Not bad pics Jodie, but I would like to point that your Allosaurus resembles some kind of a Tyrannosaurid!
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"? I mean most of the stuff he puts up is either untrue or pure crap, and everybody knows that, so people like Brad, Honkie Tong, Lillian, Leonard or such, don't bother yourself with that ok? I mean even we Giganotosaurus fans disagree with him."

Actually, it's kinda fun to debunk him (just kidding). While I find the errors in Sean's posts quite annoying, they can sometimes be useful as a case study to teach how REAL paleontology is done (in terms of what is known, what can be inferred, what is pure speculation, and what is just plain wrong).
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

All of you Spinosaur/Giganatosaur/etc fans, ATTENTION!

What exactly is your point? Is there any? To put your favorite dino at the "top"? To prove they are the "best"? Or just to get respect for your dino?

You all seem to be aggressively challenging (sometimes with bogus and un-scientific info) the T.Rex fans, goading them into an arguement with your ill-founded statements. T.Rex fans are arguing from a defensive position, often proving your "arguements" wrong with info backed by scientific evidence.

I'll tell you, from a neutral position reading both arguements, the T.Rex fans have overall better and more coherent points (though sometimes some of them are border-line fanatic).

I posted this because its become annoying to come here and see this crapola every day. Sheesh. Let it go people, and move on.

Let's talk about my favorite, Brachiosaurus, for a change.
from J-E-L-L-O, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"Oh, just because he had stronger jaws doesn't mean he was stronger more agile."

Actually, we don't draw our agility from looking at the jaw strength at all. Just where the heck did you get this idea from?

"I heard somebody say as an allosaurus fan that he wanted giganotosaurus to die. (A TRUE ALLOSAURUS FAN WOULD NOT WANT GIGANOTOSAURUS TO DIE!!!!!!!!!) Whoever you are,you obviously like t.rex more than allosaurus! "

Who are you to judge people on what dinosaur they like or why they like them? The fact you have a Giganotosaurus fan against you speaks volumes about how you conduct yourself. Serarch yourself before you jump on people.

" From what I've heard, their agility and speed is about the same."

I'm afraid you heard wrong, the morphlogical structure of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus are considerably different. Tyrannosaurus would have been much faster and more agile than Giganotosaurus. If you are unconvinced (or just poorly informed), please read the dino experts answered questions section.

"But it's bite is stronger, so why is that a bad comparison."

That's because you have no inking of the difference it makes. A pitbull's bite is certainly stronger than a doberman's but it isn't such an advantage difference that you can model T.rex and Giganotosaurus on. Let me explain. You see. A pitbull bite and a dolberman bite are about the same, with a slight difference. Both would inflict flesh wounds if they bit only. So this is more akin to comapiring a allosaurus to another allosaurus with a slightly higher bite force. The problem here is, T.rex bit at 20,000 newtons! Which is very much higher than a Giganotosaurus' best of 1,000-3,000 newtons. Now in this case, the difference will not simply be the scale of the flesh wound inflicted, but the T.rex bite will also include broken bones and almost certainly internal damage. In other words, T.rex is causing damage on an entire different level alltogether. He isn't just causing large scale allosaur bites, but he is rending bones and damaging internal orgas as well. Now if you can see, a compairism between a doberman and a pitbull is not really a good one. Unless the pitbull can snap the doberman's ribs in a bite or gouge out massive quantities of meat in a bite, something I'm sure it can't do, that's why it's not a good compairism. You have also forgotten a doberman was faster and more agile than a pitbull, so it makes a very poor compairism in the first place.

"Spino has the advantage because he is used to the slippery terrain."

Hmm...I'm not sure this point holds because T.rex did live in the swampy marshes too, and would have been adapted to deal with slippery terrain. But all in all, T.rex would have been smart enough to stay out of such terrain, expecially since most of his prey didn't live too much around this area too.

"starring the mighty Daspletosaurus torosus."

Daspletosaurus rocks man!

"In a duel,it doesn't matter who has the most powerful gun,the better fighter wins. "

I'm glad you finally come to terms with that. Being more intelligent, agile, speedier and more capable, you can bet a good wager T.rex is the better fighter!

"Also giganotosaurus was probably big enough to outfight t.rex. "

Uh uh...once again you are forgetting its size that dosen't matter, it's fighting ability. And I'm afraid Giganotosaurus certainly did lack alot of it for his size.

"Tyrannosaurus would not remain undetected,for long."

Dosen't matter, what matters is that T.rex could detect the other side first, something he would have done with ease.

"Why have a debate,when you've already lost?!"

Yeah, why are you still going on Sean? After you've lost so badly?

"Who are you trying to impress,with all you'r insults?!"

AHEM...look who's talking...

"t.rex could not use it's advantages,unless he wanted to ambush."

Actually, in a rainforest, the ONLY thing T.rex would do in concern to attacking prey is to...ambush.

"In the flesh giganotosaurus was alot tougher,than it is,as a skeleton. "

Unfortunately, with such a lightly-built skeletonal structure, all his "toughness" isn't going to help him when he's flopping on the ground, paralyzed from a severed spine when the bite knived through his lightly built vetrebre. Nope, you're going to be short in the thouhness department if your bones are lightly-built. Want to see an extremely tough carnivore? Look at T.rex.

"Pointless and irrelevant eh? Well if you will look, there are several posts saying T.rex was smart because of a large brain. Which, of course, is not true. I was talking to those people. And as if your posts are so important."

They are important, play close attention. But anyway since you are in apparent compliance with me, you agree that T.rex was an extremly intelligent animal.

Thank you all.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"If we're going by your analogy...then a croc would outrun an ostrich?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

That's such a good rebuff. You like deflated his entire point there you know.

I feel a little mean today.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"What the hell are you talking about? An animal with a body closer to the ground will have a better speed?"

Apparently you don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I was saying an animal with a body close to the ground will have better agility, not speed. And yes, the leg structure counts too.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 8, 2001

Actually, I do find it strange why Jason insists that T.rex would be slow. In fact, T.rex had all the more reasons for the need for speed.

Why? Well it's rather simple. T.rexes' main diet consisted of hardosaurs, it's his meal of choice over the more dangerous ceratopsians and the ankylosaurs. But the problem is, hardosaurs are quite skittish and fast indeed, and in order to catch them, T.rex would have to be able to outrun them in a chase. I think adaptations for speed is certainly ncessary in T.rexes' case. In fact, speed and agility would give him a good advantage in chasing prey and dodging attacks from his prey, and of course, to retreat rapidly should things go bad. Hmm...I don't think T.rex was an obligate slow-mover at all.

And actually, in bipedial animals, longer legs make you go faster. It increases the strides you take, and gives you more leverage. This rule works to a certern extent in quadipeds, because they can flex their spines to increase their stride (like cats). But of course, bipeds don't have this feature so in their case, longer, more gracile legs here we come!
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

can enybody draw a terasaur enybody
from samy, age 10, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Jodie's Deinonychus drawing is excellent!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 8, 2001

And Joslin, I haven't say anything intelligent about the tyrannosaurs, just gripe people out who may a different opinion. So your alot more brain-dead than me. T-rex, giganototsaurus,spino, and allosaurus were all probably good hunters. You probably could just admire all of them, instead of just saying this one could beat that one anyday.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

To Jason,

What the hell are you talking about? An animal with a body closer to the ground will have a better speed? Puh...lease!

If we're going by your analogy...then a croc would outrun an ostrich?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's in the leg structure!

Also, T-Rex a coelurosaur, not a carnosaur. One factor that separates coelurosaurs from carnosaurs is the level of intelligence.

To all you T-Rex haters here: Again, your $%^ got raped.
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Merto Manila, Philippines; August 8, 2001

Oh, and I said I was wrong about the pteranodons. So get off my back about it. I can't believer people get this ticked about a bunch of dead animals. T-res and giganotosaurus were not rulers of the universe, they meat-eating animals that just killed to survive. And giganotosaurus wouldn't bite a triceratops skull cause there was no ceratops where he lived.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

I just got back from a visit to the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa. They have a good display of dinosaurs from Alberta, starring the mighty Daspletosaurus torosus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 8, 2001

Hey honkie, Dr. Tom Holtz said a large spinosaurus could probably kill a tyrannosaurus on the qs and as. And I meant a pit bull, not a bulldog. A pit bull is slightly smaller than a doberman, and it's snout is a little shorter. But it's bite is stronger, so why is that a bad comparison. T-rex was slightly smaller than a giganotosaurus. Oh, just because he had stronger jaws doesn't mean he was stronger more agile. From what I've heard, their agility and speed is about the same. And Leonard, how do you know that spinosaurus had such a weak bite, where did u get this information.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"I saw JP3, it was OK, there should have been more fights against dinos and people. Also, do raptors really have feathers?"

Yes, there should have been. Real raptors (both avian and dromaeosaurid) have feathers. The movie 'raptors didn't appear all that feathery to me.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 8, 2001

Alot of big carnivores that eat fish, also kill large animals, Bears, crocodiles, killer whales, ate fish, but not all the time. They kill larger land or sea animals once in a while. There's doubt to me that the spino did the same.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"Perhaps, but Paul used tracks of _Torosaurus_ I believe to prove that ceratopsians had forelimbs as erect as rhinos."

When were Torosaurus tracks discovered?

"The chest bones cannot articulate properly with sprawling forelimbs (Ostrom mounted a _Torosaurus_ skeleton with sprawled forelimbs and claimed it worked perfectly, but Paul pointed out that the spine and ribs were oriented incorrectly allowing the forelimbs to sprawl). The elbows bend out slightly but are not by any means "sprawled" like a reptile."

>From Peter Dodson's _The Horned Dinosaurs_ (p. 273): "To be blunt, it is _impossible_ to mount the forelimbs of ceratopsids with the joints articulated, the limbs erect, and the elbows rotated underneath the body. Thewy simply don't go together that way." I've seen Chasmosaurus in Toronto and Styracosaurus in Ottawa (earlier today), and they both sprawl, IMHO, in their natural posture.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 8, 2001

Luke, you are giving Tyrannosaurus Rex way too much credit. Yes, T-rex has the advantage with a more powerful jaw, but saying that Giganotosaurus has no chance is just plain stupid. Giganotosaurus (and it is the same with Spinosaurus) has a chance to beat t-rex. Like ive been trying to tell all you people-in-denial-that-there-is-a-dinosaur-or-two-that-can-beat-T-rex, it all depends.
It depends on mostly who got the first big bite in, and the location.
For example, lets put T-rex against Spinosaurus. If they are fighting in the woods, Rex has the advantage because Spino's length and huge sail limit mobility in the confinings of the woods. But if they are on a river bank, Spino has the advantage because he is used to the slippery terrain.
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, my room, my house; August 8, 2001

Katie V, a new dromaeosaur speciman was found, proving that dromaeosaurs did indeed have feathers or protofeathers.
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, my room, my house; August 8, 2001

I fail to see you'r points. Triceratops was more vulnerable,from attack by t.rex,for one thing. Anyway,i've been outdoors envisioning giganotosaurus in the flesh. I don't think this would be one-sided. Tyrannosaurus would not remain undetected,for long.(As carcharodontosaurs are thought to have a great sense of smell. I don't know how it's smell compares to t.rex,though.) I believe it could probably outfight a t.rex in the flesh. I think science has underestimated the overall effectiveness of giganotosaurus. Its obvious t.rex was probably a more effective predator,but in a deathmatch in a rainforest,giganotosaurus would probably win. A male t.rex skull,is a midget in comparison to a giganotosaurus skull. Also giganotosaurus was probably big enough to outfight t.rex. In the rainforest,t.rex could not use it's advantages,unless he wanted to ambush. (He would have to be quick,though.) Other than that t.rex has no real advantages,in a rainforest. You also have to think about the way modern animals fight. In the flesh giganotosaurus was alot tougher,than it is,as a skeleton. In a duel,it doesn't matter who has the most powerful gun,the better fighter wins. (Its like comparing an m-16 assault rifle to a magnum. The magnum is more powerful,but which gun has the better performence? (The m-16 is definitely the better gun!) You have to think about how these dinosaurs acted and looked like. Infact giganotosaurus is probably more equal to t.rex than we think! I heard somebody say as an allosaurus fan that he wanted giganotosaurus to die. (A TRUE ALLOSAURUS FAN WOULD NOT WANT GIGANOTOSAURUS TO DIE!!!!!!!!!) Whoever you are,you obviously like t.rex more than allosaurus! Who are you trying to impress,with all you'r insults?! If giganotosaurus can beat t.rex,its your problem!(not mine) Why have a debate,when you've already lost?! Its not a secret giganotosaurus could beat t.rex! (GET A CLUE!!!!!)
from Revision z, age 13, ?, ?, U.S.A.; August 8, 2001

Please... consider the following.

On Tyrannosaur agility, and hunting capabilities

Tyrannosaurus was a large, bipedal carnivore. He had a huge jaw, and was one of the most advanced carnosaurs in the dinosaur era. However I have some evidence to prove he was not as agile as some think, among other things, such as not being able tho sneak up on things very well to attack.This evidence I believe, also supports Jack Horner's theory of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger. First off, Tyrannosaur stood very high off the ground. This will limit the area of movement on Tyrannosaur. If you look at modern spiders, their legs are sprawled out, and the body is positioned very close to the ground. This will increase the area of movement, giving more agility.Secondly, tyrannosaur had his legs positioned UNDER his body, which also limits movement. Daddy Longlegs have their bodies higher off the ground, like Tyrannosaur, so the legs are put farther under the body than the spiders. Having these legs keeps the creature from being agile. Tyrannosaur is also top heavy. He has a huge head, and a pretty chunky build, putting all of his weight on top of his body.
Next, he is a biped. Bipedalism is an inefficient way of moving long distances. Take dogs and wolves. They are quadrupeds, thus having the ability to move long distances without rest, because with bipeds, more stress is put on the legs when running than quadrupeds(In the case of cheetahs, they are not designed to run long disatnces, with low energy resrves).Tyrannosaur, being a biped, will not be able to move large distances in a chase. Bipedalism can be helpful with agility if the arms are long and articulated. Not to beat a dead horse with a leg, but ostritches are like Tyrannosaur in they can run, bur not very far, and are not agile. His large body cannot help with sneaking up on prey, unless the target had ridiculously bad hearing. His large nose, useful in detecting prey, could also have been useful with finding carrion. Now then. On Tyrannosaur intelligence. Tyrannosaur had a large brain. This does not mean he was advanced nor was he smart. This thing had the intelligence of a chicken. One of you said that Tyrannosur could think of new tactics to use. Not true. Tyrannosaur did not have the capacity to think. If something new worked, he remembered it and passed the info on to his kids through his genes. He did not make the ideas himself. His brain just didn't have the capacity to actually think.

PS:
"PS: Notice that I said this:

"Well, we don't think Tyrannosaurus was smart because he simply had a big brain, hardly. "

And then you said:

"And answer me this. How could you say that T.rex was smarter just because of a larger brain? "

"Ahem... please pay attention. I mean nobody will read your posts or take notice of your points when they are irrevalant."

Pointless and irrelevant eh? Well if you will look, there are several posts saying T.rex was smart because of a large brain. Which, of course, is not true. I was talking to those people. And as if your posts are so important.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 8, 2001

"would EASILY sidestep, duck low, slew to the right or move backwards to dodge an attack."

Exscuse me? Backwards? Tyrannosaur? Sidestep easily? Sure.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 8, 2001

I saw JP3, it was OK, there should have been more fights against dinos and people. Also, do raptors really have feathers?
from Katie V., age 14, Tabernacle, NJ, U.S.A.; August 8, 2001

I think it's been srttled that T.rex could beat Giganotosaurus. But not always.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 8, 2001

hay honkie what jp movie do u like best
from samy, age 10, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Saying Giganotosaurus had any form of a significant advantage over T-man simply because he had a slightly longer skull (whihc is all Sean seems to rant about) is like saying a guy with a stick slightly longer than his opponent's chainsaw had any kind of a great advantage. And the idea of better reach is rather lame if you think about it. When Giganotosaurus is reaching out to bite T-man, what is he doing? Touching T-man right? And if he touches T-man, T-man can certainly touch him too right? Giggy-sissy has a longer reach...to bone crushing death! KAWHAM! Sean goes down in flames again.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Leonard is right. Fossil evidence does show that Tyrannosaurus rex certainly did have the guts to bite dangerous and fersome things on the head. After all, if Tyrannosaurus rex dared to bite through the frill of a Triceratops from the front and take chunks off other Tyrannosaur skulls, I doubt he'll have much trouble with Giganotosaurus' slender, easy-to-grab and lightly built jaw. Hmph, in fact Tyrannosaurus rex could make the defeat of Giganotosaurus more humiliating by ripping off Giganotosaurus' lower jaw (something it would have done with ease) and using it to blugeon that now-jawless Giganotosaurus to death. Expect to see scenes similar to what you see in Gladiator where Maximus starts slewing his opponents and the blood starts spraying. Yes, it will be a short fight indeed.
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, USA; August 8, 2001

Giganotosaurus extinction theory #7

Trying too hard to best T.rex
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

"But you miss out one fact that T.rex had a very superior NEURON-TO-MUSCLE RATIO."

How do you know how many NEURONS Tyrannosaur had?
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 8, 2001

As an patriotic Allosaurus fan, I make the following statement:

DIE GIGANOTOSAURUS, YOU OVERDONE, OVERSIZED ALLOSAURUS STEREOTYPE!
from Saurus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

How annoying is the "I have a longer skull so I win" argument? Seriously, how many human or animal lifeforms for that matter can take more than 10 "I have a longer skull so I win" arguments. So, in my reasoning, the Tyrannosaurus get so annoyed that their Annoyance tm blossoms into the Rage tm which is the deciding point in all deathmatches. Plus i had to sit through 20 posts of "Sean the guy with the multiple split personality" while browsing through here, so i really wanta see that SOMEBODY (hint hint) here (or at least Giganotosaurus) was messily devoured while obviously saying "and now that i begin my journey through the great T-Rex's digestive tract..."

Your "longer skull" arguments just don't cut it anymore, and they are lame, annoying, irrevelant, stupid and utterly useless to making your case. Get that in and start stocking up on brains instead of lame arguments!
from Darren, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

A demented oversized allosaur whose main skills are surviving close encounters with large reptiles while ripping and bringing them down, vs... a large carnivorous reptile with big and powerful teeth.

Though Mr. Sean would say that Giganotosaurus has this in the bag, no? But these are no slow moving herbivores, mister. These are swift-moving, flesh-rending, bone-crushing bus-sized movie monsters of the subclass Coelurosauria, and they're not about to let some idiot with a oversized and overhyped allosaurus body have his way with them (unless he's a licensed animal handler, which I doubt).

"Danger! Danger!" indeed. This match is over before you can say "What big teeth you have, Grandma!"
from Darren, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Didn't read the commentary from that nutty Giganotosaurus fan, and I don't have to. I've seen his posts enough times to know that he always tries to get put as as much rubbish as possible in a vain attempt to "smoke" and confuse people. But he has them seriously underestimated and is only suceeding in making himself look worse. But sadly, only Giganotosaurus is stupid enough to listen to him (can't blame that lizard for his small brain) and Giganotosaurus will be all excited about killing T-Rex that he'll get as close as possible to his "Tyrannosaurus to kill" of the week, and he will end up getting hurt really bad by learning just how much he can listen to that crazed Giganotosaurus fan and just how close he can get before his "Tyrannosaurus to kill" attacks. I can already picture the entire thing in my head...

Giganotosaurus: Ahead of us is none other the Mighty T-Rex. This females are the dominant members of their species and this Sheila is no exception. Fortunately for us, she's sleeping right now. Let's get closer to take a look. And I'll show you how I'll use the superior length of my skull to kill this creature.

Giganotosaurus: Her hearing is excellent. She has the ability to pick up frequencies of sound far below that of what other dinosaurs can hear. You'll need good hearing to be the best predator on the planet. No body's gonna hunt her [heh heh], but, we'll want to stay down wind from her to avoid her from picking up our scent. She may have great hearing, but she can smell the scent of her prey a mile away. Poor Buggers. So now let's stay downwind and proceed real quietly.

Giganotosaurus: Her skin is quite tough, and well insulated to keep in the heat need to maintain this massive body. Her short forearms aren't much good anything accept as an anchor for holding herself in place. Clearly the most interesting area lies in her head where her amazing olfactory sence resides.

Giganotosaurus: But my favourite part is her teeth. Bloody hell! Look at the size of these fangs...

No more Giganotosaurus.

He didn't even get to the part of saying how he intended to take on the T-Rex.
from Darren, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

You T-Rex haters (especially the Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus fans) here are one BIG ^&* losers.

Whether in a scientific or just a plain exchange of nasty words type of discussion here, your ^&* gets raped in this forum. LOL!

You know what, I have a better suggestion! Why don't you organize yourselves, make an anti T-Rex community website, talk to yourselves all day long about anti T-Rex stuff, and make yourselves happy. LOL!
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 8, 2001

That Dinosaur Tyrant King wannabe may have good luck poaching slow moving allosaurs and sauropods but he aint never tackled nut'n with the speed of a charging rhino and with teeth bigger than large banannas!

He's never taken on a beast anywhere near like that, the T-Rex is a freakin' locomotive with teeth!

Now while the Giganotosaur may have the blood of a thousand Allosaurs running through his veins you must remember that in seconds the great Tyrant Super Death Lizard King of nature will have the Giganotosaur blood running through their teeth and down their gullets!

Time to throw another shrimp on the barby! BYE GIGGY!
from Kenneth E. C., age ?, Quantico, ?, United States; August 8, 2001

"apocalypse now!," ha, I'll say your apocalypse fizzle out. Everybody knows you are Sean and you don't have to hide behind all these stupid names, because it just gives everybody the impression of the general level of your maturity and intelligence, both of I'm happy to announce, are in great lacking.

LEAVE GIGANOTOSAURUS ALONE!
from Giganotosaurus, age 13, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

That's cool Leonard, I like the way you deflated Sean's points. But you don't have to answer to him everytime, everybody who takes one look at his posts immediately knows that he's wrong, even Giganotosaurus fans like us!
from Giganotosaurus, age 13, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Yo T-rex fans, I'm real sorry about this dude Sean coming in to diss yo' dino. I mean, normal Giganotosaurus fans like us are not like that, we like Giganotosaurus because we find him intresting, and we don't need him to be some "super T-rex beater" to like him. Just for the record, I will like to say that Giganotosaurus fans believe that T-rex would easily beat a Giganoto anytime. Not because Giganotosaurus is a whimp, but because T-rex is way out of his leauge. Look, I'm sorry about this Sean guy ok? I mean he's making all Giganotosaurus fans look bad. He's just a ... kid that will do anything to win this debate, including discorting the truth and making all Giganotosaurus fans looking like anti-rex freaks who will do anything to win at the disregard of the truth, so try to understand him ok? I mean most of the stuff he puts up is either untrue or pure crap, and everybody knows that, so people like Brad, Honkie Tong, Lillian, Leonard or such, don't bother yourself with that ok? I mean even we Giganotosaurus fans disagree with him. Why? Because we accept Giganotosaurus for who he is: a fasinating and cool animal. We don't need any ego boost to say he can beat a T-rex in order to feel good about him. He could never beat a T-rex. I guess that T-rex is simply so good that to have people like Sean picking on him to "feel better" about their dinosaur. But these people are immature, they just don't know the truth or don't know science, don't bother with them. Just ignore him or something, you don't have to debunk him, everybody knows he's wrong.

Anyway, isn't Sean a Allosaurus fan? I've seen how soundly his dino got trashed when he decided to say that Allosaurus will win one of the dinofights he created, so he must have picked Giganotosaurus to avenge his deflated ego. Well, you better stop free loading on Giganotosaurus, leave Giganotosaurus alone! Go find some other dino! You are making Giganotosaurus something he absolutely is not!
from Giganotosaurus, age 13, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Giganotosaurus is lame, there's no way he can beat T-rex. T-rex is too much fiercer, faster and meaner than Giganotosaurus. And people say he can win? Sean must be a crazed Allosaurus fan that was so emotionally injured by Allosaurus' painful defeat by T-rex he decided to switch to Giganotosaurus to get some revenge. But that's not gonna help him. He's gonna be debunked left and right.
from Luke, age 13, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Are you kidding or plain dumb? T.rex would have the advantage in a rain forest!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Sean, please stick to proper science, your latest post was an entire piece of rubbish.
from Giganotosaurus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

Actually Sean, the intelligence of T.rex meant that he would be making better choices, having a clearer grasp of the situtation and even know how to infulence the fight in his favour (ie, using hit-and-run tatics instead of a direct fight)

But you miss out one fact that T.rex had a very superior NEURON-TO-MUSCLE RATIO (Dramatic voice).

The nuron-to-muscle ratio determines the quantity of neurons dedicated to controling the muscles in the body. With a higher ratio, you get better control over your body, increased agility, and better precise motor function. So this actually means that T.rex is going to be better in a close-quarters job.

"I can't picture a t.rex grabbing the jaw of a giganotosaurus. (T.rex probably wouldn't have the guts,to even try this.)"

Hard to picture? Not really, there is a lot of evidence Tyrannosaurus would have the guts to bite Giganotosaurus on the head. From a shattered hardosaur skull, Triceratops DEADILY head and even other Tyrannosaurus, this animal didn't worry too much about biting jaws at all. Tyrannosaurus certainly would have no qulams about biting Giganotosaurus on the jaw. But Giganotosaurus on the other hand, with his skull bones unsuited to taking 20,000 newtons of force, would have a serious problem with that.

"Today the predator with the biggest jaws and the first strike,usually wins! "

Not true. Lions have smaller and shorter jaws than Heyans but they win (bad anatology intended as pun). And if you actually compare the surface area of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus skulls, you'll realize that Tyrannosaurus actually EDGES out Giganotosaurus in jaw area! Tyrannosaurus actually had a larger skull!

"So what?! T.rex had bone crushing jaws,and such.(Who cares?!) "

A Giganotosaurus with 70 kilos of meat missing from his flank, a couple of pulverized ribs, and craked vetrebre would certainly care.

"It doesn't matter what advantages t.rex had,if he can't use them! "

The problem here is that T.rex COULD use his advantages...

"And besides,with a skull as big as giganotosaurus,you could probably hold off a t.rex!"

Unlikely, Giganotosaur skulls lack the structural ability to resist gigantic compressional loads and their teeth show the same problem. It's extremely likely a Giganotosaurus trying to hold off a T.rex with his skull would end up with a broken skull instead. It's not how big the skull is, it's how STRONG the skull is. Sadly, Giganotosaurus skulls were not exactly heavily built.

"In a rain forest,t.rex would be particularly vulnerable to giganotosaurus. "

In fact, in a rain forest, the ability of T.rex would be ENHANCED! This animal did alot of living in the forrest habitat and would have been very well adapted to fighting in it. With superior senses and better stalk and prowl capability due to his more gracile legs, greater agility and slighter body, T.rex can easily move in the forest, set ambushes, and stay hidden for who-knows-how-long. Nope, Giganotosaurus better take this out to the open, at least he could retreat easily and there's less risk for a sneak attack, not to mention there's more space for his less-agile self. A confrontation with a T.rex in a dense forest would be a deathtrap for the agility-disadvantaged Giganotosaurus.

"T.rex probably couldn't use the advantages it had,unless it was in a clearing-giving giganotosaurus the advantage. "

Actually, T.rex would have the advantage in BOTH areas!

"Also,we keep finding larger-younger relatives of giganotosaurus.(I wouldn't be suprised,if we find a relative of giganotosaurus,as big as imperator-with a larger skull!) "

Hmm...a big Allosaur would be impressive, but if only he could be as effective as he was impressive. No! A larger allosaur would suffer from even more speed and agility problems! If you like to pit Allosaurs in increasing sizes against T.rex, you might as well set out a buffet table. T.rex would exploit the avantages over the larger allosaurs all the more, to greater effect. But Sean, please if you can, mention more about larger and larger allosaurs, because you are helping to hurt your case and improve ours! Thanks! Are you doing all this to make Giganotosaurus look bad?

"intelligence isn't going to help you,if you'r cornered by a giganotosaurus. "

Given his greater speed and agility, plodding Giganotosaurus is going to have a very hard time trying to corner a Tyrannosaurus. And if he does, it actually worse for Giganotosaurus than a Tyrannosaurus, for a Tyrannosaurus excelled in close-in-work.

"Face it,giganotosaurus would probably inflict most of the bites!"

Gee, given the fact that he has a much less deadly bite, T.rex would gladly give him a few licks. Of course, with that agile and speedier T.rex biting, running away, dodging, biting again, dodging again. Giganotosaurus will be spending most of his time roaring in pain. No, the faster and agiler animal gets in most of the bites. That is Tyrannosaurus.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

I'm sorry Jason, but your posts on Tyrannosaur agility can not be further off the mark.

You appear to be making judgements on Tyrannosaur agility based on it's size and weight, and compairing them to a modern day elephant. That is not a very wise thing to do. You see, elepahnts have limbs more similar to that of a sauropod. They were massive, weight bearing limbs built for the purpose of bearing the weight of the animal itself. Now any animal with those kinds of limbs would be not be described as "agile"! Tyrannosaurs on the other hand, have limbs that are designed in almost the opposite way!

Tyrannosaurs, unlike elephants, are bipedial. Being a biped gives you some advantages in terms of point-on agility. But you have also forgotten that unlike an elephant, which was solidly planted on four massive limbs, Tyrannosaurs used only two limbs balanced by a tail. These configurations make a compairism between an elephant and a Tyrannosaur a very bad way of doing science.

Tyrannosaurs had short femurs and long lower limb bones. The limbs themselves were powerfully muscled. This is a sure indication for an animal built for speed and agility. Being bipedial, and having such legs, Tyrannosaurs would have had no difficulty side-stepping, back-stepping, accelerating, decelerating extremely rapidly. Tyrannosaurus was designed to be extremely agile for its size. And elephant was not. Besides, Tyrannosaurs also took larger strides, walked quite differently and was certainly much faster than an elephant. Tyrannosaurus moved more like a seven-ton osctrich than an elephant. Certainly Tyrannosaurus would not have been so agile as in leaping over other dinosaurs and doing matrix-style moves, but he would have been FRIGHTENINGLY agile for such a big animal, and certainly much more so than Giganotosaurus.

Tyrannosaurus had an extremely well-muscled body, and that gave him a superior power-to-weight ratio than any allosaurid. This certainly made his movements less sluggish, faster and his large brain would mean that he had better precise motor function too. Tyrannosaurus would EASILY sidestep, duck low, slew to the right or move backwards to dodge an attack. As I said, he didn't behave or move anywhere like an 6-ton elephant but more like a running bird.

Tyrannosaurus was very agile!
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 8, 2001

So what?! T.rex had bone crushing jaws,and such.(Who cares?!) It doesn't matter what advantages t.rex had,if he can't use them! Today the predator with the biggest jaws and the first strike,usually wins! And besides,with a skull as big as giganotosaurus,you could probably hold off a t.rex!(The bone crushing jaws are no use,if giganotosaurus thwarts every bite attempt,you can make,with it's huge jaws!) In a rain forest,t.rex would be particularly vulnerable to giganotosaurus. T.rex probably couldn't use the advantages it had,unless it was in a clearing-giving giganotosaurus the advantage. Also,we keep finding larger-younger relatives of giganotosaurus.(I wouldn't be suprised,if we find a relative of giganotosaurus,as big as imperator-with a larger skull!) I can't picture a t.rex grabbing the jaw of a giganotosaurus. (T.rex probably wouldn't have the guts,to even try this.) Its obvious giganotosaurus could open it's mouth wider than t.rex,too. Even if t.rex was more intelligent,intelligence isn't going to help you,if you'r cornered by a giganotosaurus. Face it,giganotosaurus would probably inflict most of the bites!
from apocalypse now!, age 2,ooo, god knows, in the middle east somewhere, Isn't-real; August 7, 2001

I suspect the reason Ceratopsidae didn't move as fast as so many of the ready-to-accept-the-most-radical-idea us think is also mainly because they had front limbs that were shorter and weaker than their hind limbs. Being weaker affects speed slightly, but being shorter will be a serious hinderance to any high-speed moves. Were they fast enough to charge? I think it wouldn't be much use as their estimated 25-30 kph top speed would give a predator ample warning time to doge or worse, dodge and attack! And given Ceratopsidae did face the agile and speedy Tyrannosauirds, charging is probably not the first plan in their defense strategy.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

Notice that I said this:

"Well, we don't think Tyrannosaurus was smart because he simply had a big brain, hardly. "

And then you said:

"And answer me this. How could you say that T.rex was smarter just because of a larger brain? "

Ahem... please pay attention. I mean nobody will read your posts or take notice of your points when they are irrevalant.

Thank you.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

"I don't see how you could say Tyrannosaurus rex was agile. If this creature was one of the largest, he would be hard pressed to dodge incoming attacks. Like elephants. They are the largest land animals and are they agile? NO! Look at how slowly they sidestep!"

Actually, Tyrannosaurus didn't have the leg or body design anything like an elephant at all. He was bipedial, and his legs were extremely gracile, extremely similar to that of ostrich dinosaurs. His limbs were considerably more muscled and he certainly showed alot of adaptations for high speed and agility. Tyrannosaurus was not only much faster than an elephant, it was also much, much more agile, and yes, I suspect it can sidestep extremely fast too. In fact, Tyrannosaurids are the fastest land-based large carnivorous dinosaurs ever.

"How could an animal as large as T.rex hope to dodge with fancy sidestepping and hopping about like a sparrow!??!"

It's not as hard as it seems, T.rex is, by the way, some what built more like a 6-ton sparrow than an elephant. Your anatology is flawed.

" And answer me this. How could you say that T.rex was smarter just because of a larger brain? (Well if that's true, whales, having such large brains, are smarter than humans!)"

Once again, I said he was smarter because he had a more COMPLEX brain. Whales/dolphins/chimps or any mammals with the about same brain size as us are not as intelligent for the simple reason their brains were more primitive in structure and function. Tyrannosaurus however, certainly showed via catscans and brain-casts that he had a far more complex brain (and a much larger one too) than your typical large carnviorous dinosaur. This animal was almost certainly much more intelligent.

Ps: Whale brains are large, but they are considerably smaller than human brains. A Dolphin brain, on the other hand, actually exceeds us in cranial capacity by about 50ml. But once again, it's the structure, combined with the size of the brian that counts. Not to mention I mentioned it! Go read the points in whole before you come here screaming your head off!
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

Get off my case Damean!!!!
from the anti-rex, age 13, the holey land, jesus sandles, Isn't-real/Isreal(U.S.A.); August 7, 2001

"I don't see how you could say Tyrannosaurus rex was agile. If this creature was one of the largest, he would be hard pressed to dodge incoming attacks. Like elephants. They are the largest land animals and are they agile? NO! Look at how slowly they sidestep! How could an animal as large as T.rex hope to dodge with fancy sidestepping and hopping about like a sparrow!??! And answer me this. How could you say that T.rex was smarter just because of a larger brain? (Well if that's true, whales, having such large brains, are smarter than humans!)"

I don't know how scientists do it, but they can tell how large the brain of a dinosaur is judging from the fossil. They can tell how large the part of the brain do this and that (like smelling, thinking, etc). One thing that they consider is brain to body ratio. And T-Rex has a high brain to body ratio relatively. If you compare T-Rex's brain to body ratio with that of the biggest allosaur you could find, Rex would beat it by a killer margin of almost 2:1. Pretty cool huh?
About agility, it's not primarily the size, gracility is also considered. And they say that T-Rex's are more gracile than Allosaurus. Before I even became a member of this forum, I've been reading articles stating that Tyrannosaurs are indeed agile despite their size. So don't think that this forum is very biased just because this forum has gazillion of T-Rex fans.
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 7, 2001

THE FOURTH CHAPTER OF THE GIGANOTOSAURUS STORY IS HERE!!

ITS COMING....
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, my room, my house; August 7, 2001

I don't see how you could say Tyrannosaurus rex was agile. If this creature was one of the largest, he would be hard pressed to dodge incoming attacks. Like elephants. They are the largest land animals and are they agile? NO! Look at how slowly they sidestep! How could an animal as large as T.rex hope to dodge with fancy sidestepping and hopping about like a sparrow!??! And answer me this. How could you say that T.rex was smarter just because of a larger brain? (Well if that's true, whales, having such large brains, are smarter than humans!)
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 7, 2001

"I think said "moron" meant their horns. Man, isn't this just the meanest thing you can say to someone with an opinion besides "T.rex is the best?""

T.REX IS THE BEST
from Joslin, age 13, L.A, C.A, USA; August 7, 2001

T.Rex would easily kick the butt out of Giganotosaurus. He'll KRUSHHHHH Giganotosaurus like a cockroach!!! There is no large carnivorous dinosaur that was better at the art of killing than T.Rex. He is the ultimate dinosaurian predator.
from Saurus, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

T-man makes the worst compairisms Daberman vs. Bulldog? HA Could he be further off the mark (even Sean S, who is virtually imcompentent in making compairisms between animals, does better than that!)! For goodness sakes! If I compaired things like him, I'll say that oscrichs could fly because they had legs like birds that could fly! Spino having a stong bite just because it had a croclike skull shape? That's such a shallow and lame argument. It's incredibily stupid. And the raptors r' strong 4 their weight so Dactyl's must be strong as they are light too? That clinches it! Are all these arguments brain-dead or what?
from Joslin, age 13, L.A, C.A, USA; August 7, 2001

"Just because a T-rex has stronger jaws doesn't mean it will always win. A spinosaurus or giganotosaurus would stand a chance against a tyrannosaurus. Every once in a while, one would probably kill the other."

Ha! You are leaving out the other obvious advantages too (can't face them?)! T-man was also faster, more agile and tougher and not to mention much smarter and stronger too. It wasn't just his bite force that is the main argument here, it's virtually everything that T-man need to have against Giggy-sissy, he had it by a wide margin. Giggy-sissy is going to die nine times out of ten. And even in that one time he survives, he most probably will not kill T-man and would have escaped with serious injuries.

And Spino is a bigger whimp by the way.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

The charge of the Gigantosaurs

Half a pack, half a pack,

Half a pack onward,
All in the valley of Death

The six Giganotosaur hunted.
"Forward, let's plunder thee and raid!"
"Charge for the rex!" he said:
Into the valley of Death

The six Giganotosaurs hunted.

"Forward, let's plunder thee and raid!"

Was there a dino dismay'd?
Not tho' the Gigantosaurs knew

Had Sean blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death

The six Giganotosaurs hunted.

Bitt'en to right of them,
Bitt'en to left of them,
T.rex in front of them

Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with the tooth now,
Boldly they walked and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell

The six Giganotosaurs hunted.

Flash'd all their long-jaws bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Biting the T.rex there,
Charging an Tyrant, while

All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battle-smoke
Could right thro' the line they broke;
Would T.rex the tyrant
Reel'd from the long-jaw's stroke?

But it was not to be sawn,
Dinos they came back, but not

Not the six Gigantosaurs.

Bitt'en to right of them,
Bitt'en to left of them,
T.rex in front of them

Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with the tooth now,
While large Allosaurs fell,
They that had fought so well
But that was not enough,
To take them from the mouth of Hell,
None that was left of them,

Left of six Giganotosaurs.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!

All the world wondered.
Why did thee charge?
In a hopeless march?
Against the Tyrant King,
There'll be no victory,
But bones will crush and skulls will ring.
Remember the charge thy saw,
Remember the six Gigantosaurs,

Stupid six Giganotosaurs...
from Feyda Z., age 13, ., Uruals, Sibera; August 7, 2001

W h y- d o -I -l o v e -T r e x ?

Everyone has a favourite dinosaur, even if its one they can't put a name to. Everyone loves "the one with the plates" or "the one with the long neck" or "the ones at the end of Jurassic Park".

My interest in dinosaurs had simmered at the back of my mind all my life. Like many other children, I had little dinosaur toys and I could pronounce "Ankylosaurus" as easily as "horse". Programmes such as David Attenborough's "Lost Worlds Vanish Lives" interested me. I loved Jurassic Park. But it was never really more than a passing interest.

That was, until September of 1999, when I bought an issue of Scientific American. The magazine had three T. rexes on the front cover and was captioned "T. rex re-examined. A kinder, gentler dinosaur? Don't count on it."

I bought it, read it, and so began a disturbing love affair between myself and an animal which had died out 65 million years before I was born.

Something struck me about T rex that had never really stuck me before. It had been real. Of course I had known that but I never really believed it. This thing had lived and breathed. It was not some fictional monster, it was an animal.

The article inspired me in a way that nothing had done before. I read about the bite force that this beast had - 13,000 newtons - enough to cut through bone as if it were butter. And the teeth it would have used for this task - 6 inches long with serrated edges - racked up in a mouth which could open wide enough for an adult human to curl up inside.

Even by distilling all the most ferocious aspects of today's lions or bears, its not possible to create a mental image that truly does justice to the terrifying power of Tyrannosaurus rex.

What had captivated me was the idea of T rex as an animal instead of a monster. We've all seen images of dinosaurs attacking other dinosaurs and bellowing at each other, but imagining them interacting calmly became equally exciting. Its easy to picture an animal that has six inch teeth as a fierce predator and its equally easy to forget that this animal must have slept, mated, nested and nurtured its young.

The thrill for me came in trying to visualise T rex as accurately as possible. This process pushed me to learn about trace fossils - those which are a by-product and not the remains of the animal itself - such as dung and trackways. These make a connection to the living thing, instead of just showing the dead bones.

The more I learnt about trackways the more fascinated I became by the imaginary sight of T rex thumping along the ground. Watching the film Jurassic Park became a daily routine while I searched the net for more information and more realistic imagery.

At this time I was interested in 3D modelling on the computer and I toyed with the idea of building dinosaurs, but my skills were not up to the task at that time. The Photorealistic imagery of Jurassic Park made me postulate that a natural history documentary could be made using computer-generated images of dinosaurs as if they were being studied in their natural habbitat.

On the 4th October 1999 we found that the BBC had done the most wonderful thing. It turned out that they had spent the previous two years making Walking With Dinosaurs. Need I say more?

My interest in the visual spectacle of the living beast brought me to appreciate palaeontological work more. Previously I had not been excited by fossils or skeletal reconstructions and I just wanted to see artists renderings. But as my interest deepened I wanted to go back to the original evidence and look at the bones of T rex myself. As a result I started to draw my own flesh reconstructions instead of constantly copying other people's.

In recent years larger dinosaurs than T rex have been unearthed but, to me, the stature and the bearing of this well-known giant will never let it be toppled from its place as tyrant king.
from Gavin, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

Wow! That's a dinodebate we got going! For people not involved or for those who want to remove themselves from the fray, please move to the dino science forum! (Debaters, please don't take your battles there)

"How can you tell how smart Tyrannosaur was from the braincase? A big brain = smart? Don't think so. No one knows for sure, but it may be the number of neurons in the brain. The more neurons, the better the chance for complex thought and functions."

Well, we don't think Tyrannosaurus was smart because he simply had a big brain, hardly. Yes, that is a factor, as more brain mass means you have more avaiable brain power to run your functions, but most importantly, Tyrannosaurus had very a COMPLEX brain, which is a very important factor for complex thought and behaviour. Tyrannosaur brains have a very complex structure, and it's highly likely that they are extremely intelligent dinosaurs. Actually this is not surprising as Tyrannosaurus after all, was decended from the Coelurosaurs (and is a coelurosaur by the way), the smartest dinosaur group and inherted their complex brains too. All in all, if you sum it up, Tyrannosaurus was very much smarter than any other non-coelurosaurian large predatory animal (like Giganotosaurus), by at least factor of 2:1. Tyrannosaurus was an advanced carnivorous dinosaur, and it's hardly surprising that he was extremly smart. In fact, I would be surprised if they said he was dumb or simple of an! ything, Tyrannosaurus was a complex, social, and intelligent animal. The reason why we (used to) think Tyrannosaurus wasn't exactly exceptional in terms of intelligence was because we thought it was a carnosaur! And would have had rather normal intelligence for a carnosaur. But after closer study was done into Tyrannosaurus, paleontologists actually stated Tyrannosaurus' considerable neurogical advantage as a difference from it and the carnosaurs!

"And hey, this "septic bite" is quite silly. Everything, to an extent, has a septic bite."

Actually, if we refer to a "septic bite" over here, we mean the bite is really, really, septic, so much so that it can be used as a weapon. Sure, if you didn't brush your teeth for five months, I'd expect you to develop some sort of a septic bite too. Usually in most cases, a septic bite isn't mentioned as it's not too much of an advantage. But it merits attention in Tyrannosaurus' case after the discovery of micro-abrasive cubular serrations on the teeth, a sure sign for adapations to harbour an extremely septic bite.(carnviores not using septic biteshave normal delta-serrations, which Giganotosaurus had) A Tyrannosaurus is going to be much much more septic than your average carnviore bite. So much so that it will be good enough to be actually used as a method of killing prey. For the last time Sean, I know though you'll really like it to be so, but Giganotosaurus did not have a septic bite.

"How do you know he had a weak bite, where does it say that he has a weak bite."

Sure, I was looking up info on Spinosaurs when I wanted to do my 3d model of spinosaurus and actually located a bunch of refrences at the libary that a distinguishing feature on Spinosaur skulls was that they had extremely thin bones in the jaw compaired to other dinosaurs! Though they didn't imply anything, I don't think this is exactly condusive towards packing a strong bite. Yes, as what somebody here said (was it leonard), Spinosaurus had rather weakly rooted teeth too. If it could bite, the best it could do was up to Allosaur standards, not anywhere much too more. In fact, due to their teeth and jaw designs, an Allosaur would do more damage!

"Hyenas have very powerful jaws,and lose to the lions,most of the time! "

That's not a fair compairism. You forget lions are A LOT bigger (by a factor of 3:1) and a lot stronger than hyenas, and a lot more agile and faster too, not to mention heynas didn't have too much of an advantage over lions in bite force at all. This is not too good a compairism (in fact, it's a rather lame attempt at compriative anatomy) Not to mention lions have an advantage in using their paws, heynas cannot swipe. If you want to make a fair and intelligent compairism, make it between an animal that is faster, bit harder, more agile, more intelligent, stronger, against an animal with a slight size advantage and a slightly longer snout (and both animals must rely solely on their jaws to kill). The advantage we're talking in Tyrannosaur terms is INCREDIBLE. It's more akin to matching the bite force of a human being to that of an lion. That is certainly an advantage that will come into massive play! No living animal makes a good anatology for the bite force of Tyrannosaurus re! x at all. The best I can think of is an extinct super-heyna that lived quite far back (back then when there were 22 species of heyna). It was the size of a modern lion and would have easily wooped any lion that dared challange it. But still, this is an anatology that is really off the mark when we are compairing the kind of advantage Tyrannosaurus had.

"And it wasn't a spinosaurus that ate a young iguanadon, it was a barynox, which got up to 33 feet. I just want to know where do you guys get this information that a spinosaur is so weak. Who says that a spinosaurus can't kill a large animal. What dino expert says this?"

Of course, then again you are proving the fact that there is absolutely no evidece of Spinosaurus hunting extremely large prey. Actually, I think the guy who first named and discovered Spinosaurus himself said this was no great hunter, one of the many... But if you ask me, it's rather obvious this animal wan't built to attack things that were too large at all.

"I agree with what I think Sean was trying to say. Ceratopsidae didn't charge, they used their horns [and beaks] as weapons if they needed to defend themselves, swinging their heads at tyrannosaurids in close combat. Ceratopsidae had sprawling forelimbs- the tracks Bakker used to argue for running ceratopsids are actually ankylosaurian. Dodson beleives the spawling theory based on ceratopid bones, and he seems like more of a truth-seeker than Bakker, who was trying to prove a personal theory."

I agree, there is certainly something seriously wrong with the idea of ceratopsids moving too fast. I mean I've seen some RIDICULUS speed estimates for Triceratops (40 MPH??) This animal didn't have feet built for galloping, the first reconstructed Triceratops has the wrong legs! They actually used the legs of a hardosaur in their construction! This could be the basis of all our speedly Ceratopsidae theory. Of course, a Ceratopsian didn't have to charge it's opponent, it simply had to keep facing it's horns in the direction of the predator and that would be a good incentive for the predator to buzz off. If attacked however, I'm sure a ceratopsian would try to stab the pedator though. But no matter what, I think Giganotosaurus is going to have serious trouble with a Triceratops! He wasn't adaptated for such prey.

"And Giganotosaurus isn't a bad dinosaur."

Oh no! He certainly isn't! But he's in for a sound trashing if he decides to go against the considerably-more-advanced and advantaged Tyrannosaurus. He chances are quite low here.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

Giganotosaurus isn't a bad dinosaur, but he sure was wimpy compaired to T-man! I mean, look at all the advantages T-man has! These are big and important advantages! This fight will be like Bruce Lee fighting a person of similar size, and though the person might get lucky sometimes, we all know that a very very vert large proportion of the time, Bruce will win. Giganotosaurus dosen't even come close to matching T-man in abilities, and Spinosaurus is going to be even further. Nobody says T-man will win 100 percent, but you'll be lying if you said he wasn't the best of the lot.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

T'REX
from Jack d, age 8, cgfnhdgj, vchjkvhdkv, ufrkguuckfjb; August 7, 2001

Here we go again.
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; August 7, 2001

Let me also add that Paul also studied _Triceratops_ footprints and proved that the front limbs were almost exactly under the shoulder girdle, and came nearly straight down (only a few inches outside of the point directly under the shoulder, meaning the animal did not sprawl).
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

"I agree with what I think Sean was trying to say. Ceratopsidae didn't charge, they used their horns [and beaks] as weapons if they needed to defend themselves, swinging their heads at tyrannosaurids in close combat. Ceratopsidae had sprawling forelimbs- the tracks Bakker used to argue for running ceratopsids are actually ankylosaurian. Dodson beleives the spawling theory based on ceratopid bones, and he seems like more of a truth-seeker than Bakker, who was trying to prove a personal theory."

Perhaps, but Paul used tracks of _Torosaurus_ I believe to prove that ceratopsians had forelimbs as erect as rhinos. The chest bones cannot articulate properly with sprawling forelimbs (Ostrom mounted a _Torosaurus_ skeleton with sprawled forelimbs and claimed it worked perfectly, but Paul pointed out that the spine and ribs were oriented incorrectly allowing the forelimbs to sprawl). The elbows bend out slightly but are not by any means "sprawled" like a reptile.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 7, 2001

In the field guide by Dr. Holtz and Dr. Surman, it said that suchomimis, a smaller spinosaur, could have killed a dinosaur as easily as it could a fish.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

I disagree. Yes, ceratopsians did have sprawling forelimbs, but were still capable of a strange sort of "gallop," albiet at slower speeds. I don't have it with me as of now, but I can quote a passage about ceratopsian running abilities if you'd like.
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

What are you Spinosaurus and Giganatosaurus fans trying to prove, exactly? The dominance of these animals over T-Rex? Not likely!!! T-Rex is clearly superior to both of these, in terms of firepower, speed & agility, size (according to new finds), evolution-wise, and aggressiveness.
from zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzz, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

I agree with what I think Sean was trying to say. Ceratopsidae didn't charge, they used their horns [and beaks] as weapons if they needed to defend themselves, swinging their heads at tyrannosaurids in close combat. Ceratopsidae had sprawling forelimbs- the tracks Bakker used to argue for running ceratopsids are actually ankylosaurian. Dodson beleives the spawling theory based on ceratopid bones, and he seems like more of a truth-seeker than Bakker, who was trying to prove a personal theory.

And Giganotosaurus isn't a bad dinosaur.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 6, 2001

Just because a T-rex has stronger jaws doesn't mean it will always win. A spinosaurus or giganotosaurus would stand a chance against a tyrannosaurus. Every once in a while, one would probably kill the other.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

How do you know he had a weak bite, where does it say that he has a weak bite.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

How do you t.rex fans know,t.rex will actually grab the jaw of giganotosaurus?! Not only have you not been around,at the time of the dinosaurs,but you'r not even professional paleontologists! Experts agree giganotosaurus and t.rex,both have good chances at winning! Hyenas have very powerful jaws,and lose to the lions,most of the time! A giganotosaurus could probably hold off a male t.rex. Besides,t.rex was not all it was cracked up to be! Just cause t.rex had a great sensory system and bone crushing jaws,doesn't guarantee satisfaction,against other predators! We don't even know if t.rex would use these advantages,against other predators! What do you think about all this,J.C.?
from Sean 3:16, age 13, ?, ?, Isn't-real/Isreal(U.S.A.); August 6, 2001
I want to stay out of the fray. JC

I said I was wrong about the pterodactyles Lillian. And it wasn't a spinosaurus that ate a young iguanadon, it was a barynox, which got up to 33 feet. I just want to know where do you guys get this information that a spinosaur is so weak. Who says that a spinosaurus can't kill a large animal. What dino expert says this?
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

It's coming.....
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, my room, my house; August 6, 2001

"Did somebody say horned dinosaurs used their frills like baseball bats??

...

HAHAHEHEHOHOHOHOHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHHOHOHOHOHOHHEHEHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHHOHOHOHOHOHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S SUCH A LAUGHABLE IDEA! WHO WAS THE MORON WHO CAME UP WITH THIS NONSENSE?"

I think said "moron" meant their horns. Man, isn't this just the meanest thing you can say to someone with an opinion besides "T.rex is the best?"
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 6, 2001

"because he is obviously better."

Than what? Every single little or large creature in the time of dinosaurs, which, for some reason, everyone seems to be saying that, or JUST Giganotosaurus? And why is everyone saying Tyrannosaurus is smarter, just because of a "large" brain? And hey, this "septic bite" is quite silly. Everything, to an extent, has a septic bite.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Dayton, USA; August 6, 2001

"Plus, T-Rex is more intelligent and agile (as suggested by the braincase and leg structure)"

How can you tell how smart Tyrannosaur was from the braincase? A big brain = smart? Don't think so. No one knows for sure, but it may be the number of neurons in the brain. The more neurons, the better the chance for complex thought and functions.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 6, 2001

The lacrimal 'horns' of Ceratosaurus are quite prominent, and are more sharply pointed than those of Allosaurus. Look at Greg Paul's drawing of two Ceratosaurus fighting, or James Gurney's awesome Ceratosaurus stamp.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 6, 2001

Hmm, I'd like to add some sense to this whole thing from an impartial point of view. Both animals were large and carnivorous, so the only way either one can win out is if he has the advantage. Lets weight the pros and cons of the both dinosaurs.

1)A more powerful bite that caused excessive damage when it hit. This is a very big edge, expecially when T-Rex could bite much, much harder and with greater effect.

2)Steroscopic vision for depth preception, eyes were also very keen. Also gives it a large edge over the depth-preception lacking Giganotosaurus.

3)Advanced hearing capable of hearing lower frequecies than most dinosaurs (good for picking up prey far off as lower frequencies travel further)

4)Incredible sense of smell. Could prove useful in locating Gigantosaurus first.

5)Extremely intelligent, about twice more than Giganotosaurus.

6)A considerable speed advantage over Gigantosaurus, scientists estimate T-Rex could move at 30kph-45kph, much faster any Allosaur that ever lived and certainly faster then any of its potential prey items.

7)Superior agility: T-Rexes' better muscled body and large brain size gave him very good motor-controls. He was certainly much more agile than Giganotosaurus.

8)Superior toughness: T-Rex is definately the tougher of the two. With heavily built ribs arranged close together to protect the vital organs in a reinforced cage, thickly built skull to absorb shocks and penetrative impacts, reinforced veterbre in the neck and a heavily built and powerfully muscled body made T-Rex extremely tough. T-Rexes have been known to survive broken necks, fractured legs, crushed ribs, broken jaws and even brain injuries caused by teeth penetrating the braincase. Big Al, an above-average injured Allosaur, looked pretty weak by comparism. T-Rex are certainly much tougher and can take a lot of punishment than Giganotosaurus.

9)Teeth: This certainly counts too, T-Rex teeth were designed to rend bone, muscle and flesh together, aided by the powerful jaw. The teeth themselves were designed not to slice meat cleanly, but rather to tear it, maximizing damage. The longer and tougher teeth also ment T-Rex could afford to bite deeper, harder, and do a great deal more damage. Giganotosaurus teeth were pure cutters, good for a carnivore, but T-Rex certainly has a distinct edge in the area of teeth. It's not the number of teeth, but rather the EFFECT of the teeth in the animal's jaws that causes the damage. A T-Rex bite is certainly much, much, much more effective than a Gigantosaurus bite.

10)T.Rex's skull was certianly much heavier built than Giganotosaurus and is heavily reinforced. This allowed him to bite very hard and also insulated him from battle damage. Even his eyes are recessed to protect them.

Let's see what advantages Gigantosaurus has:

1)Marginaly larger size. Ok, this is fine, but since it's weapons and abilities that matter here, size is not particuarlly important. It's the ability of the animal to do it's job. So this is not really too much of an advantage at all.

2)Longer jaw: Could give it better reach, but then again, we're talking about a 1-foot advantage here, (T.Rex skull 5 feet vs. Gigantosaurus' 6 feet) I'm not sure it's such a big advantage that it plays too much of a difference at all. Not to mention, T-Rex could actually remove that advantage by actually BITING that portion of Gigantosaurus' skull off. I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to pick at T-Rex with a slightly longer skull. After all, he could easily take it in his jaws and crush it.

That's it for Giganotosaurus, I can't think of more that would merit putting it up, a Giganotosaurus-had-one-more-claw-per-hand one is not really an advantage at all as both dinosaurus relied soley on their mouth for the killing.

I'm starting to see a patern emerge here. While T-Rex has really good advantages that will really count in this fight, the advantages that Giganotosaurus has are trival ones that will hardly infulence the outcome by much. If you are asking me, I'll say that T-Rex easily clinches the championship.

So this is my verdict, T-Rex will win.

And no! I'm not a T-Rex fanatic or even his fan. So you people can stop accusing innocent people like us for being rex-fanatics to make yourselves feel better! Face it, non T-Rex fans will speak up for T-Rex for one reason, because he is obviously better.
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, USA; August 6, 2001

Did somebody say horned dinosaurs used their frills like baseball bats??

...

HAHAHEHEHOHOHOHOHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHHOHOHOHOHOHHEHEHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHHOHOHOHOHOHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S SUCH A LAUGHABLE IDEA! WHO WAS THE MORON WHO CAME UP WITH THIS NONSENSE?
from Joslin, age 13, L.A, C.A, U.S of A; August 6, 2001

There is certainly something seriously wrong with the idea of Spinosaurus taking on large sauropods. For one thing, he was considerably less heavily built and strong as his Allosaurid counterparts, for another, his teeth and jaws seem to be all wrong for taking on prey like sauropods! He had quite the weak bite and his teeth were blunt stabbers used for snaring fish, rather than cutting the flesh of a dinosaur. Not to mention Spinosaurus teeth were weakly rooted, and his jaw bones were quite thin and extremely hollow, from the jaw fragments we've found (and lost), Spinosaurus' jaw bones are extremely thin and light compaired to the jaws of other carnivorous dinosaurs. I don't know, but something tells me if Spinosaurus is going to try something like tackle a sauropod with his jaws, he'll end up with alot of missing teeth and worse, a broken jaw that would be fatal to him. And I don't think his frame (which was even lighter built than the Allosaurs) ! can really take the pounding from a sauropod tail or something as the such. Sure, he could take on a young iguanadon for a change of pace, but nothing too rowdy, this guy was mainly a fisher.

"On Enchanted learning, it says in black and white that a spino could kill a large sauropod. "

Of course, you do know that this statement expresses a opinion from some paleontologists (and I doubt that's a majority), but there has been no evidence of Spinosaurus attacking sauropods at all, such as embedded teeth, healed bite-marks, we do know Allosaurs do attack sauropods because we do find such evidence, but we have none from Spinosaurus. I suspect that the paleontologists who say Spinosaurus could take on a sauropod are going mainly by its size, which is not too good a measure of what the animal could do. Spinosaurus certianly lacked the equipment to handle overly large prey. Hmm...you seem to take in everything at face value on written media, how about finding out what this is based on in the first place? A lot of paleontologists think that Spinosaurus was mainly a fisher. Of course, it also says in black and white in enchanted learning that Spinosaurus was preyed on by other carnivores of its time...hmm...it depends on how you take it, but I'd prefer to see what the! y are saying this based on, and the idea of Spinosaurus attacking a sauropod is certainly a bad one.

"Spinosaurus had to have a powerful bite, it needed a powerful bite to take on large sauropods."

Once again T-man, this is not letting the evidence speak for itself, but instead trying to make the evidence fit the theory. Spinosaurus and Spinosaurs in general lacked adaptations for a powerful bite, so the simple and direct answer is: They did not have a powerful bite, I don't care if it affects your idea of Spinosaurus attacking large sauropods and if it does...it's too bad, it's not the bad.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

I think those Spinosaurus and Giganotosaurus lovers here used to be T-Rex fans.
Some of them shifted to Spino after they got mesmerized watching that Spino on steroid in JP3. Lol!
Whatís the basis of that Spino on steroid in JP3 anyway? A rumor that a private collector owns a big a$$ Spino skull, making some people conclude that Spino attained 60 feet?
And here we have a more legitimate Rigby Rex legbone (donít know which part of the bone) fossil thatís 15% larger than Giganotosaurusí but was ignored in JP3?
Yeah right, JP3 is accurate.
And those Giganotosaurus fans, they think that size is everything? Well, personally, I believe that Giganotosaurus will make a better match for T-Rex, as compared to the wimpy Spino.
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 6, 2001

20,000 newtons vs. 1000 newtons

...

Giganotosaurus might as well go fight an incoming metor for all the chances he had for winning.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

Agility is going to count greatly here. Remember what Ali said? "Dance like a butterfly, sting like a bee?" He could floor opponents one-third larger with longer arms (I'm drawing an antalogy here, longer jaw? HA laughable!) than him because he was agile enough to doge their attacks and attack them back.

Tyrannosaurus is certainly more agile than Giganotosaurus. Giganotosaurus was less-muscled for his size, had the wrong limb-proportions and was heavy for his muscle distribution mass. He's going to have a hard time trying to even get a bite into Tyrannosaurus while T-Rex is dodging his attacks, moving in, delivering bone crushing blows, and retreating to avoid him. Giganotosaurus is in SERIOUS trouble to pick a fight with this one!

If you have an advantage in agility...that's very good, you already have a serious thing going for you. But if you are faster, hit harder, and tougher, that totally pushes it in the favour for you.

Giganotosaurus is dead meat. I don't even see how this could be somewhat fair.
from Peter Shane, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

Triceratops could certianly charge you fool, even Ankylosaurus could do a decent trot. Giganotosaurus will be too slow and clumsly to get out of the way. Did you know computer simulations indicated Giganotosaurus was very slow? He could at best do 15 MPH. Well, he didn't need to run fast if he was chasing slow dinos. But Triceratops is gonna to outrun him and kill him (heck, if Triceratops was carnivorous, it would have hunted Gigantosaurus if they met!)
from Protoceratops fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

To end the discussion on JP3's Ceratosaurus or Carnotaurus, here's some good information. In the movie, the horned theropod apears to be a poorly restored Ceratosaurus. In the junior novelization, the narrator says it to be a Carnotaurus. Also, the Carnotaurus did not leave the humans alone because it was scared that Spinosaurus was near by. He left because they were covered in dung and it sickened him.
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, my room, my house; August 6, 2001

"By the way, to the person who wondered how Spinosaurus could survive eating only fish, the fish during the early cretaceous were very big animals."

Yeah man! T-man, the fish back then were up to eleven feet long and weighted over 300 kilos of meat. No wonder Spinosaurus simply became a big baby built to hunt fish.

"According to the people at science daily(of the discovery science channel) triceratops didn't actually charge predators,but rather wielded it's horned frill like a weapon."

Actually, Triceratops would have used its horns to warn the predator first. And they can move up to quite a good rate too. (Faster than the lame brained Stegosaurs you Allosaurs are used too) And if they are going to use them, they are not going to fence but to stab! Giganotosaurus is going down! Sean, your points are so debunked, you better retire before everybody starts laughing at the points you make!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

T.Rex rocks as a predator, it could defeat Giganotosaurus in a pinch. Giganotosaurus never impressed me anyway. He's way too wimpy and all his fans seem so desperate to put him tops. T.Rex fans on the other hand, are relaxed in the superioty of their dinosaur. I wish we Protoceratops fans can be as confident as you guys. Keep up the good work! The dinosaur world belongs to Tyrannosaurs and Ceratopsians! Sean made a bad mistake spreading lies about horned dinosaurs here, now he'll pay the price as ceratopsian fans are drawn into the fray too!
from A Protoceraops Fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

Yeah right. Saying the less advanced, less mean, less well-armed, less intelligent Giganotosaurus has an advantage over T-man is like saying a monkey with a stick can defeat a guy driving a tank.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

Ugh...if you ask me, Allosaurus' extinction was pathetic. I mean only ultimate losers like Allosaurus die of such slow, unglorious death caused by other animals. That's the type of extinction to avoid. You can't do anything about being killed off by an asteriod or some natural disaster, and that dosen't mean you are lously (in fact, even us technologically advanced humans would be finished by an asteriod) but going extinct the way Allosaurus did...now that's a loser's way. I don't what Sean was doing when he said that going extinct via Allosaurus' way was good, but that just means that he's wrong again...not too unusual.

So, going by Sean's logic, if Allosaurus was a loser, it applied to the rest as well...Giganotosaurus is a LOSER!
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

"tyrannosaurs met an untimely extinction.(Which doesn't look good on their record.)"

Actually it looks extremely good on their record. They were the top till the end and were not superceeded by any other dinosaurian predators. This would technically mean they were the ultimate dinosaurian predators! Haha! Sean just hurt his case again!
from Ouch!, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

These are the Students Against Blatant Ignorance, we have detected a extreme ignorance and anti-intelligence particle spikes on our sensors in this area and are now taking action.

Here, do me all a favour will you? Take out a ruler for an experiment.

Ok, note the distance from the 0-inch mark to the 12-inch mark.

Noted it?

NOW YOU CALL THAT A JAW-LENGTH-ADVANTAGE THAT WILL MAKE A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS 504 INCHES LONG? FOR GOODNESS SAKE, IT WILL HARDLY MATTER AT ALL! WHAT MATTERS IS SPEED, AGILENESS, FIREPOWER, CUNNINGNESS, MEANESS, TOUGHNESS! NOT A DUMB JAW-LENGHT-ADVANTAGE OF 12 INCHES! USE YOUR BRAIN! USE YOUR BRAIN!

Pro-Giganotosaurus arguments just got lamer.

SABI inc. Dedicated to spreading common sense to the masses.
from S.A.B.I, age Students, Against, Blatant, Ignorance; August 6, 2001

T.Rex is the best, lets examine the other so called contenders to the throne:

Spinosaurus: PLeezzzeee, just because you are big dosen't mean you are mean, in your case, you are just fat. Go get a life!

Giganotosaurus: All bark, no bite. People only like you because of your long jaw, and that's a lame reason to say you'll have any kind of an advantage against the monster Tyrannosaurus. Go back to the mountains and learn some kung-fu for twenty years and you might have a 5 percent chance of beating T.rex. And you are fat too.

Allosaurus: Wun even be a fight.

Utahraptor: It's snack time!

Thank you.
from Lilia F., age 11, Nope, Uh ah, yipes; August 6, 2001

Actually, its unlikely any other large carnivorous dinosaur stands a chance of besting T.Rex at all. T.Rex will not always win, but he'll win enough to prove he's the champ. So I'm sticking with him. T-man and Sean don't know squat!
from Johnatan C., age 15, ?, ?, Malaysia; August 6, 2001

I believe the doberman/pitbull argument is flawed. For one thing, there is a great size disparity between the two breeds, and for another, a pitbull has a very short jaw. T-Rex certainly didn't have a short jaw at all, his was massively built. Also, T-man has failed to take into account that unlike pitbulls and dolbermans, T-Rex had different weapons from Giganotosaurus. T-Rex teeth certainly gave him a great advantage over Giganotosaurus. For the record, I didn't know nuts about dinos until I heard about Giganotosaurus and he was my fave dino for some time (yup, I was one of those saying he was the best and such as he was big and had a long jaw) but I started looking into the dino he was supposed to replace, T-Rex and discovered Giganotosaurus stands no chance against that MONSTER! Giganotosaurus must be out of his mind to even contemplate fighting a T-Rex. You Giganotosaurus fans just can't take it that you latched onto the wrong boat and its prov! ing to be a disspointment.

Actually, a fight between a Rotwellier and a Doberman is more akin to that of T-Rex and Giganotosaurus. And the dolberman or wolf will soon be drowning in its own blood.
from Simon, age 13, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

Are you kidding? A pitbull will trash the butts of a dolberman or a wolf if they were the same size!!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

Tyrannosaurus rex osborn clearly has the advantage. He will win, regardless of what people may say. He was certainly a lot meaner and deadiler than your lame-brained allosaurus. While Giganotosaurus is simply a very large play on the simplistic slashers, Tyrannosaurus had rail-road spike teeth, adaptations for speed, and most importantly of all, a ridiculusly powerful bite that will blast the resistance of any dinosaur it was used on. Giganotosaurus will be hard pressed to get in the extra five or six bites he needs to break even with one bite from the Tyrannosaurus, and not to mention, that's just on the flesh level, Giganotosaurus, unlike Tyrannosaurus, was not adapted for causing internal damage. Heck, if Giganotosaurus bit Tyrannosaurus on the hip, he'll just cause a flesh wound. If Tyrannosaurus bit Giganotosaurus on the hip, he'll punch all the way through the hipbone itself and bust a kidney. Giganotosaurus meanwhile, will experience such inc! redible pain (ever got punched in the kidney before?) and internal injuries winning this fight will be the last thing he is thinking of, he'll just be content with trying to breath, and that is not for long...

Tyrannosaurus certainly beats Giganotosaurus in a deathmatch!
from Paul Timmons, age 11, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

"I saw a documentary,where paleontologist held a carcharodontosaurus tooth in his hand,it was shaped like a long serrated dagger (The tooth must have been about 5-6 inches long!)"

Actually Carchardontosaurus teeth were much larger than Gigantosaurus teeth, and they looked nothing like Giganotosaurus teeth at all. Do your comparitave anatomy somewhere else!

" Also,there i! s a myth,that t.rex was brutal. All carnivores are brutal,in their own right! "

Actually everybody knows carnivores were brutal in some way sometimes, but what scientists are intrested is why Tyrannosaurids seems a fair bit MORE brutal. They fought much more than you'll expect in your average dinosaur and this could mean they were extremly agressive. Bad news for the doctile by side Giganotosaurus!
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

"*ssk*For those of you who want reliable information,turn to the paleontologists. Thank you.*ssk* We keep finding larger relatives of giganotosaurus. I'm not convinced,a fight between t.rex and giganotosaurus would be one sided. (and never will be) "

It always will be one sided, in T-rex's favour. SO much so that Giganotosaurus would be falling over themselves just to get away from them (why the heck did you think they moved so far south?)
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001

"On Enchanted learning, it says in black and white that a spino could kill a large sauropod. And ever if a T-rex has stronger jaws, a bulldog has stronger jaws than a doberman or a wolf, but doesn't it will win. Doberman and wolves can do more damage than a bulldog sometimes because of their longer snouts."

Of course, then you realize that a wolf or a dolberman is a lot larger than a 20-kilo pitbull. A fairer match would be between a bull mastiff and a wolf and a dolberman. They are about the same size, (with the dolberman and the wolf being slightly larger) The bull mastiff will always, 9 out of 10 times, rip the throat out of the two aforementioned. A bull mastiff, with it's extremely short snout, was the undisputed champion of the now-illegal dogfights, despite it having a very short jaw, no matter how much a size advantage its opponent has (heck, they even kill leopards) and not to mention, T.rex also has advantages in toughness, speed, agility and intelligence. And don't forget a Bull Mastiff has no where near the bite force advantage T.rex has over its opponents (10 TIMES!) and not to mention, T.rex didn't have a short jaw, his was rather long too, at 5 feet, and I doubt a one foot advantage in Giganotosaurus is going to make up (use something called common sense!) ..hmph..! .so much for T-man's points...

"Leonard, I think what you said about paleontologists say about is a bunch of bull. Many paleontologists say the spinosaurus could kill a sauropod. There's no way an animal that big could sustain itsef on fish. Many paleontologists say they fed on other dinosaurs."

Uh huh, you forget that the fishes back then are huge, in the range of 10 feet and more. One catch like that can easily sasitify a Spino for up to two days. And besides, there has been NO evidence of Spinosaurs ever attacking large sauropods (while we do have evidence of Allosaurids doing so) The best we ever got from a Spinosaur was it hunting a juvinile iguanadon...tough catch... And erm, actually not too many paleontologist think Spinosaurus can catch large sauropods or was built to do so, I was asking around my musuem. I don't know who is telling more bull here? A guy who said dactyl's were extremely predatory and could take on humans of an equvalent weight? Foe goodness sakes, their bones were only 1mm thick!
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 6, 2001