Oh, Josh, wolves usually need to outrun their prey, which is why they have running abilties more toward endurance then speed.
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; June 29, 2001

Oh, Josh, wolves usually need to outrun their prey, which is why they have running abilties more toward endurance then speed.
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; June 29, 2001

2) I think this is arguable, but even if so, does not mean much. Human hunters in Siberia run down horses. Out-lasting your prey works just as well as out-running it.

NOT SO. Bipedalism is a very inefficient way to run. This is why cheetahs can run up to 65+mph. And humans DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT have the stamina to outlast a horse. If they did, why the heck would we ride horses?
"Kiwis are active hunters, eating mainly worms, and resemble tyranosaurs much more than vultures do (neither kiwis nor tyranosaurs can fly)."

So just how large is the olfactory lobe in proportion to this little guy's brain? Just because T.Rex and kiwis can't fly, doesn't mean they are closely related!
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; June 29, 2001

Dunno...dinosaur fights must carry the same mentality behind "My dad can beat your dad"
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 27, 2001

Dear Euoplacephulas, you seem to think that T. rex is a scavenger, you must have heard of Horner's theories then.

I'm currently reading _Dinosaur_ _Lives_ as well. I'm finding it
fascinating reading, and regard Horner as one the great dinosaurologists of our time. However, I found his arguments about T. rex being exclusively a scavenger unconvincing. As I recall, his reasoning was that

1) T. rex couldn't have used its stumpy little arms and hands to grasp prey.

2) T. rex's leg ratios indicate an animal built for distance, not speed (which is not disproven. Tyrannosaurids are one of the fastest large terepods around)

3) T. rex had small eyes

4) T. rex couldn't have run fast, because tripping would have been fatal.

5) T. rex had olfactory lobes larger than any modern tetrapod (by proportion) except vultures and kiwis.

My thoughts are:

1) So poor Tyranosaurus had to bite its prey to death. This might explain what big teeth it had, eh?

2) I think this is arguable, but even if so, does not mean much. Human hunters in Siberia run down horses. Out-lasting your prey works just as well as out-running it.

3) Uh, small compared to what? Human eyes? Eagle eyes? I think they were quite large enough for the job. They don't have to be _proportionately_ large.

4) This tripping idea bothers me. The arguments would seem to apply just as well to giraffes, which can be up to 18' tall, weigh up to 3960 lb., and gallop at 31-37 mph. Apparently, no one warned them about tripping :). Note also that ostriches can run at speeds of 40 mph. Although they are much smaller than tyranosaurs and giraffes (9 ft tall, less than 350 lb), any serious injury would put them on someone's dinner plate.

5) Kiwis are active hunters, eating mainly worms, and resemble tyranosaurs much more than vultures do (neither kiwis nor tyranosaurs can fly).

I don't know why Horner suggests tyranosaurs ate carrion, when the evidence points more strongly to worms, grubs, and insects, supplemented by leaves and berries :). Seriously, this is one of my main problems with the idea: ALL living large terrestrial scavengers can fly. It's the only way to reliably get to the body before something else eats it. This means that you have to explain why scavenging would work for Tyranosaurs as special case. I can imagine ways in which it might work, but the burden of proof is on the proponent.

Using Horner's logic, we must conclude that wolves, with their strong jaws, lack of grasping forelimbs, highly developed sense of smell and running abilities that tend more toward endurance than raw speed, must survive on carrion (or maybe worms). They certainly can't hunt that way! :)

What particularly bugs me is Horner's attitude. He refers to opposing ideas as discredited, doesn't appear to examine his reasoning closely at all, and makes occasional snide remarks for the rest of the book, as far as I've read it.

My own opinion is that tyranosaurs, like modern predators, scavenged
whenever they could, and prefered to attack the very young, the very old, the sick and the injured. To address Eric's concern, I imagine a tyranosaur would attack a healthy, full-grown triceratops only as a desperation move and at great risk. However, triceratopses injured each other a lot, so a tyranosaurus would usually have other choices.
from Josh, age 13, ?, ?, ?; June 26, 2001

Now both boards are swarmed with dinosaur fight topics...what is it about this that makes it so popular?
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 25, 2001

DOUBTS ON SAUROPODS

whatever measures babe diplodocus when being born

seismosaurus and amphicoelus fragillimus are the long dinosaurs but of the world

single they are diplodocus gigants

these dinosaurs are the animals but great that crossed the earth

its stature is certain or single speculation
seismosaurus hallorum: 110 - 170 feet
amphicoelus fragillimus: 120 - 200 feet
from MANUEL LEIVA, age 20, IQUIQUE, IQUIQUE, CHILE; June 25, 2001

Yeah right euoplocephalus. I'm Mel gibson!
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 24, 2001

Grrr! Purists! Always arguing about spelling!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 24, 2001

Maybe Allosaurus could kill Hypislophodon. Galton and Jensen reported a possible Hypsilophodon from the Morrison Formation in 1975, naming it _Hypsilophodon wielandi_ in 1978.

You are certainly right about the other examples, though.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 23, 2001

I said that votes for "Valasa Raptor" were annoying. I know the correct spelling is Velociraptor. You, Euoplocephalus, spelled it wrong.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 23, 2001

The moa killing hawk-like bird would probably be _Harpagornis moorei_. It wasn't a parrot, though, but a true raptor*. _H. moorei_ stood over three feet tall, had a wing span of seven feet, and became extinct perhaps as recently as the 17th century. It was strongly built, with heavy talons and a sharply hooked beak.

*Hey, we're finally discussing some avian dinosaurs here!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 23, 2001

A T-Rex Could Never Kill A Stegosaurus Or Apatosaurus.A Allosaurus Could Never Kill A Hypsilophodon Or Tricerators.Know Why?THEY DIDN`T EXIST!!!!!!!!!
from euoplacephulas, age 8, Alta, CA, USA; June 23, 2001

Brad,You Spelled Veloceraptor Wrong.
from Euoplacephulas, age 8, Alta, CA, USA; June 23, 2001

Didn't people hunt moa at some point?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 23, 2001

Euoplocephalus, you spelled T. rex wrong too! Voting for "Valasa Raptor" is considerably more annoying.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 23, 2001

In DinoVote,I Saw A Couple Of Kids Who Spelled T.Rex Wrong.You Can`t Like T-Rex If You Don`t Spell It Right.
from Euoplacephulas, age 8, Alta, CA, USA; June 23, 2001

Lillian utah raptor vs. mega raptor and then t-rex dashes in and finishes them both off!? Thats not a competion! Did Sue join the N.W.O or somthing?
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 22, 2001

Great point Honkie Tong! I never realy thought that t-rex was realy a scavenger.
from Sean.S, age 13, i won't tell, ?, U.S.A; June 22, 2001

T.Rex most likely ate things that were both alive and dead. He wasn't picky and he loved chasing down and killing animals and we can see from some partially healed fossils of the rare dinosaur that managed to escape him. Even had a chip of T.Rex tooth in the wound. This is good evidence that T.Rex did hunt. Besides, there is no such thing as a 100 percent flightless scavenger for a big animal to be found yet, scavenging is not extremely profitable until you can take to the air and float down to your food.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 21, 2001

T-Rex Ate Animals That Were Already Dead.He Was Not A Hunter!
from Euoplacephulas, age 8, Alta, CA, USA; June 21, 2001

Gallimimus bullatus vs. Titanis walleri ("Terror bird") or similar phorusrhacid: In this case, although the Gallimimus has a major size advantage and is probably much larger than the Titanis' usual prey (phorusrhacids seem to have filled the niches of large cats) I'd say if the Gallimimus couldn't run from this fight, the Titanis would win through slashing with its beak. Anyway, it's been a fun discussion, but I have to cut out because I'm going to camp in a few days. See ya!
from Gallimimus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 20, 2001

Oh this entire affair is too confusing, lets pit Gallimimus against that 2 meter tall terror bird that used to run down prey and kill them.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 20, 2001

Avimimus- I assume you're talking about the kea, a large omnivorous parrot from New Zealand. While it is not unknown for them to "band together" and attack sick or wounded sheep, I can't imagine them attacking full grown giant moas, even if there were several of them. Smaller moa species and giant moa chicks might be another story, but the adult giant moa was free of natural predators.
from Gallimimus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 20, 2001

Moa's had a predator:
it was a giant hawk like parrot.
from Avimimus, age ?, ?, ?, pangea; June 20, 2001

I found the giant moa in a collection of animal cards I have, and it confirmed that the moa lived free of predators. Giant moas were just one species of moa on the island, and many of the others were small, as you said (maybe three feet tall.) No behavior was given- the animal was probably annilated before anything like that could be studied- but it did say that the moa was a slow bird. This isn't as important as agility in a fight- and who knows how fast Gallimimuses actually were, although they would need to outrun predators- but that, along with the additional offensive weapon of the Gallie's foreclaws (which seemed designed more for digging, but I wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong end of them) might have cancelled out any advantage the moa had in terms of build. You're right though, this is really a "sheep vs. goat" affair.

Chandler- I as wondering why this was on this board, too, but since it's leading to a scientific discussion I guess it belongs.
from Gallimimus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 20, 2001

UTAHRAPTOR vs MEGARAPTOR

T.Rex comes in and finishes both of them off, T.Rex wins!
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; June 19, 2001

Hmmmm....you do have a point, but this debate is rather much like Sheep vs. Goat. But are you sure Giant Moas grew large because they had no predators? I though animals on an island with no predators shrank? Animals with no predators can be pretty agressive to for the simple reason they have nobody to bully them. It really hard to tell as we are guessing behavious and behavious doesn't fossilize well. So lets look at the bone structure. Dinornis had heavier bones and was more heavily built and would probally cause more damage in a kick. So once again, I'm thinking Dinornis will win.
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; June 19, 2001

How come all of the "dino-fight" posts are on this board? Shouldn't they be on the other one?
Anyways, _Troodon_ probably had feathers, since it was probably warm-blooded and would need the insulation.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 19, 2001

Utahraptor vs. Megaraptor: Megaraptor was probably not such a great hunter, and he was too big and heavy to have his birdlike hollow bones. Utahraptor, however, is smaller, more agile, maybe smarter, and has good proportions to fit its design. Utahraptor would win.
from JOE BOB B., age 11, Menlo Park, ?, ?; June 19, 2001

What do you base Dinornis' aggression on? I'm not upset, but curious. Giant moas grew large because they lived on an island with no predators. In terms of lifestyle the ostrich may be a better comparison to the Gallimimus- while there were many large predators in Cretaceous Asia, there would be smaller ones to fill the lower ecological niches. In terms of agression, if anything the dinosaur would probably have the upper hand because it had predators, where the moa didn't, but since we don't know anything about the gallie's behavior it's pretty impossible to judge. The only point I was trying to make is that it'd be too close a match to call.
from Gallimimus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 19, 2001

I dunno Gallimimus, but Dinornis was probabbly a far lot more agressive than Gallimus and a single kick from Dinornis could probabbly cause serious damage. Ostrichs have been known to seriously injure lions by kicking and I'm quite sure Dinornis could have used this method of defense besides running. Gallimimus had to face much larger predators that it could not confront so I suspect that Dinornis will have a clear advantage in agression here.
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; June 19, 2001

not to confuse with DEINOSUCHUS with DEINONYCHUS DEINOSUCHUS:is a giant crocodile of 40 feet long
DEINONYCHUS:is a raptor

the scientific names you accustom is confucion
from MANUEL LEIVA, age 20, IQUIQUE, IQUIQUE, CHILE; June 18, 2001

Well, as you can see by my name I'm a bit bias, but I did a comparison of Gallimimus and Dinornis a while back. Aepyornis is the elephant bird, not Dinornis (the giant moa.) Both the ostrich dino and the bird are about the same height (10 ft) so either could peck the other's eyes out. The Gallie has foreclaws it can lash out with, but since we don't know what (if any) sort of "dinofuzz" it had there's no way of knowing how well protected it might be against pecks from the Dinornis (who would get some protection from its feathers.) My guess is that the gallie wouldn't have that much, having overall more area (the tail and the foreclaws add up) and living in a desert environment. I wouldn't bet money on either- they'd both probably drop from exhaustion before a winner could be declared. Would certainly be a strange fight...
from Gallimimus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 17, 2001

Dragonair,Your Right.Utahraptor Can Kill Any Other Dinosaur.
from euoplacephulas, age 8, Alta, CA, USA; June 16, 2001

UTAHRAPTOR vs. MEGARAPTOR

Simple, though they are both not really great hunters, size wins out. Megaraptor.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 13, 2001

UTAHRAPTOR VS. MEGARAPTOR
from Dragonair, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; June 13, 2001

ICHTHYOSAURUS v/S DOLPHIN
Dolphin. That high intelligence would probably be an advantage.

DEINOSUCHUS v/S TYRANOSAURS
This has been done before in Dino Talk, around the end of May.

GALLINIMUS v/S DINORNIS MAXIMUS (ELEPHANT BIRD )
Neither of them really have weapons, making this another difficult fight to evaluate. Dinornis was more heavily built and probably had a better kick, and its height would have made it difficult for the Gallimimus to peck at its eyes. However, moas are said to have lived in the absence of predators and had no defenses. The Gallimimus did live with velociraptors and tyrannosaurs, but it would run rather than fight. Give them pills for agression and put 'em in a big box? I say the Dinornis comes out the winner.

How is this "Dino Science"?????
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 6, 2001

HIPOTETICS FIGHTS ( BET TO THE WINNER¡)

ICHTHYOSAURUS v/s DOLPHIN

DEINOSUCHUS v/S TYRANOSAURS

GALLINIMUS v/S DINORNIS MAXIMUS (ELEPHANT BIRD )
from MANUEL L., age 20, IQUIQUE, IQUIQUE, CHILE; June 6, 2001

hi i was wondering if Troodon had feathers. they were very active so they might have had some feathers. Troodon's prey were baby Dinosaurs dragonflies and small mammals. they ate baby dinosaurs by running in through Miasaura nesting grounds. then they would pick up the babies in their claws and run off before the parents squished them.
from GatoFiona, age ?, ?, ?, ?; June 5, 2001

Are you kidding? Compsognathus is not too far from a chicken, and we all know that humans rarely get hurt bad by chickens unless they peck your eye. Cats on the other hand can do a lot more damage, I've seen a video clip of a cat biting the groin of a screaming policeman who forget about the Cat Power (tm.) of the cat. Cats are certainly tougher, meaner then Compsognathus. And when I mean mean, I don't mean mean as in the mean old lady who kept your cricket ball after you hit it into her yard, I mean mean as in Hillary Clinton mean, with claws and teeth!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; June 3, 2001

You kinda have a point, but I think cats do have a distinct advantage in agility when compaired to birds. Birds can be pretty agile, but they don't strike me as being really as agile as the cats fighting when I see birds fight. Megaraptor has a size advantage that's for sure, and I think that counts for much. But if Saber Tooth manages to get a bite to the neck of the less-agile animal, Megaraptor will die rather fast. But all in all, I think this will be a draw, in slight favour of saber-tooth.

Say, I meant REALLY cold water, like in 0-4 degrees in the summer. Even the intinal advantage of gigantothermy, Liopleurodon would lose it pretty quick in spite of his bulk. We don't see sea turtles near the polar caps do we? Mabye there a sperm whale just might have a slight chance...what the heck, call in an Orca! But I think all in all, this fight goes to Liopleurodon.
from Leonard, age 13, ?, ?, ?; June 3, 2001

Compsognathus vs. Felis catus?

(I know this is getting ridiculous, but its fun!)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 1, 2001

RE: Saber-tooth vs. Megaraptor
Birds can be just as fast and agile as cats. I think they could both be fatally wounded in this one....

RE: SPERM WHALE v.s LIOPLEURODON
Large sea turtles are fine in cold water. The 12-metre Liopleurodon would have taken advantage of gigantothermy too.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; June 1, 2001