come get you through those horns instead?
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"Yes, thanks for posting that. I've read that before. But the point that I was trying to make is that _T. rex_ itself wasn't the one with the femur/tibia ratios identical to those of ornithomimids, but rather it was the smaller, more basal tyrannosaurids that did."

Granted, of course, T.rex had to compensate for his increased mass. Of course, given there are no ornithomimids similar in size to Tyrannosaurus, it's extremely hard to truly match limb ratios, not to mention it wouldn't exactly be a fair test (Though I believe the two families are very closely related). It is my speculation though, that if we ever were to find any ornithomimds similar in size to Tyrannosaurus, with well enough preserved limbs, their limb ratios would be identical. Given their virtually identical gracility/size curves plotted by Holtz.

Of course, Tyrannosaurus is certainly still the most gracile (and dare I say speediest?) 6-ton critter that ever lived known to man so far.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 20, 2001

"I am very passionate about this. I take the side that says triceratops had an upright stance. Standards during the cretacious where very high, and sprawling and semi-sprawling are very inefficient methods of locomotion."

Inefficient? Hardly. Crocs and whatever else have you do just fine with a semi- to sprawled stance. Besides, how else do you explain the impossibility of being able to fit the humerus within its socket?
And take note: a semi-sprawled stance would give _Triceratops_ the ability to maneuver itself much more capably, being able to whirl around and face its opponents in the heat of battle.
Personally, I like to side with whatever the evidence suggests, and not what I'm most passionate about. You've got to keep an open mind about these things.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"Of course, the issue of Triceratops stance is still extremely contentious."

"Of course"!!!!!!!!??????!!!!!!

There's NOTHING to argue about! Triceratops is a 5 and half ton animal, for God's sake! To support it's weight efficiently, it'd need to stand UPRIGHT.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"*RECENT? SO WHAT? AAACCCUUURRRAAATTEEE? WHAAAT! YOU THINK TRICERATOPS HAD A SEMI - SPRAWLING STANCE! I NEED A GLASS OF WATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I REALLY DON'T LIKE THEM NOW. FROM NOW ON I DON'T TRUST ANYTHING THESE TWO PALEONTOLOGISTS SAY... RUBBISH. I'M SORRY, BUT IT'S A LOAD OF RUBBISH. NO OFFENSE"

Ummm... isn't that a sort of biased stance? Just because one theory doesn't coincide with what you think is right doesn't mean it's ludicrous. But I'm sure you already knew that.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"GRACILITY AND SPEED OF T. rex
by Thomas R. Holtz, Jr."

Yes, thanks for posting that. I've read that before. But the point that I was trying to make is that _T. rex_ itself wasn't the one with the femur/tibia ratios identical to those of ornithomimids, but rather it was the smaller, more basal tyrannosaurids that did. See:

"The smaller tyrannosaurids were even more gracile, and the smallest had the same limb proportions to the largest ornithomimids: measurement for measurement, the legs of Alectrosaurus and Gallimimus are identical!"

Not taking away from the fact that _T. rex_ was better built for speed than any other of its massive contemporaries, though.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"So all it is, is that it is just a different way of looking at things, which is in no way superior to the old system. Being different dosen't mean more accucrate (in fact, sometimes you can be further from the truth with the new prespective)."

It does if it allows you to explain things previous hypotheses couldn't. It likely does if it's the most parsimonious. I've spoken to a number of paleontologists, including a local ceratopian expert, and they all side with Paul & Christiansen. And frankly, I don't see any reason not to, at the moment.

"Note Horner's supposed "revision" of Tyrannosaurus and Bakker's "re-analysis" of dinosaur speeds from slow to insanely fast."

Yes, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Just like Paul & Christiansen's analysis.

"You haven't been reading much on the other side haven't you? The trackways have been suggest to indicate a spraw, with the manus guage outside the pedal guage."

Here's a bit of what I've read, from Ford (1999):

"...'Which stance corresponds with trackways of Tetrapodosaurus?' A sprawling stance, as used by Johnson and Ostrom (_Torosaurus_ mount), is too wide. To compensate for the fore foot print, the ulna and radius must match a Tetrapodosaurus trackway, but the in-between stride would make it impossible. The upright stance, initial stride and end portion of the stride are all consistent with the nature of Tetrapodosaurus prints. The Bakkerian stance would have required a chest that was too wide proportionately to compensate for the prints, and the legs would have had to have been bowed out. The stance that works best is the one that Greg Paul supports. The legs bow out a little then come inside to match the tracks of Tetrapodosaurus."
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

Sorry about my outburst. It was just a real shock for me that some people here think that triceratops had a semi/sprawling stance. I really think that it cannot be true.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"Does any body know anything about the cretaceous period?"

Everyone does, but there's so much! Most of us (including me) could do like 10 A4 pages on it! Tell you what. Type in "cretacious" in the search thingy for this site, and then you'll get an article on the cretacious.
:-)
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"Wow...there you go again...shooting you mouth off"

I am very passionate about this. I take the side that says triceratops had an upright stance. Standards during the cretacious where very high, and sprawling and semi-sprawling are very inefficient methods of locomotion.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"determination of ceratopian stance was conducted by Paul and Christiansen"

Not... not PAUL SERENO?!?
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 19, 2001

"Hmmm... the most recent and accurate *RECENT? SO WHAT? AAACCCUUURRRAAATTEEE? WHAAAT! YOU THINK TRICERATOPS HAD A SEMI - SPRAWLING STANCE! I NEED A GLASS OF WATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* determination of ceratopian stance was conducted by Paul and Christiansen*I REALLY DON'T LIKE THEM NOW. FROM NOW ON I DON'T TRUST ANYTHING THESE TWO PALEONTOLOGISTS SAY.*, who determined _Triceratops_ and the like to have had only a semi-sprawling stance*RUBBISH. I'M SORRY, BUT IT'S A LOAD OF RUBBISH. NO OFFENSE.*. Their suggestion works because not only does the humerus fit into its socket properly, but the splayed feet are able to fit into those assigned footprints too. Not overly sure as to whether this would have allowed for a gallop, though." HMM. PLEASE GIVE ME MORE INFO, IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ELSE. I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS. THERE DOES APPEAR EVIDENCE FOR THIS NOW, BUT TO BE SURE IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ELSE THERE IS, AND THE DETAILS.!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

The "Raptors" in all of the Jurassic park movies are actually Deinonychus. Real Velociraptors look more like the ones in Disney's Dinosaur movie. They were about three feet tall, six feet long, and very bird-like. Deinonychus was six feet tall, nine feet long, and looked great on the big screen. They are a later, more improved model of Velociraptor.
from Nathan R, age 21, Honolulu, Hawaii, US; December 18, 2001

"In the gracile morph, the animal appeared to have a better femur to tibia ratio. In any case, Tyrannosaurus seems very well adapted for speed."

Can you give me a ref for this?"

Sure!:

GRACILITY AND SPEED OF T. rex
by Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.

In response to Cunningham, Betty,
On the Gracility and Speed of T.rex

Betty: Why, in your discussions of the physiology of the animals, lions, cheetahs, and T rexs, do you consider lions, being a very robust animal, like cheetahs, and not like T rex, also a very robust animal. T rexs certainly aren't gracile in any way. Cheetahs are very
gracile. They have flexible spines so that in the full gallop their
spines ripple like a trampoline. I don't picture T rex's spine doing
anything so undignified during a run. I can see (perhaps) something
smaller and more elegant of form like Veloceraptor or Deinonychus
developing along the lines of a speedster like the cheetah, but not
ol' brick T rex. He's built like a truck, not a Ferrari. Perhaps
even Allosaurus fragilus might be considered to be a speedier design,
but T rex?

I think your point about tendons is valid, but I believe T rex's
adaptations were more for being the biggest kid on the block, not the
fastest.

Holtz:

"cheetahs, and T rexs, do you consider lions, being a very robust
animal, like cheetahs, and not like T rex, also a very robust animal.
T rexs certainly aren't gracile in any way. Cheetahs are very..."

Sorry, Betty, but T. rex is very gracile. In terms of tibia/femur and
metatarsus/femur ratio, Tyrannosaurus is MORE gracile than Deinonychus!! It is also more gracile than any other 5 tonne critter, Mesozoic or Cenozoic!

Tyrannosaurus does not LOOK very gracile, for two reasons: 1) at such a large size, gracile limb proportions look bulky. However, compare the hindlimb of Tyrannosaurus with an elephant, a rhino, a Triceratops, even an Edmontosaurus. You will see that the T. rex legs are more slender and have relatively longer tibiae and metatarsi. 2) The most famous T. rex mount in the world, AMNH 5027, has the wrong legs!! Since this specimen (a gracile morph) lacked hindlimbs, Osborn et al. added casts of the legs of the type (now at the Carnegie). The type is the robust morph, and a larger individual!

Furthermore, the feet of the type (and thus the AMNH mount, and thus many many copies, drawings, models, etc., etc.) were and remain(!) incorrectly restored. Not realizing that tyrannosaurids had ornithomimid-like feet, Osborn et al. reconstructed the feet of T. rex after Allosaurus, giving the mount a much broader foot than it should have.

"...gracile. They have flexible spines so that in the full gallop their spines ripple like a trampoline. I don't picture T rex's spine doing anything so undignified during a run. I can see (perhaps) something smaller and more elegant of form like Veloceraptor or Deinonychus developing along the lines of a speedster like the cheetah, but not ol' brick T rex. He's built like a truck, not a Ferrari. Perhaps even Allosaurus fragilus might be considered to be a speedier design, but T rex?"

Tyrannosaurus limb proportions are more gracile than Allosaurus fragilis. The smaller tyrannosaurids were even more gracile, and the smallest had the same limb proportions to the largest ornithomimids: measurement for measurement, the legs of Alectrosaurus and Gallimimus are identical!

Dromaeosaurids have about the least gracile limb proportions of any nonavian theropod (only therizinosauroids had worse!). Crichton aside, dromaeosaurids were probably not very fast runners relative to tyrannosaurids, ornithomimids, etc. Instead, they were probably cat-like ambush predators, relying on short bursts of high speed, quick turns, and an all-out attack with all four legs and the mouth, too!

"...I think your point about tendons is valid, but I believe T rex's
adaptations were more for being the biggest kid on the block, not the
fastest..."

If we can use functional morphology as a guide, tyrannosaurids were faster than any other group of large theropod (allosauroid, megalosauroid, neoceratosaur). This may not mean that they were fast as racehorses, but they were adapted to (for a large animal) high speed.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"I think that it is horrifically OBVIOUS that tricertops didn't sprawl. NO DINOSAUR EVER SPRAWLED! DUH! COME ON! I THOUGHT YOU WHERE ADVANCED DINOSAUR FANS! AND YOU ARE! SO BE ASHAMED FOR THINKING THAT IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE THAT TRICERATOPS HAD EVEN A SEMI-SPRAWLING STANCE! SORRY ABOUT THIS, BUT I JUST GET PASSIONATE. FORGIVE ME FOR ANY OFFENSE."

Wow...there you go again...shooting you mouth off. You should note that a special thing about ceratopsian that distincts them from the other dinosaurs is that they appear to have a spraw. Go about read it up...seesh...of all the camps here, yours is the most primitive. Seesh...I though you knew a lot about dinosaurs...
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"And why should it be? It's a re-analysis of old information. What's wrong with that? Paleontolgogists do it all the time."

So all it is, is that it is just a different way of looking at things, which is in no way superior to the old system. Being different dosen't mean more accucrate (in fact, sometimes you can be further from the truth with the new prespective). Note Horner's supposed "revision" of Tyrannosaurus and Bakker's "re-analysis" of dinosaur speeds from slow to insanely fast.

"How so? As I understand it, the assigned trackways don't fit with the "sprawling" end of the debate."

You haven't been reading much on the other side haven't you? The trackways have been suggest to indicate a spraw, with the manus guage outside the pedal guage. However, this might prove to be a wild gooes chase in the first place as the validity of these tracks as ceratopsian has been challanged, givng shakly and unreliable information until this challange has been resolved.

Personally, I support Paul and Christiensen's view of semi-sprawed ceratopsians, but I think we all should exercise null-intergity when coming out with our arguments and be fair to both sides. It's extremely misleading to put out Paul and Christiensen's view as most accucrate or recent as if the whole issue was over and solved.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"It would be misleading to consider Paul and Christiansens' determination of ceratopian stance "most recent and accurate", for their supposed reconstruction was not based in any part on new information."

And why should it be? It's a re-analysis of old information. What's wrong with that? Paleontolgogists do it all the time.

"The trackways is hard to tout as a proponent of their case either, as it is used extensively by both sides to prove their point."

How so? As I understand it, the assigned trackways don't fit with the "sprawling" end of the debate.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"I play the trumpet :)"

Cool!!
from Diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"Hmmm... the most recent and accurate determination of ceratopian stance was conducted by Paul and Christiansen, who determined _Triceratops_ and the like to have had only a semi-sprawling stance. Their suggestion works because not only does the humerus fit into its socket properly, but the splayed feet are able to fit into those assigned footprints too. Not overly sure as to whether this would have allowed for a gallop, though. "

It would be misleading to consider Paul and Christiansens' determination of ceratopian stance "most recent and accurate", for their supposed reconstruction was not based in any part on new information. The trackways is hard to tout as a proponent of their case either, as it is used extensively by both sides to prove their point. Not to mention, the assignment of the tracks to ceratopians is now also being questioned. Paul and Christiansens' supposed reconstruction of Triceratops in a non-sprawing stance wasn't in any part based on new pieces of fossil, but rather a realignment of bones with a great deal of assumed cartiliage in place to bring in into stance. Put in short, their guess is as good as anybody else and is in no part considered most recent or accurate then the other, no matter whose side you may be on.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

I think that it is horrifically OBVIOUS that tricertops didn't sprawl. NO DINOSAUR EVER SPRAWLED! DUH! COME ON! I THOUGHT YOU WHERE ADVANCED DINOSAUR FANS! AND YOU ARE! SO BE ASHAMED FOR THINKING THAT IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE THAT TRICERATOPS HAD EVEN A SEMI-SPRAWLING STANCE! SORRY ABOUT THIS, BUT I JUST GET PASSIONATE. FORGIVE ME FOR ANY OFFENSE.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"On Triceratops, there are some really fasinating things to note. In contrast to old arguments of Triceratops galloping at 45 kilometers an hour, recent looks into it's limbs, which have the front limbs sprawing (which have been poorly understood anyway, having reconstructed with some hardosaur parts in the first place!) indicate that this was quite a slow animal indeed. Not painfully slow, but no where being able to gallop or charge a Tyrannosaur sucessfully. That removes it's main and most commonly assumed method of defense, by charging a Tyrannosaurid. *JEEZ, SO WHAT? IF YOU STUDY THE BONES ON AN AFRICAN BUFFALO, YOU COULD COME TO THE COCLUSION THAT IT IS REALLY SLOW. BUT IN FACT IT IS CAPABLE OF VERY FAST SHORT BURSTS OF SPEED, BECAUSE IT IS SO STRONG.* The horns are another problem, though impressive, were positioned quite far out of the way to be brought in usefully in a pitch (the animal had to lower it's head a great deal, totally removing i! t's targer from sight, leaving it ignorant and vulnerable to attack if the predator sidesteps *I DON'T SEE T - REX SIDESTEPPING. DO YOU?*of moves out of the way) *SO WHAT? T - REX IS TALL. THE TRIKE DOESN'T HAVE TO LOWER IT'S HEAD TO STAB T - REX. IT CHARGES WITH IT'S HEAD DOWN JUST ENOUGH FOR IT TO SEE, AND THEN HITS T - REX. ANYWAY, TRIKES LIVED IN HERDS, THERE'S CONCRETE EVIDENCE FOR THAT. AND I THINK WHEN T - REX HUNTED TRIKES (WHICH IT WOULD NOT DO VERY OFTEN) IT WOULD RELY HEAVILY ON SURPRISE. IT WOULD NOT RISK ATTACKING EVEN 1 TRIKE IF IT WAS FACING THE PREDATOR.*. A lone Triceratops would have little chance of standing up to Tyrannosaurus one-on-one, but one thing about the animal was that it could most likely change facing extremely fast, so the idea of Triceratops defense was more passive then active, constantly facing the predator rather then charging (assuming the predator didn't have the advantage of surprise). A charging Triceratops would most likely miss the target and get flanked anyway. I believe Triceratops was more of a team-player in survival, rather then an animal capable of taking on Tyrannosaurus one-to-one*WELL, YES. TRIKES LIVED IN HERDS. THEY ARE SOCIAL ANIMALS.*.

"but it's thighn bone is longer than it's shin bone making it a slow runner"

I really wonder where you are getting this from, because Tyrannosaurus had extremely gracile limbs, measurement for measurement, compariable to that of modern ostrichs. If you want to look at an animal with extremely long upper limb bones and short shins, look at the raptors, commonly and misguidedly considered "fast" runners*I THINK THAT SOME DROMAESAURIDS HUNTED SMALL MAMMALS, AND OTHER SPECIES WHERE AMBUSH PREDATORS. I STILL THINK THAT A PACK OF "RAPTORS" WAS A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH.*. I wonder where on earth Horner got his "measurements" for Tyrannosaurid limbs from anyway. when he was immediately refuted by another paleontologist who had done specialized work in that matter, Tom Holtz."
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"I don't think a T Rex standing on an Anklyosaurus would do much (if any) damage to the anklyosaurus. Anklyosaurus armor was VERY strong and the T Rex would probably get stabbed by the spikes on anklyosaurus's armor. And it would be very hard for a 12 meter long T Rex to dodge the anklyosaurus's tail and the t Rex wouldn't risk it anyway because if the anklyosaurus did get the T Rex it could easily kill the T Rex.
from Tom G,"

I agree totally. I won't say anything because Tom G said it all. SS, I think you're hardcore devotion to T - Rex is blinding you.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"I'm not particuarlly sure about this, but didn't the humerus lack sufficent articulation to fit the socket without splaying?"

I have yet to read Paul and Christiansen's paper, but it's my understanding that they were able to fit the humerus into the socket with only slight splaying of the forelimbs.

"The trackways is quite ambiguous in the first place. Some have suggest they have been made by an Ankylosaurid, which is quite a different animal in terms of trying to work out functional morphlogy in the first place."

Which tracks? The Tetrapodosaurus tracks? I've never heard this.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"T.rex could easily kill almost any dinosaur it faced (including the supersauropods)"

That's going a bit too far John.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"Of course, the issue of Triceratops stance is still extremely contentious."

Everybody knows that all dinosaurs walked using the upright stance.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

"In the gracile morph, the animal appeared to have a better femur to tibia ratio. In any case, Tyrannosaurus seems very well adapted for speed."

Can you give me a ref for this?
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 18, 2001

Diloph you lpay the Saxaphone? I play the trumpet :)
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

Utahraptor is extremely deadly when in packs. A pack of Utahraptors vs. a huge group of people. Utahraptor wuld probly win

gotta go play saxophone now.....bye!
from Diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

Of course, the issue of Triceratops stance is still extremely contentious. With hardly anything considered concluded. But this is a good site to go to:

http://www.eccentrix.com/misc/ceratopsia/ceratopsia/stance.htm
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

"Hmmm... the most recent and accurate determination of ceratopian stance was conducted by Paul and Christiansen, who determined _Triceratops_ and the like to have had only a semi-sprawling stance. Their suggestion works because not only does the humerus fit into its socket properly, but the splayed feet are able to fit into those assigned footprints too. Not overly sure as to whether this would have allowed for a gallop, though."

I'm not particuarlly sure about this, but didn't the humerus lack sufficent articulation to fit the socket without splaying? The trackways is quite ambiguous in the first place. Some have suggest they have been made by an Ankylosaurid, which is quite a different animal in terms of trying to work out functional morphlogy in the first place. You'd have to talk to Brad, I did learn this stuff second-hand from him.

Of course, I could be wrong. Specimens of Triceratops have been poorly preserved and understood, (despite being considered a common dinosaur) and it's my understanding that some animals were reconstructed with Hardosaur parts, and prehaps some Hardosaur parts caused a spraw that never existed.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

"Yes, juvenile tyrannosaurids did, but not a full-grown _T. rex_. Once it reached a certain size, its femur:tibia ratio reached 1."

This is the condition expected in full grown T.rexes. Their limbs had to compensate for their increased weight, and a less suspensionary method of locomotion more dependent on stride length, and less on frequency. However, I'm not sure it translates into a significant decrease in speed, given the larger stride length and a still rather large gracility advantage over all dinosaurian conterparts of similar size, and even some smaller. Smaller Tyrannosaurids seem to exibit more gracility in the adult stage, so this seems to be something directly related to size. However, it something to note that Tyrannosaurus rex does appear to have two morphs. In the gracile morph, the animal appeared to have a better femur to tibia ratio. In any case, Tyrannosaurus seems very well adapted for speed.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

"Yes, juvenile tyrannosaurids did, but not a full-grown _T. rex_. Once it reached a certain size, its femur:tibia ratio reached 1."

I
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

NOT REALLY THATS SCIENTIST THINK REX DID NOW THERE IS ALSO REPORTS OF REX TURNING OVER ANKYLOSAURS AND KILLING THEM REX COULD STEP ON ANKYLOSAURUS TAIL ITS TAIL WAS LONG AND DESIGNED ENOUGH TO TO REACH ITS FRONT ALSO ITYS BODYWEIGHT WOULD CRUSH IT
from SUKKIMMMU, age 25, ARLINGTON, VA, USA; December 17, 2001

Does any body know anything about the cretaceous period?
from Amanda D., age 10, Whiting, Vt, USA; December 17, 2001

Utahraptor was the deadliest dinosaur.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001

"In contrast to old arguments of Triceratops galloping at 45 kilometers an hour, recent looks into it's limbs, which have the front limbs sprawing (which have been poorly understood anyway, having reconstructed with some hardosaur parts in the first place!) indicate that this was quite a slow animal indeed. Not painfully slow, but no where being able to gallop or charge a Tyrannosaur sucessfully."

Hmmm... the most recent and accurate determination of ceratopian stance was conducted by Paul and Christiansen, who determined _Triceratops_ and the like to have had only a semi-sprawling stance. Their suggestion works because not only does the humerus fit into its socket properly, but the splayed feet are able to fit into those assigned footprints too. Not overly sure as to whether this would have allowed for a gallop, though.

"I really wonder where you are getting this from, because Tyrannosaurus had extremely gracile limbs, measurement for measurement, compariable to that of modern ostrichs."

Yes, juvenile tyrannosaurids did, but not a full-grown _T. rex_. Once it reached a certain size, its femur:tibia ratio reached 1.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 17, 2001