Jason, a fossil trackway of a large carnivrous dinosaur shows it did exibit stalking behaviour in regard to its prey. If that is the case, I think its certainly possible for Tyrannosaurus rex to stalk. I mean I don't think Tyrannosaurus rex would have moved without making much noise at all. I've seen 4-ton elephants move in the jungle before, and they hardly make any noise, they don't bring down trees or snap branches or rustle leaves. And these animals were less nimble than Tyrannosaurus rex. And if Tyrannosaurus rex was approaching his prey from downwind, the prey will not be able to hear (sound is badly affected by wind) or smell him until he got too close. I think Tyrannosaurus rex can certainly stalk. He had the ability to do so. I don't think he gave much warning to his prey at all. And I doubt unless he accidently snapped a branch or something, he would get pretty close to his prey, close enough to be considered stalking anyway.
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Jason, your points and comments are extremely simplistic and not well-thought out. It seems to me you are not really intrested in finding out the truth at all. Everytime you say something, the rex fans will simply put out all the scientific info and fact and have you trapped in a gutter. You responses in return while not childish like Sean's, are certainly lacking in good scientific fact at all. And you're making alot of assumptions and lously poor compairisms...ranging from spiders to top-heavy birds, the look of fossils and so on and so forth. I'm just a outside observer but I'm speaking up now because you scientific inapitude is just filling up this forum with crapola. Frankly, you should just refrain from posting anymore as its obvious to me that you know very little on animals or dinosuars for that matter. Please go and widen your knowledge away from the victorian era before you post again. Seeing such poor pieces of work that are your posts are an eyesore. This is not a message in any debate, I'm just saying that Jason should go learn some things. I'm not rooting for the rex fans or gig fans, just scientific correctness here. And Jason is lacking that. I mean the points he posts are unscientific and annoying in their simple-mindness while the posts of the people posting back are so well-though out and extremely scientific. Really, Jason should go and bother some Preschool kids instead of the scientists in this room. And people, you don't have to respond to such a buffon also, its not worth your time. No point giving him free lessons in biology or such, just let him fail a test, exam or something to let him learn.
from Anonymous, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Egh...I've just looked at the boen diagrams Leonard posted and would like to say to Jason:

ACTUALLY, you are so wrong, T-Rex appeared to be the better runner of those two, Giganotosaurus looks fat. And T-Rex legs are more graceful and powerful than Giganotosaurus legs too.
from Joshua, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Like the falcon almost always overcomes the hawk in combat, T-Rex will almost always overcome Giganotosaurus in combat. T-Rex was just too advanced and had too many advantages for Giganotosaurus to keep up with. Sean can try to argue that tese advantages don't matter much, but he fails to come up with a reason for it besides putting up lame and wrong and obviously fake anatalogies. So all I'm seeing here is, he's just desperate and he's knowing that he's fighting a losing battle. For goodness sake! Being more advanced and agile and faster and harder hitting and tougher is CERTAINLY an big advantage! It's like saying the modern 50 ton M1 Abrams tank had no significant adantages over a WW2 60 ton Tiger 2 despite being more advanced, moving faster, packing way more firepower and packing more armour protection! Heck, any body looking into arms races both in weapons technology and biology will tell you that T-Rex certainly had advantages that are going t! o count...a lot.

And to argue anywise will be to behave like Saddam Hussien telling his republican guard tank commanders that the American tanks had no advantages over them despite being harder hitting, faster, and better protected than their own T-72s. Not to mention the iraquis had a 3:1 advantage over the Americans. If we went by Sean's logic, we'll say there would be somewhat of a fair fight, but in reality, the American M1 tanks shot apart, blew up, and blasted over 1,500 emeny tanks into obvilion without even losing one of their own. Nope, ask anybody studying biology and you'll see T-Rex is going to have massive advantages over Giganotosaurus, to the point of being akin of matching a M1 Abrams against a T-72.

There is no substitute for advanced technology and superior firepower, and T-Rex has the advantages in both areas. To say anywise is to show you're blatantly stupid...but we do have a lot of such people here.
from Joshua, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"And by the way, ducks are not top heavy. Neither are geese. They would not be able to swim if they were."

Uh...such a large body balanced ontop of two small legs? If that's not top heavy, I'm not sure what it was. And it didn't matter if they were for their legs sat underwater and it was the top heavy part that floated. Anyway I don't see the point of this, all running birds are still top heavy so you attempt at generalization I'm afraid, has failed miserably.
from Emar for the socially malajusted, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Yeah! What crapola is Jason talking about? I've just taken at the two diagrams posted by Leonard and T-man looks a heck load more agile, stronger, and built for speed than Giganotosaurus. T-man looks mean, not fat, Giganotosaurus looks fat to me.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"and had long graceful legs. "

Uh oh...if you are saying this because of its' (Giganotosaurus) long femur length you are going to wrong way. Tyrannosaurids actually had to most graceful legs for all large carnivores. And I'm afraid that people who look far more into these fossils would disagree with you out of the question...

Refrence:

"Tyrannosaurus is MORE gracile than Deinonychus!! It is also more gracile than any other 5 tonne critter, Mesozoic or Cenozoic!

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

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

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

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

If we can use functional morphology as a guide, tyrannosaurids were faster than any other group of large theropod (allosauroid, megalosauroid, neoceratosaur). This may not mean that they were fast as racehorses, but they were adapted to (for a large animal) high speed and agility.

by Thomas R. Holtz, Jr."

We do seem to qoute him a lot, but he's the guy who has the most extensive knowledge into meat eating dinosaurs than Bakker, and certainly even Horner. I think they are now using what?After the dazzaling sucess in Walking With Dinosaurs to create accucrate dinosaurs models, computer simulations are not being used to test out how dinosaurs actually moved? So we should find out more soon.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Ducks look very top heavy to me and by siting them, you aren't helping yourself, Ducks are no runners.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Actually Jason, both T.rex and Giganotosaurus had heads that are of the same weight, and Giganotosaurus had a heavier upper body. You are actually describing how powerfully built T.rex was in your post.
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"Lots of modern predators have similiar advantages t.rex had. "

Actually (my favourite word), paleontologists say there is nothing in the modern world that was quite like Tyrannosaurus, therefore you cannot really said they had advantages similar to T.rex. Can you find me an animal that bit at 20,000 newtons and than fight it against an animal that could only bite at 1,000? No. Sean, pelase do your homework.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"PS: I have just been from the museum, and have compared the skeletons of Giganotosaurus and Stan the T.rex(Are there any other named skeletons besides Tyrannosaur?) And this is what I saw:
The Tyrannosaur skeleton was fat, had a huge heavy head, and short, chunky legs. Giga, on the other hand was not fat, had a head that was lighter, awhich made it less top heavy, and had long graceful legs. And by the way, ducks are not top heavy. Neither are geese. They would not be able to swim if they were."

Un oh, if you live in Dayton, Ohio and is just back from your musuem...you seem to be describing the IMOH fossil that has the wrong legs! I'm not sure what you mean by clunkly and short, but you could be refering the the extremely short femur length on Tyrannosaurus (Tyrannosaurids have extremely short femur lengths), making their legs look funny. This is actually normal and the lower leg bones of Tyrannosaurus were certainly much longer. Tyrannosaurus was still more gracile and his limbs as you described were not clumsly because they were clunky and big, but were as I am saying, immenensely well muscled to move such a 6-ton animal very fast. And your descripition of Tyrannosaurus having a heavier built body seems normal to me, as this animal was much more heavily built and muscled than Giganotosaurus. And I'm not sure what you mena by "fat", just by the look of the fossils or what? That's because Tyrannosaurus was actually more well muscled than Giganotosaurus that's why his body was heavily built. "Fat" however, would apply better to Giganotosaurus due to his deeper hipbone, he had a lot more non-muscle mass on him. As I said, you can't tell from the fossils that easily. If anything, your description seems to enhance our point that Tyrannosaurus was more agile and faster.

http://www.geocities.com/logosaurus/giganotosaurus.gif

http://www.geocities.com/logosaurus/tyran.gif

As you can see, Tyrannosaurus was much more well muscled and gracile than Giganotosaurus.

Here, I'll post two diagrams for you guys to compare.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Yes, the site also compares the speculative dinosaurs to animals like primates, which would obviously never have evolved if the K-T asteroid event never occurred...
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

I'll try to be more unbiased in my Giganotosaurus - Tyrannosaurus bout assessment.

Someone here posted the bite force of a lion a few days ago. I forgot the exact figure. I think it's 500 - 1000 newtons. I need someone to verify this. Also, someone here posted the possible bite force of a Giganotosaurus. That is somewhere between 1000-2000 newtons. So now we have an idea of how strong Giganotosaurus bites.

Recently, I saw a footage--the scene is an African savannah showing a gentle river, a sort of a water buffalo, few feet from it, and 10 lions trying to kill it. The funny thing is, the entire lion pack tried to kill it for about a few minutes but they weren't able to do it. They caused a lot of puncture to the animal in the legs, slowing it down but that didn't kill it. It just slowed it down.

As the buffalo slowly goes to the river, the entire lion pack gave up because they weren't able to do a sufficient damage to the animal. They don't want to slug it out with the water buffalo in the water.

I now imagine a Giganotosaurus attacking a sauropod. If it has a lousy bite force like that (which is just at most 4 times as strong as a bite of a lion), then if he'll attack a sauropod (which is a big-a$$ thick skinned creature by a wide margin compared to a buffalo)-it's big body would definitely somehow offset Giganotosaurus' bite. The only thing that Gigano can do is to make multiple bites, lacerating the sauropod, til it bleeds to death.
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that Gigano isn't a single-bite-getting-chunks-of-meat type of a theropod, unlike T-Rex.

Let's see where the Gigano fans have a valid point
1. Gigano is stronger (it may affect the outcome of the fight)
2. Even if Tyrannosaurus is smarter, these two animals will just act by pure instinct if they engage in a fight so intelligence is negligible here (I somehow agree with this)
3. Giganotosaurus has a longer jaw (I don't think this has any significance at all. If it has, it may only be minimal)
4. Bite force is negligible (No way. 20000 against 2000 is nowhere near negligible)
T-Rex's capabilities that cannot be ignored
1. Bone crushing bite force
2. Agility

Let's see how the fight will happen. Big theropods' body is oriented much like chicken. Body is parallel to ground and not fully upright as what old books and articles suggested. So I doubt if they'll kick (literally) each other out. For an animal with a body parallel to the ground (like a rooster or any theropod), if it'll attack his opponent using its feet, then it must get airborne. I doubt if T-Rex or Gigano would do that.
Or both may try stepping on the opponents' tail to minimize it's movement. But since their tails ore off the ground when they walk, I doubt if one could step on the tail of the other.
Or they may use a running head butt to knock down their opponent (then it would be easier to attack it):
Which has the better momentum? T-Rex is lighter but faster. Gigano is heavier but slower. That would equalize things. No one has an advantage here.

Race for who gets the first bite-possibly the most possible scenario here. Possible areas of attack: tail, legs, neck and head. I'm kinda skeptic about the last one.

Most possible and least risky is the neck obviously (so somehow JP3 showed something believable by showing the fighting dinos targeting their opponents' neck).

The one who has best chances of winning is the one getting the first bite. Now who has the better chances of getting the first bite? The one with the longer jaw or the one with better maneuverability?
And with Giganos lousy bite, I doubt more than ever if it'll make a decent grip to hold an agitated T-Rex assuming it gets the first bite.
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 10, 2001

The problem with t.rex fans,is that they see only what they want to see! T.rex may not have been as impressive as you think it is. I don't listen to dinosaur fans,I listen to the experts! Honkie Tong,you weren't around during the time of the dinosaurs,to conduct scientific research.(And who was?) (So how could you say t.rex is simply better?!) I find it hard to believe t.rex was as perfect as you make it out to be! What if t.rex wasn't smart enough to make a difference? If allosaurids couldn't beat t.rex,than the other carnivores wouldn't even stand a chance! You t.rex fans accuse me of being a jerk. Well i'm not the problem. Guys like Damean are the problem! All that guy ever does,is talk trash! (Nevermind him though.) If Jason is innocent,then why am I the bad guy?! Anyway,the mandibles of giganotosaurus are very ! large and powerfully constructed for a carnivore. When we look at the skull of giganotosaurus,there is no way it had a weak bite! Its obvious giganotosaurus could beat t.rex! (don't hide it) This is not about who bites the hardest,(Although this is something to be taken seriously.)this is about who is the dominant overall fighter! In the flesh,giganotosaurus was a very powerful carnivore! (You just have to imagine giganotosaurus alive.) Lots of modern predators have similiar advantages t.rex had. (But they aren't everything they're cracked up to be,are they?) So what makes you think t.rex was everything,it was cracked up to be?! T.rex was not hands down the best! Can we get off this debate? (its getting nowhere)
from Sean.S, age 13, ?, ?, U.S.A.; August 10, 2001

JC, u need to go into all of my docudramas and center the titles and chapter numbers as well as indent the paragraphs, because thats how i write them, and they keep showing up with everything starting at the left margin.
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, private property, who cares?; August 10, 2001
No, I don't need to. If you want to center a section, surround it with

Spinosaurus can beat t-rex. Spinosaurus can get to 55 feet long and t-rex can get up to only 40 feet long. T-rex has little arms and spino has very big arms. Spino was the baddest walking carnivore that ever walked the earth.
from Ben C, age 14, Bainbridge, Ga, USA; August 10, 2001

I like the Euclasaurs too, although the Great Euclasaur is a bit too mammal-like IMHO. TSDP might be a bit too conservative in some taxa, but there is a lot of really interesting stuff. My favourite picture? A saber-toothed tyrannosaur trying to attack a woolly therizinosaur!
(http://members.gotnet.net/maier/Spec/Errosaurinae(As).html)

There's one thing I don't get about TSDP, though. Is there supposed to be humans in this alternate version of our planet? It seems like large mammals never evolved, but then you see quotes like this:

"Psittacosus was initially described as a ceratopsian. A subsequent anatomical study conclusively proved that the animal was not a marginocephalian but an aberrant ornithopod. Recent biochemical studies suggest that it is a highly derived "old-endemic" dryomorph related to the Neodryosauridae."

So who studied these things? Something to ask the site's creator, I guess.

So what do all of you think modern dinosaurs might look like? I haven't deccided what my dinosaur populated Cenozoic might be like.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 10, 2001

Coelophysis was one of the earliest dinosaurs. Paleontologists think that light bones and long legs made coelophysis a very fast
runner. Fossil huners in new mexico have found dozens of coelophysis skeletons on a ranch called ghost ranch. Some people say that evrey night on ghost ranch
coelophysis ghosts come out and dance! This name means hollow form.

Velociraptor had a long sharp claw on each foot. It could tuck the claw out of the way when it ran. When it captured
its prey, it could bring the claw down to attack it. In 1971, dinosaur hunters found fossils of velociraptor holding a tight grip to the skull of a protoeratops.
This name means spedy robber.

Tyrannosaurus rex is the most famous flesh eating dinosaur of all time. It had 60 sharp teeth-many were 6 inches long. It had the head the size of a bathtub.

One t-rex mouthful could feed a famly of humans for weeks. T-rex had big strong legs. But its arms were so short they could't even reach its mouth!paleongologists

think that t-rex used its arms to stand up after a nap.this name means tyrant lizard. So far, only one giganotosaurus has been found so far. But dinosaur hunters think
that this gint was bigger than t-rex! Dinosaur hunters are still hunting for more gigonotsaurus skeletons. Its possible thatwhen they find them gignotosaurus will
replace tyrannosaurus as the king of the meat eating dinosaurs.stegosaurus was the size of a mini-van. It had 4 long spikes on the end of its tail.

It had big flat plates groing out of its back. Stegosaurus had a very small head. Stegosauruses brain was the size of a golfball, But dinosaur hunters think it looked
like a hot dog! Triceratops had a face like a scary halloween mask. It had a beack like a parrots, & 3 long horns. Triceratops probobly used their horns to fight off
meat eaters. But triceratops could have also have used their horns to fight over a female. Brachiosaurus looked a little bit like a girrafe. It had a very long neck and a
small head. Its nostrils were on top of its head! It had front legs that were longer than its backlegs! But brachiosaurus was twice as tall as a girafe!
from The most fersome creature EVER to walk the earth, age who knows, DINOSAUR WORLD, DINOSAUR WORLD, PANGEA!; August 10, 2001

"no, a tatic they discovered on their own cannot be passed down by their genes."

Well, I was trying to say the tendency to hunt that way was passed down, guess I need to phrase better...

"It could be that your image of the agility we meant involved Matrix (tm.) style moves, doing flying cartwheels to avoid Triceratops horns while rolling over midair, clamping the jaws onto the neck and ripping them out as the Tyrannosaur twisted back and landed on its feet, or leaping up, hitting the ground, and rolling hard to avoid and Ankylosaur tail while striking at the underbelly of the armoured dinosaur. Or prehaps running up to 40 Mph, leaping into the air, twisting the entire body around and landing a double-legged kick into a hardosaur, blasting it back 30 meters and killing it. Or my personal favourite, running into a tree with a dome-headed dino in full pursuit, running UP the tree trunk before pushing off, doing a blackflip, landing on its feet behind its pursurer to kill it."

Well no, I read that you said Tyrannosaur would be frighteningly agile for a creature of his size, and I don't buy that, I certainley didn't think you said Tyrannosaurus rex (fun word!) could jump about like that guy from The Matrix(tm.).

PS: I have just been from the museum, and have compared the skeletons of Giganotosaurus and Stan the T.rex(Are there any other named skeletons besides Tyrannosaur?) And this is what I saw:
The Tyrannosaur skeleton was fat, had a huge heavy head, and short, chunky legs. Giga, on the other hand was not fat, had a head that was lighter, awhich made it less top heavy, and had long graceful legs. And by the way, ducks are not top heavy. Neither are geese. They would not be able to swim if they were.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 10, 2001

"I'm reading an extremely cool dino site! The Speculative Dinosaur Project: http://members.gotnet.net/maier/Spec.html"

That is a very cool site, I've been looking at it occasionally for the past few weeks. The "euclasaurs" are very interesting.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

my storey (THE SPINO) is coming PLESE look at it
from samy, age 10, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

I'm reading an extremely cool dino site! The Speculative Dinosaur Project: http://members.gotnet.net/maier/Spec.html
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 10, 2001

Ok, as a final post here tonight in my posting marathon.

"Well, mate, we've found 'er. She's eatin' rioght ova 'ere. Be vary cotious, mate, we don' wonna warn 'er. This is the T-rex l'm gonna kwill. One bite from 'im, and it's oll ova'. OH CRIKEEEEYY-AUGH! YEEEOWW!! Argh! Crikey! it appears my 'ead is off, mate! See ya on in da bog!"

Mr Floppy, I'll try my best to translate this to Singlish (Singaporean Slang)

"Ah ah ah, there there, we found her liao. She's now makaning over there. Don't play play ah, brudder, dun let her know we arr here ah. This is der Tyrannorsauren rex we have to hamtam. Kenna one time from her, you confirm mati one. AHH! WAH LAUUUUUUUU-ARRRRR! OWWWW!! Aaaa! Sieow Liao, my head gone oready, game over liao, I die oready!"
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"This point is irrelevant. Coelurosaur, or carnosaur, he is dumber than a chicken,
Actually (no insult here alright?), paleontologists have said that Tyrannosaurus is certainly going to be very intelligent for the dinosaurs we are used to not because he was a coelurosaur, but because he INHERITED the coelurosaurian trait of having a considerably higher intelligence than other dinosaurs.

reference:"Finally (whew!!), tyrannosaur brains are indeed larger than those of allosaurs (like Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Carcharodontosaurus) of the same body size, by almost a 2:1 factor. (Incidentally, this is discounting the olfactory bulbs, which are the smelling centers. Those of tyrannosaurs are immense, but those of the allosaurs have yet to be studied). Tyrannosaurs are members of the Coelurosauria, the most advanced group of meat-eaters, and are descendants of small-bodied, fast running, agile predators. Tyrannosaurids inherited their big brains (relatively speaking) from their little ancestors. It would have been advantageous to the tyrannosaurs in hunting their very advanced and sophisticated prey. Duckbills and horned dinosaurs (the main prey of the tyrannosaurs) were big-brained for plant eaters, may have had more complex herd structures, and were faster and more agile, compared to sauropods and stegosaurs (the main prey of allosaurs).

Tom Holtz, theropod specalist"

Woah, big refrence!

Ok, next question:

"...unable to think up any tactics, and unable to think about the battle and use an original battle plan. His only "tactic" is run in, bite, and hold on. And did he think that one up? No. One of his ancestors, when they got larger, found that this "tactic" worked BY ACCIDENT, and passed it on."

Personally, Tyrannosaurus struck me more of a instinctive hunter, more like the eagles, than a thinking hunter like man. Wait a minute...virtually all animal predators save primates, and some smarter animals are instinctive hunters. So thought would not be a large part of their hunting...heh heh, it was well enough, as they didn't have arms long enough to draw battle plans in the sand anyway.

Ok, enough humour. BUT, I'd like to add that being more intelligent, he would have certianly been capable of having extremely complex hunting behaviours (not just the simple one you sugested) True enough, T.rex did live in many different habitats and seemed to hunt well enough all over the place, a good indication of his flexability as a predator. He was not constricted to one enviroment. Ok, I'm starting to digress, but back to the point, no, a tatic they discovered on their own cannot be passed down by their genes. Not unless you want to buy the theory of giraffes straining their necks longer and passing trait down to further generations to be added on until they got their long necks today.(Ps: Study the history of biology) BUT, since Tyrannosaurus was considerably more complex and birdlike than other carnivorous dinosaurs, it could be programmed in their genes to TEACH thier young how to hunt in a particular method that worked for them (I'm not saying they actually happened, but it's an possibility). It's not as 'chim' as it seems, and seeing how fast the Tyrannosauirds replaced their allosaurid counterparts, being more "instinctively complex" would have played a large role in this part.

There you have it.

The idea that Tyrannosaur is any by the smallest mragin smrater than this, is nonsensical."
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"T.rex He rocks! He eats humans!"

Huh? Since when? Unless you want to count a fossil skull falling on you, crushing and piercing you withs its teeth as "eating".
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"Hey, I got that idea, because people say he had stronger jaws, so they say he was stronger. And a person can open a doberman's mouth with their hands, but you need metal to open a pit bull's mouth. I'd say a pit bull's jaws are quite a bit stronger. Guys, if a predator weighs more than other predator, I doubt the lighter predator would stronger in muscle. The T-rex got up to 7 tons, and the giganotosaurus got up to 8 tons. Why would a 7 ton carnosaur, be stronger than an 8 ton carnosaur."

Wow that's alot of questions!

Well T-man, I don't think people (or the sane ones at least) think that animals are stronger because of their bite force. Pit Bulls do have strong jaws, but the difference we are looking between Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus is mroe akin to the difference in bite force between a wolf and an alligator. And even that comparism does not really match up well, for we still don't have data on Tyrannosaur attack bite forces (which will be considerably higher than the 13,000 newton figure that indicated it's normal feeding bite) Computer simulations have indicated that Tyrannosaurus would have been able to bite up to 40,000 newtons or even more, but I'll choose 20,000 as a conservative estimate. Even so, the difference between those animals will be considerable, too much to match a pit bull and a doberman as a good anatology!

Weight has been a traditional way of matching the strength of the animal between animals of the same basic body morph. Like Giganotosaurus to an allosaurid like Yangchaunosaurus (I not sure if it's an allosaurid) or Allosaurus. Going by this, weight is a good way to estimate strength.

Now this method becomes less effective in compairing strengths between animals of different morphs. For example, a 70 kilo gorilla and a 70 kilo human. Despite being the same weight, the gorilla is going to be much stronger than the human for fact that it was much more heavily muscled. Now, even if the human had a considerable weight advantage of say, 10 kilos? So he'll be weighing 80 kilos now, the gorilla will still be stronger by a wide margin. Now do you see the problem with determining strength by weight between animals of considerable difference in body morph? It can't work for the reason the body designs are different and will have different strength-to-weight ratios. As the morphlogical structure of Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus was very different, using weight to determine strenght will be a bad idea.

So to compare strengths in such cases, we'll have to actually dump the shortcut weight method, and look closely into the construction of the animals themselves. How much gross muscle did the animal actually have? How heavily built was it? And a range of other factors to actually find out how animals match up.

Finally, Tyrannosaurus, despite being slightly smaller and lighter (though this may be no longer true), was much more heavily built (as in robust, not as in actually "heavy") and muscled than Giganotosaurus. This meant that Tyrannosaurus would not only be much stronger than a Giganotosaurus of the same size, it would still have been stronger than a Giganotosaurus with a size advantage on it. In fact Tyrannosaurids are approximately 30-35 percent more massively muscled than your typical allosaur. When it comes to Spinosaurs heh...heh, they certainly were in turn, weaker than your typical allosaurid.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"I may have an anger problem,that doesn't mean I don't try to be nice though."

In that case, I advice you take a break from things here for a while.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

"It says AGILITY."

It could be that your image of the agility we meant involved Matrix (tm.) style moves, doing flying cartwheels to avoid Triceratops horns while rolling over midair, clamping the jaws onto the neck and ripping them out as the Tyrannosaur twisted back and landed on its feet, or leaping up, hitting the ground, and rolling hard to avoid and Ankylosaur tail while striking at the underbelly of the armoured dinosaur. Or prehaps running up to 40 Mph, leaping into the air, twisting the entire body around and landing a double-legged kick into a hardosaur, blasting it back 30 meters and killing it. Or my personal favourite, running into a tree with a dome-headed dino in full pursuit, running UP the tree trunk before pushing off, doing a blackflip, landing on its feet behind its pursurer to kill it.

Ok, I was blowing things up a little.

Of course at 6-tons, Tyrannosaurus wasn't exactly a suitable dance-partner for Bambi (barring the fact that it was carnivorous). But the point we are trying to get here is, this dinosaur would have been extremely agile FOR ITS SIZE. And certainly much more agile than your elephant or rhino. But I'm not going as far as to say it would have been as nimble as a troodon or something. But most certainly agile enough to be predatory.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

O.K. LETS SEPERATE ALL THESSE--UM DINOSAURS INTO THERE TIME PEREODS WHO WAS SMART WHO WAS DUMB? WHO WILL SURVIVE IN WHAT? I AM A DINOSAUR EXPERT AND YOU BETTER BELIVE IT! ASK ME A QUISTION WHENEVER YOU WHANT.

HOW DID THE DINOSAURS DIE?

HOW DID AND WHEN DID THEY LIVE?

AND THE MAIN question is...WHO LIVED WITH WHO?
IF I DON'T KNOW I CAN GIVE YOU PLACES TO LOOK FOR THE ANSER.
from The most fersome creature EVER to walk the earth, age who knows, DINOSAUR WORLD, DINOSAUR WORLD, PANGEA!; August 10, 2001

"Wow! That's actually NOT a complement. Chickens are actually quite stupid. On par with ostriches? By the way, eagles are not as smart as you think. The crow is the smartest bird."

Hmm...I'll have to disagree with you here. I rear chickens and do know quite a bit about their anatomy. And yes, I can testify to the fact that Chickens are actually quite intelligent for most birds, complex, and extremely predatory creatures. And you don't have to be extremely brainly to hunt, eagles do just fine with their intelligence. It's possible Tyrannosaurs did exbit intelligence similar to an eagle or an ostrich (dosen't sound like much, but its an incredible feat in dinosaurian terms). But being brainly does allow you to be more flexible in your hunting methods, so it's likely Tyrannosaurus would have shown more varied and complex hunting behaviours than the less-intelligent allosaurids. The crow is almost certainly the smartest bird though, along with parrots. I actually have to crack my brains on out to outwit them in order to get close enough to hit them with my catapult, unlike the other birds in my neighbourhood. Crows are extremely smart buggers...those animals! ...

(no animals were harmed in the making of this post, the author was using non-letal projectiles against his targets)

"The word "actually" is quite insulting. Plus, not all birds are top heavy."

Actually, we (or at least me) don't mean to belittle you or anything when I say "actually". So no harm intended and you don't have to feel insulted. Hmm...I'm not sure on what you mean by "not all birds are top heavy" I looked through as many diagrams of our modern avian dinosaurs as possible after reading your post, covering as many different morphlogial designs as possible. All the birds seem pretty top-heavy to me! In fact, the running birds (that we are modeling bipeidal dinosaurian movement) seemed to be the most top-heavy, with large bodies perched ontop of ridiculusly gracile legs! And they don't seem have problems with agility, stability or speed at all. And not to mention they would have been less well balanced than your typical nonavian, bipedial dinosaur, lacking a considerable counterbalancing tail.

"What is your definition of thought here? I am referring to complex thought, not the simple "thinking" that an animal like stegasaurs had. In the genes part, I was saying that you pass on GENETIC INFORMATION, not MEMORIES. "

I like drawing chicken anatologies here, but being humans, we do have extreme problems with understanding how animals actually think due to our preception of "intelligence" based on ourselves. But I think the more-intelligent dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus might have the ability for more complex learning, just like in chickens. Hmm...genetic information can't pass down something the animal learned, but you can be right to say that Tyrannosaurus could have had the GENECTIC INFORMATION to have the ability TEACH the next generation what it learned, so you may be right in the sense of the word.

"Define incredible. Incredible for the ostritch? Incredible for humans?
Sea otters? And I know I screwed up on that "horse with a stick" thing."

I'm not also not sure what Luke meant by incredible distances. But I guess running at 45mph for 5 kilometers is kinda "incredible" for land animals. But ostriches can run for long distances though, compaired to the other animals of the african savanna.

"Wounds on the tail of an animal don't mean anything. The hadrosaur could have turned away at the moment of attack, or smelled an approaching Tyrannosaur, ran, and got a nick on the tail. That doesn't mean the thing was being ambushed, nor does it mean that the pursuer was stalking it. Since when did bears start stalking? The forest would be a good place to satlk, but certainly not a good place to attack. I can see it now... "

There are many things to infer from the healed wound, but it does mean one thing:

T.rex did hunt.

It didn't matter how he did it, it didn't matter why he did it, it didn't matter when he did it, but he did hunt. And having proved that he attacked live animals is more than adequate. Since when did bears start stalking? I'm not sure, but it's most likely since they became predators (heh heh) Bears are known to sucessfully stalk and capture prey like deer, other smaller bears, and sometimes humans (though humans are kinda easly to stalk with your typical subject walking around with his headphones in full blast). And you forget that besides stalking, T.rex could also lay in ambush behind cover and waited for a hardosaur herd to hunt. Unless he was super-tyrannosaur and was capable of chasing down prey that spotted him 1 click away or something, I don't think he'll be very overt in his hunting methods. So stealth did play a large role in this animal's place.

"A Tyrannosaur is waiting for the moment to attack. Its prey is nearby. A lone hadrosaur. Unfortunatly, he had recieved word from several people at Zoom Dinosaurs that he could stalk things and attack things IN THE FOREST. The mighty creature took this false info to be true, and decided to try. The hadrosaur bent down to eat a fern. The king of dinosaurs roared with triumph and charged. The hadrosaur saw the monster at the last moment and ran, getting a nick in the tail. The T.rex gave chase, but didn't get far, as a root in the ground caused the rex to trip and fall. He got a nice chunk of his skull taken off from a sharp rock, and hit the ground hard. At least THIS genetic nonsense wouldn't be passed on. "

Well, as I have proved, Tyrannosaurs are certainly capable in being covert in their hunting mathods, so this story is another piece of digital nonsense that will not be passed on. Of course, it's not good for you to start character assasination here, it's really bad for your own character...
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

Hey guys, lay off Jason will you. I've noticed that he's not being mean, but he is simply buying Jack Horner's "theory" on T.rex being a scavenger. So its no surprise his knowledge of animal biology is a litttle screwly sometimes. He's not trying to put out false info or trying to piss people off, he's just misinformed, and because of that, the points he makes seem rather weird. We can beat on a person for being mean and irrational, but Jason is not one of that. Think about it, how would you like it if you were trying to put your point which you think is right across with no intent to annoy people or blast them, and got blasted instead. I know all or us here are a little-trigger happy because of people like Sean, but Jason is not one of them, so we should speak nicely back to him.

"All this talk about bone crushing jaws,is so laughable! T.rex would have to get right in the face of giganotosaurus,to get a good grip. While t.rex struggles to get a bite in,giganotosaurus could probably counter it,and deliver a bite of it's own! ( Not to mention giganotosaurus was stronger,than you think!) Not only did I learn the truth about Often wrong,but the t.rex fans are in serious trouble!"

Actually Guile does have a point. A Giganotosaurus getting in one bite for ever sucessful Tyrannosaurus bite is kinda like trading a punch for a stab. You could take a few punches, but a stab is going to be much more damaging. In fact, unless Giganotosaurus got in AT LEAST SEVEN bites for one T.rex bite, he'll be recieving much more damage. T.rex simply had a much more damaging weapon, and its the sheer firepower of the bite that really matters here, not how many bites you get in. Heck, if we took Sean's arguments in, we'll say that a rat could effectively counter a cat if it got one bite in for every bone-dislocating bite the cat gave it. Nope, Sean's logic certainly dosen't work here.

CHARACTER ASSASINATION ALERT!

Somebody started calling me "Often Wrong" again?

And if I'm "Often Wrong" I'm estimating "Often Wrong" means that I am wrong what? 40 to 50 percent of the time. Now let's do some simple maths accoring to Seans's "Often Wrong" labeling.

Statement one: I am wrong 40-50 percent of the time.

Statement two: Sean is known for 90 percent one of his points debunked by me, and I happen to be correct.

Therefore, if I am wrong 40-50 percent of the time, and I still manage to debunk Sean 90 percent of the time, simple maths will tell you:

50 * 90 = 450

Therefore, Sean is wrong 450 percent of the time. And that will mean that he is as somebody suggested,"Always Wrong"

And as he is Always Wrong, this means that his statement about me being "Often Wrong" is not true, therefore the converse is correct and I am always right.

And I say that he's Always Wrong, therefore, since I have proved mathatically that I am 100 percent accucrate, my statement about Sean being ALWAYS WRONG stands.

(Phew!)

Ps: Sean, this is an incentive for you to keep out of character assassinations. For the only character you are assassinating when you indulge in such discusting and immature activity is your own.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 10, 2001

The giant pliosaurs and sauropods vs the fin and blue whales. The pliosaurs and dinosaurs were heavier than fin whales who weighed 70 tons and 80 feet.The sauropods and pliosaurs rivalled the blue whales and liopleurodon weighed as much as 20 to 50 t-rex. And I know t-rex is a dangerous killer and king that can kill.Liopleurodon is longer than 15m. Some reached 25 m.So pliosaurs,sauropods or blue whales?
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; August 10, 2001

Hey... i want to start a dinosaur site... can anyone send me any info on dinosaurs and ideas for the site. thanx
from Jay R., age 14, ?, ?, USA; August 10, 2001

Sean, if Honkie is "Often Wrong", than you should be "Always Wrong".
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001

You Gigano fans make me laugh!

You're using the strength factor (cuz it is the only advantage you can think that Gigano has) as a guage of the outcome of the fight.

How will Giganos' strength come in to play when he battles T-Rex? He'll give t-rex a knockout punch?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

We all know that the battle would be a jaw-to-jaw one, and T-Rex will have the advantage. Probably, there'll also be a kicking battle. But do you expect to see a lot of those?
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 9, 2001

"All this talk about bone crushing jaws,is so laughable! T.rex would have to get right in the face of giganotosaurus,to get a good grip. While t.rex struggles to get a bite in,giganotosaurus could probably counter it,and deliver a bite of it's own! ( Not to mention giganotosaurus was stronger,than you think!) Not only did I learn the truth about Often wrong,but the t.rex fans are in serious trouble!"

No! What's laughable is ignoring 20000N against 1000N.
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 9, 2001

Lol! This T-Rex Gigano Spino doesn't refuse to end.

Anyone here noticed that T-Rex, of all theropods, is the most criticized of them all. He gets bashed by nasty criticisms for the past eternity, and somehow he managed to poved them wrong.

They doubted his speed and agility by using the lousy "his-legs-are big,-so-he-is-slow" type of argument. Now people know that he can outrun any carnosaur anytime of the day.
Then critics criticized the short arm too as a proof of scavenging. Does that have any merits at all?

I find it funy, that most pro Trex posts here are just defense aginsts Pro Spino, Gigano comments, but they totally beat their argument by a milestone.

So if we T-Rex fans started the attack, you Gigano and Spino fans will get you butt raped.

And please 20,000 newtons against 1000?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; August 9, 2001

"Wow! That's actually quite a complement. Chickens are actually quite high on the list of avian intelligence, on par with ostriches (which the raptors are believed to be about as intelligent). But I believe its more likely Tyrannosaurus had the intelligence about that of a modern predatory bird like an eagle. But no matter what, he certainly was much smarter than most of the dinosaurs of his time. Including Giganotosaurus."

Wow! That's actually NOT a complement. Chickens are actually quite stupid. On par with ostriches? By the way, eagles are not as smart as you think. The crow is the smartest bird.

"Actually all carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds are top-heavy."

The word "actually" is quite insulting. Plus, not all birds are top heavy.

"Actually all animals can think, even a Stegosaurus. But I certainly don't think Tyrannosaurus could have made up a plan or something (whoever came up with that? I didn't think you were that serious) But however, he could do things like single out prey for weakenesses, decide where to attack them from, in what direction, and how to avoid being detected by them. On the genes part, that extremely bad science Jason, you can't pass your memories onto your children by your genes."

What is your definition of thought here? I am referring to complex thought, not the simple "thinking" that an animal like stegasaurs had. In the genes part, I was saying that you pass on GENETIC INFORMATION, not MEMORIES.

"Unless dinosaurs have eight legs, this point is irrevelant."

My spiders are merely an example of an agile creature, eight-legged or not.

"And sadly, I will have to debunk you again. Ostriches are observed to run incredible distances at high speed, not to turn a flamethrower on a dead horse."

Define incredible. Incredible for the ostritch? Incredible for humans?
Sea otters? And I know I screwed up on that "horse with a stick" thing.

"Actually, healed injuries on some Hardosaur fossils indicated what appeared to be an injury inflicted by a Tyrannosaurus from behind, an indication part of his behaviour did include stalking and ambushing. It's extremely likely that Tyrannosaurus could stalk, and do it easily. Even large animals like bears can stalk. And a forrest enviroment is extremly good for a Tyrannosaur to stalk."

Wounds on the tail of an animal don't mean anything. The hadrosaur could have turned away at the moment of attack, or smelled an approaching Tyrannosaur, ran, and got a nick on the tail. That doesn't mean the thing was being ambushed, nor does it mean that the pursuer was stalking it. Since when did bears start stalking? The forest would be a good place to satlk, but certainly not a good place to attack. I can see it now...

A Tyrannosaur is waiting for the moment to attack. Its prey is nearby. A lone hadrosaur. Unfortunatly, he had recieved word from several people at Zoom Dinosaurs that he could stalk things and attack things IN THE FOREST. The mighty creature took this false info to be true, and decided to try. The hadrosaur bent down to eat a fern. The king of dinosaurs roared with triumph and charged. The hadrosaur saw the monster at the last moment and ran, getting a nick in the tail. The T.rex gave chase, but didn't get far, as a root in the ground caused the rex to trip and fall. He got a nice chunk of his skull taken off from a sharp rock, and hit the ground hard. At least THIS genetic nonsense wouldn't be passed on.

PS:
There are two "you don't know what the hell I'm talking about" messages because I feared they were not posted. Apparently someone almost implanted a virus in my computer. Grrr... but I have connections. They will pay. In the past few posts, people think I am saying T.rex wasn't speedy. I am not saying that. Look at the title of my "consider the following" post. It says AGILITY.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 9, 2001

">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."

I just can't buy sprawling ceratopsians for one reason--ichnoevidence. All representatives of ceratopsian trackways show relatively straight front legs (for example, the _Triceratops_ trackways recently discovered in a golf course site in my hometown of Golden, Colorado, which you may have heard about in the news).
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001

The Giganotosaurus Story, Chapter V is here!!!

It's coming....
from Shane S., age 1000, nowhere, private property, who cares?; August 9, 2001

I'm starting to feel guilty about calling Honkie Tong "Often wrong" again. I take that insult back. I'm starting to think that I shouldn't pick on him,so much. My dad tells me that he's just trying to defend his favorite dinosaur. I guess i'm feeling generous today. Honkie Tong if you'r reading this message right now,i'm sorry about what I said. I may have an anger problem,that doesn't mean I don't try to be nice though.
from Sean.S, age 13, ?, ?, U.S.A.; August 9, 2001

All this talk about bone crushing jaws,is so laughable! T.rex would have to get right in the face of giganotosaurus,to get a good grip. While t.rex struggles to get a bite in,giganotosaurus could probably counter it,and deliver a bite of it's own! ( Not to mention giganotosaurus was stronger,than you think!) Not only did I learn the truth about Often wrong,but the t.rex fans are in serious trouble!
from Revision z, age 13, ?, ?, U.S.A.; August 9, 2001

I don't think a study of Baryonychidae jaw strength tells us much about Spinosaurus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 9, 2001

"how many of jurassic park's dinos really exsist"

Since Jurassic Park is fictional, none of them do. But all of the dinos in the movies are based on real dinosaurs, some are just more accurate than others.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 9, 2001

T.rex He rocks! He eats humans!
from Kyle H., age 5, Sedro-Woolley, Washinton, United States; August 9, 2001

Hey, I got that idea, because people say he had stronger jaws, so they say he was stronger. And a person can open a doberman's mouth with their hands, but you need metal to open a pit bull's mouth. I'd say a pit bull's jaws are quite a bit stronger. Guys, if a predator weighs more than other predator, I doubt the lighter predator would stronger in muscle. The T-rex got up to 7 tons, and the giganotosaurus got up to 8 tons. Why would a 7 ton carnosaur, be stronger than an 8 ton carnosaur.
from T-man, age 17, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001

"Let's talk about my favorite, Brachiosaurus, for a change."

Hey, that's a really good idea. There are lots of things we can discuss- neck position, food requirements, purpose of nostril structure, whether B. brancai is a distinct genus (Giraffititan).... I'll go read about Brachiosaurus first, then maybe I'll get one of these topics going.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; August 9, 2001

G'day, mates! I recently returned from a trip to my local museum. While asking around, the paleontologists there gave me some unique insight into the paleontologist that first described Giganotosaurus. What I got at first was the vague "is he the git who exaggerates all the dinos he finds just to piss off the yanks?"

After asking why they said that, they told me that this guy was bull dusting almost everything about his finds to make Giganotosaurus look a heck lot meaner and dangerous and dramatic than de dinos up north like Dodonga Walladallas (T.Rex) just to attract attention to his finds. He happened to be the one that suggested that T.Rex and Giganotosaurus kept each other away from invading and crossing in each other's turf! I'm not sure about you, but ain't a bloke like a dino expert have to git some basic lessons in paleontology to know that such stuff was impossible? Also, his first estimates of Giganotosaurus were incredibly and blatantly exaggerated (58 feet!?). It wasn't until some other experts WANTED investigated his claims did he shrink this number to 45 feet (The real figure is now 43 feet). And he also made remarks about T.Rex having eyes facing to the side with no stereoscopic vision and Giganotosaurus having Tyrannosaurus-style stereoscopic vision. Something, which any billy can point out is blatantly wrong. It's clear from the start this guy will do anything just to make Giganotosaurus look good over your yankie's T.Rex to attract media attention, and we aussies see that. Unfortunately, I do have a more than passing acquaintance with the typical Australian paleontologist, and now they tell me this bloke is "describing" other South American large allosaurs…chances are, he'll try to pull another fast one to see if he can git away with bloody murder.

Now, pit him against the perfect killing machines: Tyrannosaurus. A ripper of a specimen! Fast, agile, semi-intelligent, and with the one of the best senses of smell and sight known in nature. If Giganotosaurus kid escape from such an animal…then he is…T.Rex himself. Cheers mate.

Giganotosaurus is actually not as mean as they make him out to be, and never will be. Could get out of a Wet paperbag though. And if he ever goes round the bend and decides fights T.Rex in the Bullamanka, he'll go down like a lizard flat out drinking. T.Rex will have no problem trouncing that ankle biter and will be busy as a one legged bloke in an arse kicking contest. T.Rex is all the go.

"Well, mate, we've found 'er. She's eatin' rioght ova 'ere. Be vary cotious, mate, we don' wonna warn 'er. This is the T-rex l'm gonna kwill. One bite from 'im, and it's oll ova'. OH CRIKEEEEYY-AUGH! YEEEOWW!! Argh! Crikey! it appears my 'ead is off, mate! See ya on in da bog!"
from Mr. Floppy, age ?, Perth, ?, Australia; August 9, 2001

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

Apparently you don't know WHAT the hell I'm talking about. An animal closer to the ground will have better agility, not speed.

"Also, T-Rex a coelurosaur, not a carnosaur."

This point is irrelevant. Coelurosaur, or carnosaur, he is dumber than a chicken, unable to think up any tactics, and unable to think about the battle and use an original battle plan. His only "tactic" is run in, bite, and hold on. And did he think that one up? No. One of his ancestors, when they got larger, found that this "tactic" worked BY ACCIDENT, and passed it on. The idea that Tyrannosaur is any by the smallest mragin smrater than this, is nonsensical.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; August 9, 2001

Jason is going on a lot of misconceptions and old info...
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001

"This evidence I believe, also supports Jack Horner's theory of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger."

Wrong theory to support. Not only do we have direct evidence of Tyrannosaurus hunting, virtually nobody except unbalanced anti-Tyrannosaurus fans agree with this theory. And morever, Jack Horner is an expert on Hardosaurs, not Tyrannosaurs! Not to blow up a dead horse, but virtually all paleontologists dispute his theory. With evidence, experts and pure logic working against him, the only reason I see for him to hold onto that theory is to save "face". But if you are taking you Tyrannosaur-ideas from him, wrong guy. For goodness sakes, he even described a Tyrannosaurus specimen with the WRONG legs (from the robustness morph) as part of his theory!
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, USA; August 9, 2001

"If you look at modern spiders, their legs are sprawled out, and the body is positioned very close to the ground."

Unless dinosaurs have eight legs, this point is irrevelant. And if you look at the biggest spider in the world, the Goliath Bird Eater, you'll realize that despite it's long legs sprawing to the side that put its body close to the ground, its horribly less agile when it comes to walking than other animals of the same size with long legs tucked underneath their body...like birds. Hmm...I don't think your point works.
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, U.S.A; August 9, 2001

"Tyrannosaur, being a biped, will not be able to move large distances in a chase."

It's unlikely that any large carnivorous dinosaur chased their prey for long distances like wolves today. BUT however, Tom Holtz did mention that Tyrannosaurs could have been able to actually run down their prey after some distance as they had the adapations to that. I'm not sure about that idea, but its a possibility, though I don't think Tyrannosaurus did chase its prey for ridiculusly long distances like wolves do today.

" but ostritches are like Tyrannosaur in they can run, bur not very far, and are not agile. "

And sadly, I will have to debunk you again. Ostriches are observed to run incredible distances at high speed, not to turn a flamethrower on a dead horse.

"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. "

Wow! That's actually quite a complement. Chickens are actually quite high on the list of avian intelligence, on par with ostriches (which the raptors are believed to be about as intelligent). But I believe its more likely Tyrannosaurus had the intelligence about that of a modern predatory bird like an eagle. But no matter what, he certainly was much smarter than most of the dinosaurs of his time. Including Giganotosaurus.

"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."

Actually all animals can think, even a Stegosaurus. But I certainly don't think Tyrannosaurus could have made up a plan or something (whoever came up with that? I didn't think you were that serious) But however, he could do things like single out prey for weakenesses, decide where to attack them from, in what direction, and how to avoid being detected by them. On the genes part, that extremely bad science Jason, you can't pass your memories onto your children by your genes.

"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."

Actually, healed injuries on some Hardosaur fossils indicated what appeared to be an injury inflicted by a Tyrannosaurus from behind, an indication part of his behaviour did include stalking and ambushing. It's extremely likely that Tyrannosaurus could stalk, and do it easily. Even large animals like bears can stalk. And a forrest enviroment is extremly good for a Tyrannosaur to stalk. In fact, I can easily envision how large carnivorous animals can stalk. And yes, Tyrannosaurus wasn't too proud to scavenge too. In fact, I'm quite sure not only will he not pass up a free meal, he'll kick the butt of the animal out who killed his meal to MAKE a free meal. But he was almost certainly a very capable hunter though. Tyrannosaurus could ambush, and he could do it good.

And what do you mean it could have been good at detecting carrion? It MUST have been good at decting carrion!
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, USA; August 9, 2001

"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."

Actually all carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds are top-heavy. So I don't see the point of this. Even humans are top-heavy. Hmm...if anything, the presense of a unstable center of gravity actually aids agility than deters it. Pretty much like modern jet fighters that are made unstable on purpose to dramatically improve agility. In fact, the aerospace engineers got that idea from nature.
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, USA; August 9, 2001

Jason, biologists have proved that there is no advantage in being a quadiped in terms of mobility except stability. Bipeds and quadipeds, given the right morphlogical structures, will be equal to each other in speed. On agilty though, bipeds will be much more agile. And bipeds with longer lower leg bones will be all the more agile as they had increased ability to leverage. Tyrannosaurus limbs have extremely long lower leg bones was massively muscled in the tight (3 times more than you'll expect if he had an elephant limb). There was also the presense of alot of shock-absorbing cartilage in the limbs and best of all, a Tyrannosaur footprint shows that its gait was extremely agile, and birdlike, nothing like the clumsly large land animals we see today. Contray to what you say, there is more than sufficent articulation in Tyrannosaur limbs for it to sidestep. In fact, the Tyrannosaurs can articulate their limbs to a much greater extent than all carnosa! urs (another carry-on from their ancestors). I afraid you are wrong. Tyrannosaurus was very agile.
from Luke, age 13, Salt Lake City, ?, USA; August 9, 2001

"How do you know how many NEURONS Tyrannosaur had?"

Sure, brain tissue is mainly made out of neurons, so if you have a larger brain, you almost certainly have alot of neurons. Tyrannosaurus certainly had alot of neurons more than Giganotosaurus or any carnivore for that matter. We may never know the exact number, but the fact that the area of his brain responsible for motor function was much larger than that of any Allosaur, I can conclude he will be much faster and more supple in moving his well-muscled body. Unless of course, he had no neuron cells but jello-o instead, then he would be pretty dumb. But this is a condition that only happens to humans in the case of politicans and the guy who asked that question I qouted.
from Emar, for the socially malajusted, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001

I admit T rex is sorta cool but lets face it it is not on top anymore I list bigger non dinos.SUCOMIMIS.Sucomimis is 50 feet.T rex is 40 feet.If they fought obbvisley Sucomimis would win.End of story.
from Peter, age 10, ?, ?, U.S.A; August 9, 2001

Hello people!

I just happened to surf on in to get some information for my little sister's dinosaur report and got to this notice board or something. Phew! That was tough work! Frankly I'd wish people here would talk more about the herbivores as they were pretty cool too. But carnivores are also a cool bunch!

As I read through all these messages in this Giganotosaurus/Spinosaurus vs. T.Rex debate, I can't help but notice that this is too much like the Gulf War. I mean the T.Rex fans are literally blowing up all the arguments and points of the Giganotosaurus/Spinosaurus fans and are having them on the full retreat. The T.Rex fans certainly seem to hold the advantage in cohorent points, superior knowledge and mature behaviour (though this is certainly lacking in both sides), and they are using this to devastating effect on thier opposition. Not to mention put up a dazzling display of to the onlooker such as me not involved. This is incredible work, they shot down, blew up, perforated, deflated and otherwise destroyed almost every argument from the opposition as soon as it came up, and best and most amazing of all. They are doing it intelligently, with scientific and logical backing, without the raving-lunatic, scientifically inaccurate and character assination style of one Giganotosa! urus fan I do not respect. I don't think my favourite dino Troodon would stand too much of a chance in this fight, so I'll keep him safely out of the way.

T.Rex has a lot of very good and skilled people on his side, and I wonder why. Is it because only the good and skilled people pick their favourite dinosaurs based on scientific fact and the truth instead of listening to hype like JP3? I have no idea. But with this kind of people on his side, I wouldn't dare to start a Troodon vs. T.Rex thing here. I'm trying to be impartial here, but I'll tell you that if I could choose the winning side to this debate, I certainly pick T.Rex. He has a way too strong case going for him.

Peace! Peace! Let there be peace!

Ok, enough about that. Can anybody tell me where to find more information about Ankylosaurus?
from Jede M., age 24, Just Surfed On In!, Yahoo, The United States of America; August 9, 2001

how many of jurassic park's dinos really exsist
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001

"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."

Actually, I think T-Rex would be just as agile as Spinosaurus, in this type of terrain. Possibly more so. Let's not forget that Hadrosaurs frequent aquatic areas. Spinosaur is designed for taking down fish in water, something that could be easily done with it's snake like neck. But T-Rex would be required to take down sizeable prey animals if given the opportunity in water. At the very least, there's no evidence to say that Spino is more agile in swamps than T-Rex would be. It's an assumption, not a fact.

As for the guy with the Doberman/Pitbull match up, I hate to turn yet another argument against the user (well, not really..)but a Pitbull will more often than not DESTROY any Doberman. And i think it should be noted for two critical reasons that are related to the current argument.

1: A Pitbulls bite is slightly stronger. Yes, that's right, but the differences in bites between the two canines is nowhere as large as the differences between T-Rex and Giga.

2: Now here's one of the key reasons. Pitbulls are designed and bred for taking down large game. Yes, boars, bears, you name it. They are even credited with killing lions in Roman arenas. Pitbulls have long been used for dog on dog fights, and have since become very accustomed, and good at it. Dobermans on the other hand, were bred mostly for personal protection. I think you see where I'm going with this. 9 out of 10 times, the Pitbull will win. Unless the Doberman is some freakish case of being overly adequate in terms of dog/dog combat.

Once again, this argument doesn't do much for Giganotosaurus..
from Usen, age 20, ?, ?, USA; August 9, 2001

Ha T-man! Take a look at this!

Jurassic Park 3 Star May Have A Padded Resume

Sophisticated scanning techniques are giving scientists a sense of how the bite of a 120 million-year-old dinosaur really felt.

Spinosaurus, the new dinosaur star of the movie Jurassic Park 3, replacing its' counterpart, Tyrannosaurus rex, is shown demolishing a lot of equipment in the movie; from a light aircraft to a boat. But this, as recent investigation into the skull of its' closest relatives Baryonyx and Suchomimus have indicated, may all be noting more than a work of fiction.

Using a method they used on Allosaurus skulls previously, scientists made a model each of a Baryonyx and a Suchomimus skull, and a technique called finite element analysis (FEA).

Although FEA is used mainly by engineers and industrial designers, scientists have used it to construct a digital model of the skulls.
The modeling technique, published in the journal Nature, allows scientists to stress and strain fossil bones in ways that would be impossible with real fossils.

The tests indicated that the skulls of Spinosaurus' closest relatives are actually surprisingly fragile and weak at high stresses, compared to the stoutly built skulls of the other more common carnivorous dinosaurs. Also, by digitally reconstructing the muscles at the back of the skull, scientists have discovered that these animals had a surprisingly weak bite.

"Despite its' shape similarity to crocodile skulls, which are designed to exert quite a powerful bite." Said an expert. "Spinosaurs lacked virtually all of the adaptations for a powerful bite. Even its teeth were relatively shallowly rooted, a condition we certainly don't find in crocodiles."

Some experts have suggested that large Spinosaurs like Spinosaurus would have been able to hunt and kill the large long-necked dinosaurs known as sauropods sharing their environment. But this study into FEA testing has indicated that this idea may be quite far out of what Spinosaurus was capable of.

"These animals, with their thin jaw-bones and shallowly rooted teeth, lacked the muscles at the back of their jaws to have a powerful bite. And they would have damaged their jaws if they bit at high forces anyway. Unlike other animals with weak bites like Allosaurus, they did not robustly built upper jaws, which they could use in hatchet-style attacks."

But experts have been quick to point out that these animals weren't total pushovers.

"Though Spinosaurus wasn't as nasty as it was shown in Jurassic Park 3, it was still almost certainly capable of hunting other smaller land based animals." Said an expert. "The stomach contents of Baryonyx included a juvenile Iguanodon as part of its last meal. So Spinosaurus certainly would have been able to hunt and kill some land-based prey, unlike being completely piscavorus as some have suggested. But they would have been no where near to be a match for the land hunting capabilities of the other more common carnivore designs like that of Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. So it can be safe to say he is a heck of an unlikely choice to be the new bad boy of Jurassic Park!"

So was the result of the fight between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus in Jurassic Park scientifically inaccurate after all? Given the findings of these latest reports?

"Of course its scientifically inaccurate, those two animals never met in the first place! And a fight would not commence as easily as it did in the movie as self-preservation would be a bigger concern to both animals, so a fight is unlikely. But for the sake of an argument, I'll say that Spinosaurus would have almost certainly died when Tyrannosaurus bit its' neck like it did in the movie. And given all we have learned about Spinosaurus' bite. I'll say it's impossible for Spinosaurus to break a Tyrannosaurus neck… Yes, I think the outcome of the fight would be very different if they bothered to make it scientifically accurate, but it's just a movie."
Researchers believe the FEA technique can be used to study other dinosaurs, and will allow scientists to learn untold secrets about how dinosaurs lived.

"Actually I believe finding out more about these impressive animals is better than matching them up against one another." He adds with a smile. " And there is a huge range of questions we can address using the technique."

So much for the movies.

James Danker, 2001
from Joslin, age 13, L.A, C.A, USA; August 9, 2001

"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."

It's good you see that. With his better power to weight ratio and much more gracile legs, he'll certainly be more agile and faster than Giganotosaurus. Tyrannosaur limbs were maximized for speed and agility. And actually, Giganotsaurus limbs are not shorter, but have a "clumslier" configuration more akin to a limb of a slow mover, Giganotosaurus' body wasn't anywhere closer to the ground. Compairing the speed adaptations of a Tyrannosaur to a Allosaurid like Giganotosaurus is kinda like looking at the difference between a Ostrich and a Duck (bad anatology intended as pun). And I don't buy the idea that animals with bodies closer to th ground will CERTAINLY be more agile. Agility lies mainly in how well-muscled the animal is for its weight and more importantly, it's limb designs. That's why your housecat is going to be much more agile than your pet hamseter, despite how close the hamster had its body to the ground due to its short legs. To the contray, animals with gracile limb! s tend to be extremely agile. But no matter, Tyrannosaurus was certainly much more agile than Giganotosaurus in any case. The morphlogy of the two animals strongly supports this preposition.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; August 9, 2001