Deinonychus looks so weak, I think a leopard can kill him.
from John, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

While we used to imagine the Mesozoic world as a landscape of sluggish swampdwellers, we now envision a world populated by a panoply of colorful, noisy, fast and cunning hot-blooded monsters. This is great for the Dinobiz, but does it make scientific sense? Did Dinosaurs operate under rules of physiology and evolutionary pressure substantially different from those of today? Did they develop markedly better solutions for dealing with their world than those that have evolved since? Let's look at the currently hot group, Dromaeosaurs, popularly known today as the Raptors. In movies, books and magazines these smallish theropods comprised the fastest and nastiest, and possibly smartest Dinosaurs ever. They were dressed to the nines in spikes and knives; cold-blooded homeothermic killers. While all members of this class had an impressive set of saw-edged teeth and formidably clawed forelimbs, it is the hypertrophied claws on the second toes of their hindlimbs that have transfixed our imagination. We are repeatedly told that these agile carnivores hunted in packs, slashing their large but lumbering prey to death in a series of back-foot blitzkriegs. Wait...does this really make sense? Did they really hunt in organized packs? Did they really use those curvaceous claws for slicing and dicing formidable foes into hors-d'ouvres sized snacks? I suspect it was more likely they rarely ate anything that couldn't have been nailed in a one-bite solo effort unless it was already dead. Heresy!!? Stop and consider this from an evolutionary standpoint. As Raptors were lightly built, they probably did rely on speed and agility. As they were bipedal, their back legs would have been essential to their survival. Almost any injury to such important structures would have been rapidly fatal to a creature relying on pursuit speed and kicking power. Want to hurt a back leg? Try to kick a large and angry herbivore that basically consists of thick skin over huge muscles. Ribs, pelvic bones, scutes, shields and flailing limbs would have made vital organs difficult targets. Aside from the likely humiliation of breaking a nail, they would have been at high risk for shattering a leg trying such tactics. Crippled dinosaurs didn't have a high likelihood of reproducing, leaving them losers in Darwin's evolutionary derby. Perhaps that is why they vanished by the mid-Cretaceous, giving way to the smash-mouth hunting tactics of the Tyrannosaurs. It is more likely that Raptors mostly used their razor-like teeth on smaller prey. If they did use claws, it was probably the impressive armament on their forelimbs which would have been much easier to control and less risky to survival if injured. So, what were those carpet cutters for? If there had to be a feeding function, consider other possibilities. They would have been useful for cutting through thick skin after their meal h! ad been immobilized by other means. They could have been used to rip aprt termite nest s and beehives, or to dig up whatever resembled prairie dog towns of their era. If they had a taste for escargot, the claws were perfectly shaped for extracting the delicate morsels from their spiral shells.

I'm certain that every reader who has put up with me this far is thinking about the famous Velociraptor versus Protoceratops fossil where both died locked in mortal combat, proving the function of the slashing claw. Yes, the poor Raptor was using its foot, but probably as a defensive weapon! After all, it was probably trying to raid a nest for a meal of one-bite babies when it was attacked by one of those angry herbivores alluded to above. The large slashing claw on the cassowary is a good example of such a weapon evolving purely for defensive purposes. These birds are incredibly dangerous when trapped in close quarters although they are more likely to run away than take chances with their valuable legs in a battle. It makes sense to risk an incapacitating injury only if the alternative is being eaten.

If you are uncomfortable with these magnificent structures solely serving a protective function, what could be a more likely use? Why, sex of course. Many of the most extravagant and bizarre structures in nature are primarily used to attract a mate or to intimidate rivals. A set of large claws could be very useful for displaying to a potential mate or for ritualized combat. Look at the modern rooster, possessing impressive and dangerous spurs, but hardly famed as a fierce hunter.

While difficult to prove either way, it is easier to imagine Raptors having the coordination required for mating displays than the control needed for accurately kicking an opponent in a life or death battle. Despite their reputation for having relatively large brains, it is unlikely that such complex coordination would have been possible. No other animal has developed that style of hunting since, even if birds grab smaller prey with their feet and many animals do use their feet for defensive functions. While on the subject of brain function, I have to add that the concept of Raptors hunting in organized packs inspires incredulity. No reptile, or bird for that matter possesses the social structure to accomplish that and it is doubtful that Dinosaurs with relatively small brain-to-body mass ratios could have pulled it off. Swarming on common prey is observed with many animals including crocodilians, large lizards and vultures, although it isn't truly cooperative social behavior.! ! ! ! Finding fossils showing a group of Deinonychus with one large herbivore certainly doesn't prove or even imply social structure any more than finding a collection of flies around a dead rat.

Little evidence of the raptors' seemingly formidible behaviour have been found, yet there is so much hype.
from Ex-raptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

For all of you T-Rex lovers, i'm a ex-raptor fan here to write your paragraphs. While T-Rex is not my favorite dinosaur, i can attest to why all of you love this animal so much. The very mention of T-Rex implies power. This animal was built to take down the large herbivors of its time. The bite pressure of T-Rex was extraordinary! Crocs today exert 3000 lbs of pressure per square inch. Now imagine a Rex's bite pressure, who has a jaw larger and much more powerful than a crocs. The teeth capitalize on this ability. They are not extremely sharp, but they are serated and strong. A Rex does not slash flesh with his teeth, he crushes it. When he bites, the teeth and pressure combination breaks bones and severs muscles and tendons deep within the victim. Imagine the power it takes to crack the spine of a Triceratops, thats what T-Rex does. Power does not only exist in the jaws, but in the whole animal. Even the small arms are strong. Each arm(which are about as long as one of ours) was estimated to lift 400lbs. Few of us can bench 400lbs with one arm. The legs of T-Rex were built like a locomotive. The femurs were extremely thick and had huge muscles attached. Rex could probably reach a speed of 30 miles per hour, more than enough to catch the large herbivors of its day if it had to. This whole animal was a power house. To find out more info, including what i have mentioned here, read "The Complete T-Rex" by John Horner, and depending on your age read "The Dinosaur Hereises" by Robert Bakker. Then you to can defend why you love T-Rex so much and amaze your opponents at the sametime
from Ex-raptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Deinonychus is the whimp, there's no way it could attack Iguanadon.
from Utahraptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Actually Deinonychus must have been the ultimate whimp. The Tenontosaurus we found with the four skeletons must have been a weak and old animal who out of desperation, decided to hunt and kill Deinonychus for food, and whatdaya know! The herbivore-turned psyco carnivore actually killed a pack of four Deinonychus in the fight! Wowee! Too bad it was too weak and old to kill any more. Utahraptor was the true dino.
from Utahraptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Deinonychus ability is overrated. If they could take on Iguanadon, then any 3-meter, 80 kilo carnivore could. Look at it this way, how can they hurt Iguanadon? Ok, you're gonna reply the textbook answer (by slashing with their sickle claws!) but how? They have to get onto the animal right? That means they have to ride it. Will the Iguanadon take this lying down? No, it'll buckle and rear like a bull in a rodeo, but this is worst then a bull. Iguanadon is many many times larger then a bull. And Deinonychus will be too preoccupied with trying not to fall then attacking the actual animal. And how long exactly could it hold on? Even if they dug in with their claws, the sheer force caused by the Iguanadon trying its best to shake em free will be more then enough to fling them off, and the 13 foot fall, plus the velocity of the throw, will end up shattering some bones in the fragile raptor. Sorry, but to slash with their sickle claws or bite with their jaws, they have to actually mount the prey, which sadly, will not be cooperative. Even lions, which weight 3 TIMES that of Deinonychus very rarely attack elephants for this reason. And if a 250 kilo lion can't take on a 4 ton elephant, you're expecting a bunch of 80 kilo Deinonychus to take on a 7 ton Iguanadon? Hello? Earth to mars, the idea of Deinonychus attacking large prey like Iguanadon is virtually rubbhish! All the stuff you see in the pictures and movies, of Deinonychus sticking onto their prey like glue is nonsense, Deinonychus will get flung off in a moment's notice, and they are even less robust then humans. I can picture Deinonychus attacking pony sized or maybe moose-sized prey. But Iguanadon? That's impossible. Even Tenontosaurus

must have been pretty rare prey and already considered large for them, at one ton, talk about a 4-7 ton Iguanadon. What rubbish. Go wake up your idea.
from TENONTOSAURUS, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"raptors have a certain coolness that dear T-rex could never have."

It seems most of the "coolness" is fake, gimmicky tricks or either myths brought up by JP movies.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Suchomimus is the most AMAZING dino.He/she can bring down T.rex.The name means crocodile mimic.Is spinosaurs really half aquatic?"

Actually, we'd expect Schomimus to fare even worst against T.rex then Spinosaurus. Not just because he was smaller then Spinosaurus, but worst, Suchomimus was the most specialized fish-eating Spinosaurid ever known! The snout itself was identical to that of exclusive fish-hunting crocs! Laterally speaking, Schomimus' snout was almost stick-thin! And the build of the animal itself was even lighter built then your typical Spinosaurid (after extrapolation to adult animal)! This was not a big-game hunter in anyway, he lacked the features entirely to hunt big game (could have scavenged instead or went after small animals). It would have been amazing at catching 10 feet fish though, but Schomimus' will be a pretty much walkover for T.rex. This animal was not designed main and kill large animals at all, not even in a bit.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"I've got to agree, but I think that the most intelligent dinosaurs where the saurornithoidids. T - Rex just had ultra - keen senses, etc. I don't think he was at all "clever."

You couldn't be further from the truth. Compaired to other more primitive meat-eating dinosaurs, T.rex had a considerably more advanced and larger brain. And the area responsible for complex thought, the cerebrum, was considerably larger (over 100 percent larger then Allosaurus' which were considered pretty smart dinosaurs already). It is safe to assume that T.rex would have been extraordinarily "clever" for a theropod, as was typical of most advanced theropods. The EQ of Tyrannosaurus is equal to that of some ground hunting birds today and modern raptors. More then enough to get him through his life. Most of T.rex's brain was keyed into motor function (for increased agility) and its sensory input. But in terms of complex "intelligence" the Tyrannosaurids are at the very high end of the spectrum, on par with the ostrich-mimics and narrowly below the raptors followed by the troodonids. This makes T.rex the third "smartest" dinosaur genera known to man.

However, lets all face it. Complex intelligence was not very important to dinosaur life, even the raptors. Your typical dromie did show quite a bit of intelligence for a dinosaur, but it was only equal to that of modern ostrichs and chickens (which despite looking stupid, are actually much smarter then we think), who are just a so-so intelligence. The raptor cerebrum is much smaller then that of even moderately clever birds and much less developed. So a raptor could probably have only two thoughts at a time - and if it wanted to think a third though, it would probably have to forget the first one (If it realised that it had to forget the first through in order to have a third thought, that would, in itself, consitute a fourth thought - and the raptor would be very confused.) The much vaunted raptor cerebrum is not very essential for raptor life at all. As someone said, these animals didn't need to complete tax returns, deal with abstract concepts like poetry, income tax, music! and nuclear weapons. In fact, if you took an axe and chopped off a Velociraptor head in such a way that you cut away its cerebrum but leave the really essential part of the rator brain, the medulla oblonfata, left safely attached to the body, and at least a ear left, there is a high likelyhood the raptor would survive without much impeedment in its behaviour (but you must hand feed it by introducing food to its gullet) while if you do the same to the human, he would become comatose. In short, the raptor would become pretty much like Mike the headless chicken (http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/)! Just because we are ultra-smart, we tend to favour any animal which is seemingly more "intelligent" but in actual fact, such intelligence was pretty useless to a raptor. I doubt such increased "intelligence" gave it any sort of an advantage at all!

More likely, these animals went by innate instinct. I doubt their complex intelligence gave them too much of an edge at all (unlike the crow). Not unless you want to agrue that ostrichs are supersmart and deadily because of their intelligence.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

My personal belief is that Utahraptor could "jump" to a certain extent but it would not be able to jump well enough to climb up onto a larger animal or really have much of an effect on the animal it was hunting.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

tsk, tsk, tsk.

to all you hardcore Rex fans, callin' raptors puny and all in Nov. 2000 fave dino section, I pity your stupidity, don't you see that raptors are smart enough not to attack T-rex? Hmmm. That made me so mad....especially the attacking post on Deinonychus. Good thing Hardcore Rex fans don't come here anymore, or I'd post angry posts like this everyday.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

MY FAVORITE DINOSAUR IS VELOSORAPTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I LIKE IT BECAUSE IT WAS FAST AND VERY INTELLIGENT!!!
from melanie k., age 9, fort myers, fl., u.s.a.; December 27, 2001

SUCHOMIMUS COULDN'T BRING DOWN T-REX.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Suchomimus is the most AMAZING dino.He/she can bring down T.rex.The name means crocodile mimic.Is spinosaurs really half aquatic?
from Ian.H, age 9, Levittown, NewYork, America; December 27, 2001

Oh great, now I don't know which raptor to like, Utahraptor or Deinonychus. Utahraptor actually sounds cool....but if it can't jump...or can it.....
JC, do you know? aNYONE!!! I don't know who to believe.....Honkie says Utahraptor is a poor jumper...da masta says it can....WHICH PERSON IS RIGHT????????????????
from a very confused rapter, age should, I like, Utahraptor or, Deinonychus?; December 27, 2001

hmmm.....
Do you exactly know if adult Tenontosaurus were nearby to kill the Deinonychus? Huh? Or if the deinonychus didn't have a chance anyway, i mean, their hunting strategy must've gone wrong, as if the planned a sneak attack the tenontosaurus would die. they must've come and the Tenonto had a chance to kick at them. There are a lot of reasons why the Deinonychus would die, you just seem to assume they're stupid. So think of the explanations before typing, Yawn.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

1. Compsognathus
2. false(blue whale is bigger)
3. 39 ft.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

I firmly don't believe that Dormeosaurids are the most deadly dinosaurs. Probably the most deadly of them was Utahraptor, because it was bigger and could do more damage, but even its weapons probably couldn't match those of other carnivores. The other Dromeosaurids were small and there claws and jaws probably couldn't do enough damage to take down animals larger than them, unless they were in a large group and/or the animal under attack was sick or weak.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Sometimes I compare "Raptors" to domestic cats: They are very deadly, intimidating, and violent- from the point of view of creatures their size or smaller.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"raptors have a certain coolness that dear T-rex could never have."
That is a matter of opinion.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"I think about 12 meters."
Well, basically. I think its wingspan is about 36-38 ft. , which is about 11-12 mt.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

1. I am a small theropod, I ate lizards small mammals and insects, i have been found in europe, I have two claws on my front legs, but now it is possible that I have three claws, what am i?

Um... Compsognathus

2. Sauropods are the biggest Creatures known of that lived on the earth true or false?

I think the blue whale is bigger than any so false. (I might be wrong)

3. About how big was Quetzacatales's wingspan?

I think about 12meters
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Tenontosaurus was not really small prey. It could run as fast as a horse, so the deinonychus would need to be really patient, and then really fast to dash out of hiding and attack. That must have been eaxctly how they hunted, how else do you explain a design which sacrificed so much (durability, raptors where fragile, of course, the larger ones less so, but still...) for pure, unparalleled speed, yet they had robust limbs, meaning that they where not the fastest? They waited, and when something was nearby, the charged at lightning speed, and brought it down. And I'm only talking about deinonychus and utahraptor here, by the way. Tenontosaurus wouldn't be the smallest animal these dinosaurs attacked either, I think, and it was dangerous in it's own right. It had a long whiplash tail, which could do damage, and as I said earlier, was a pretty fast runner. I like raptors too. T - Rex may be the best land hunter ever to exist, ever, but there's a certai! n coolness about raptors which T - Rex doesn't have.

I wasn't calling Tenontosaurus small I was saying that not all raptors were "hunter grabers of small prey" like rob said unless you call Tenontosaurus small (which it isn't). And I agree that Tenontosaurus wasn't the biggest (but probably the most common) prey they attacked I think Deinonychus sometimes attacked Iguanodon and I think Utahraptor would've commonly attacked Iguanodon. And both Tenontosaurus and Iguanodon could be very dangerous for example a Tenontosaurus Kicking or stomping on a deinonychus would do alot of damage. And to the people who think Deinonychus is stupid because 4 got killed by a Tenontosaurus. there have been alot of Tenontosaurus fossils with Deinonychus emedded in them or nearby so Tenontosaurus was common prey for Deinonychus
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

I've heard enough of these hardcore Rex fans. Long essays on the coolness of T-rex???
da masra's right, raptors have a sort of coolness that dear T-rex could never have.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

i'm not trying to say that Utahraptor didn't hunt well, just that I only really like raptors that can jump high.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Deinonychus must be the true deadly killing machine!!!!"

*Yawn* Yeah, this deadly killing machine lost FOUR of their kind attacking a Tenontosaurus... plueeze. Sounds more like true ultra losers to me. Guess lots of raptors in a pack makes 'em easier to hit.
from Yawn, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Raptors may not have been especially fast but their legs were made for power which makes them good for jumping and kicking."

Great, jumping and kicking it makes for a nice show but to really little predatory effect. Kicking, even if your limb is tipped with a sickle claw, isn't exactly a efficent method of killing large prey at all. The only predators that kill by kicking hunt prey much smaller then themselves like the secetary bird, which kicks the snakes it hunts to death. But really, raptorial kicks, even hard, is really no match for the damage a bite from a well-endowed set of jaws can do. Raptor forelimbs were huge, like cat claws, but a slash from them only amounts to lacerations on a large animal, and cats only use their claws to wrestle their prey and the jaws go in for the kill, unfortunately, the prey raptors hunt are supposedly much larger then them, and the best raptor only weights 80 kilos (discounting the too slow-to-be useful Utahraptor), that's even lighter then a lion. The raptor best weapon is the jaw, but the jaw is nothing really special. All the sickle claws, the forelimbs are pretty much extra stuff that didn't contribute significantly to the raptor ability to kill. Look at it this way, it'll take a ridiculus amount of kicks even from a pack of raptors to bring down a prey animal 100 times their mass. And the prey animal would not stand there taking it from a bunch of rugrats either, the thing is, large herbivores tend to smash raptors into a gooey puddle on the ground. They're not going to just lie over and take it from tiny animals 100 times less massive then them. It's like picturing a bunch of housecats swarming a moose and trying to take it down, that's how stupid the notion of raptors hunting large prey like Iguanadon is.

"And the big raptors were more advanced and more intelligent than other dino's of their size and of their time."

This is the most nonsensical and overused raptor myth running around. Yes the raptors were smart dinosaurs, but really, this intelligence was pretty laughable by the standard of modern birds. Raptors were only about as smart as your adverage Ostrich or Emu. Face it, their "intelligence" was nothing really much. They didn't have the intelligence to hunt in organized packs, not by a long shot. The most you'll see is chicken-like flocking structure. But too bad raptor fan sees this increase in "intelligence" as anything significant. Face it, it's not at all. Raptors don't think much at all, like all other dinosaurs. "Human" complex intelligence, the type of intelligence that allows us to apperciate art and fill in our income tax forms, was more abundant in the raptors, but it was pretty useless for they were still nothing much by avian standards. Unless you want to prove ostrichs are deadily because they are smart, think again. Raptor intelligence has nothing much to do with their deadileness.
from Ostroc, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

1. I am a small theropod, I ate lizards small mammals and insects, i have been found in europe, I have two claws on my front legs, but now it is possible that I have three claws, what am i?

2. Sauropods are the biggest Creatures known of that lived on the earth true or false?

3. About how big was Quetzacatales's wingspan?
from T-master, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.

I saw Jurassic Park 3.

It was lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

I know we're not supposed to expect much from these blockbusters. We're supposed to sit back and enjoy the effects; in this case we were supposed to enjoy the wondrous dinosaurs that roam around and eat people.

But I am fed up with films in which every member of the audience is infinitely more intelligent than everyone in the movie.

You can have your actors, your dinosaurs, your ominous soundtrack, your amazing set pieces and what have you, but when your script is absolutely, without doubt, utterly horrid, you lose. And we make fun of you.

Warning, I may give some stuff away, because anything I can do to make you not see this movie is a service I will have provided for the good of humanity.

The story, as they'd like you to buy into it, is as follows: Tea Leoni and William H. Macy, who claim to be big, rich adventure-craving studs, talk Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) into leading a sight-seeing tour over one of the damn Dinosaur islands (remember, there's two, not that anyone can tell them apart). He doesn't want to go to the island, but he needs money, they offer his tons of money, and what the Hell, they're just gonna fly over the island and look, right?

Right.

So they get to the island. They land on the island (and the only one in the world surprised is Sam Neill). Dinosaurs begins to eat them. Then, here's the big plot twist, it turns out Tea and William ain't rich. They're a divorced couple looking for their son, who disappeared over the island in the prologue. They conned Sam Neill into coming to the island the only way they knew how.

Which brings me to my first large problem. If Sam Neill is as terrified of these islands as he claims (he has the line "there is no force on Earth which would bring me back to those islands") then why does he go? Because they pay him? Except they don't pay him. They write him a huge check that's completely bogus. If you were being paid millions of dollars to go to the one pace on Earth you really, really don't want to go, wouldn't you MAKE SURE THE CHECK CLEARS?

Anyway.

There are other actors in the movie who accompany Sam, Tea and William to the island, but they may as well be wearing a hundred pounds of ground chuck around their necks. I mean the Red Shirts on Star Trek had a better chance of surviving.

Eventually, of course, they find the young boy, about thirteen or so, who has been living alone on the island for eight weeks. So guys with semi-automatic weapons are toast after five minutes on this uncharted Dino Isle, and Lord of the Flies survives for eight weeks? It only makes sense when you realize he's channeling Newt from Aliens.

OK, OK, but what about the Dinos? How do they look? They look LAME.

The new stars of the Dino toy store are the overhyped Spinosaurus and the flying dinos, Pteranodons. Overhyped Spinosaurus is bigger than the T-Rex, and he has a long snout. So he can dig into things, like, say, an airplane fuselage, and hunt for humans as an anteater hunts for grubs. He chases our heroes for the entire movie.

The Pteranodons are cool. They fly. Our heroes walk into a huge birdcage and the Pteranodons assume it's feeding time. Also, the Pteranodons are involved in the stupidest, most heinous ending this side of Toxic Avenger 3- an ending where everyone in the audience is screaming at the screen. "Idiots!! You're all idiots!!!"

Some of our old friends are back, as well. There are Raptors, who now speak to each other. "Hi, Bob, eaten a human lately?" "No Frank, but I munched down on a crunchy Ankylosaurus last week. Yummy." There's mighty T-Rex, who lives for about ten seconds before the new Big Man On Campus, Spinosaurus, kills him in the most uninteresting and fake grudge match that defies logic and physics.

There's your mandatory run-through-the-herd scenes, which are completely undistinguishable from the previous film's run-through-the-herd scenes. We find a broken down lab and yet more of the same stuff about mankind playing God and what not. Yeah! We got it in the first movie! Don't need two more movies to nail down the same message!

And then there's the ending. Actually, there's a series of endings. And it really, really feels as though the writers got to a point just before the end and said "OK! We're done! Someone else finish it!" and then little Billy Meyers from Mrs. Crabtree's fourth grade class took a shot at it.

LAME.

How lame? The only reason the Raptors don't eat everyone at the end is because Sam Neill asks them not to. He sticks a plaster cast of a Raptor's 'resonating chamber' between his lips and blows.

So the Raptors understand his message, agree to leave them along, give them directions to the coast, comment on the weather and discuss proper dining etiquette. Thank goodness Sam learned Raptorspeak at some point in the film.

And I'm not even going to start on how divorced mother and father stop every five minutes while being chased and try to repair their broken relationship. I mean shouldn't one of them say "You know, why don't we hold off on the bonding while we're being hunted by man-eating monsters?"

The family that is eaten together, stays together. As mush in the monster's stomach.

Nothing makes any sense. The word "River" is correctly translated as "Help! We're on the second dinosaur island, not the first one but the second one. There's a river on this island- check the maps and you'll find it- and if we can survive the next five minutes, we should be reaching the mouth of the river in about five or six hours. Could you send someone to pick us up? That'd be great. Thanks."

Sadly, there will be a fourth movie. Although just like many of this summer's disappointments, they should forget about trying to be anything other than a thrill ride. Leave the subplots out of it and just have dinosaurs chase people. That's pretty scary. That does the trick. I don't need "Dinosaurs chase people, and two people fall in love." Or "Dinosaurs chase people, and the little boy learns the value of sharing." Dinos. Chasing. People. Got it?

Jurassic Park 3 gets 1 Babylon. The dinos do look cool (except Spinosaurus), and that is the only reason why this movie is not a complete zero. Well, that and the first cell-phone gag. Walking With Dinosaurs may not be as action-packed, but at least it does not leave you with a bad taste in your mouth and the feeling the director has just insulted your intelligence. The real problem with JP movies was that they make sequels.
from RobC, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Im gonna have to agree with everyone here. I saw the movie Jurassic Park III last weekend. I walked out and imidiately said "What a load of rubbish." Now, if you recall the beginning of the fight, T-rex bites down on the Spinosaurus' neck. That should've been the end of the fight. Why? Because the T-rex bit down with the weight and force of a dump-truck behind EACH tooth. That, I think, should have snapped, crushed, and almost ripped the Spinosaurus' neck in half. If you really want to get down to it, you are right. I believe in a fight that a T-rex would win hands down against a Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus(sp?). It was lighter than the heavier of the listed because its bones were hollow. Saving weight, and making it a bit more agile than the others. Now, Ive heard that Spinosaurus IS the largest, most powerfull carnosaur. Which I think is rubbish too. Now, back to JP3. Velociraptors were only 2 ft. tall. They went after Protoceratops. The ones in the movie were 6-8 ft. tall. And they could talk! About the only problem I had with the film was the T-rex cameo and the fight. Which was stupid. My Dad was even annoyed. "He just showed up to die."
from RobC, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"...and disgusting, rip-your-guts-out dino deathmatches where T-rex always wins..."

Face it, T-rex ALWAYS wins. It'll be unusual if he loses, and what's unusual dun happen much, what usually happens? Whatdayaknow? Well, T-rex wins!
from Cooleh?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Actually the reason raptors are overhyped is because they have sickle claws (the utility of which is greatly questioned). Stick a sickle claw on any sort of animal and you get an out of proportion response.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

Actually, if raptors were special, it wasn't in their killing ability. Their killing ability wasnt any extra over other coelurosians of similar size.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Tenontosaurus was not really small prey. It could run as fast as a horse"

Actually, you couldn't be further from the truth. The idea of the animal running at speed was suggested in the Jurassic Park book, which was in turn using Bakker-ideas, which also in turn suggest Deinonychus ran at cheetah speeds. Tenontosaurus was very ungainly and large for a hyplio, so moving at horse speed is not likely at all. On the other hand, unlike other hyplios, this one seemed to be able to fight, apparently accounting from four supposedly "deadily" Deinonychus in the battle.

"so the deinonychus would need to be really patient, and then really fast to dash out of hiding and attack. That must have been eaxctly how they hunted, how else do you explain a design which sacrificed so much (durability, raptors where fragile, of course, the larger ones less so, but still...) for pure, unparalleled speed, yet they had robust limbs, meaning that they where not the fastest? They waited, and when something was nearby, the charged at lightning speed, and brought it down."

"They could not charge at lightning speed, but they probably had very good acceleration, giving them a thin window in which they were faster then their prey to make contact. Once the prey reached maximum speed, they had no hope of ever catching any lunch from there. In short, the only way they can hunt is by ambush. The reason for raptors being fragile was not because they were sacrificing their bodies for speed. Tyrannosaurids were heavily built but yet were the fastest of their class around. The truer reason for raptors being fragile is most probably because they evolved from the small prey catching dinos and retained their build for a robust frame was not needed at first. Utahraptor showed some improvements but it was obvious it was not enough. They could not compete."

"And I'm only talking about deinonychus and utahraptor here, by the way. Tenontosaurus wouldn't be the smallest animal these dinosaurs attacked either, I think, and it was dangerous in it's own right. It had a long whiplash tail, which could do damage, and as I said earlier, was a pretty fast runner."

Tenontosaurus once again, wasn't a fast runner, despite being a hypilo. It seems to be more of the stand-up-and-fight type. No raptor attacks on larger animal fossils have been observed before. Tenontosaurus was about the largest prey they could figure. Iguanadon was a great deal bigger and meaner, not to mention it wasn't going to stand still when swarmed by the raptors. Unless raptors were expert redeo riders, they are not going to stick on the prey for long. Do we see any injuries on raptors resembling that of redeo riders? I don't think so. In fact, they seem to lack injuries we associate with attacking large prey at all! Save for the Tendontosaur incident.

"I like raptors too. T - Rex may be the best land hunter ever to exist, ever, but there's a certain coolness about raptors which T - Rex doesn't have."

It seems more to me the coolness in raptors are pretty much in the "gimmicks" things that trick people into thinking they're cool. Their supposed illusionary intelligence and overrated sickle claws.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"I think Da Masta is jealous of Honkie, having repeatedly having his own head handed back to him by Honkie."

Actually, no. I envy his debating skill, etc, but what would happen if Honkie wasn't calm in response to my posts? If he would have been mad or something. The swarm wouldn't mind. They'd be glad someone else is attacking me. BUT I'D IGNORE IT ANYWAY, I really would only have been a bit disappointed by Honkie, and I would talk only to NICE people, and the swarmers, after a while, would realise, just like they did, that I JUST DON'T CARE, and stop.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Raptors may not have been especially fast but their legs were made for power which makes them good for jumping and kicking. And the big raptors were more advanced and more intelligent than other dino's of their size and of their time."

I've got to agree, but I think that the most intelligent dinosaurs where the saurornithoidids. T - Rex just had ultra - keen senses, etc. I don't think he was at all "clever."
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"hehehehe!!! I've been scrolling in the Favorite Dinosaur section to see if there are a lot of votes on raptors. There is....on Utahraptor and Velociraptor*YES, THERE IS.*!!! Deinonychus is by far the best, as Velociraptor is wayyy too small*OH GOOD, I'M GLAD THAT YOU ARE MORE INFORMED THAN A LOT OF OTHER RAPTOR FANS WHO BELEIVE JP* and Utahraptor can barely jump, what's the use of being a raptor if you can't jump. Raptors can hunt larger prey than itself(with the exception of Velociraptor*WITH THE EXEPTION OF VELOCIRAPTOR, DROMAESAURUS, SAURORNITHOLESTES, ADASAURUS, PHAEDROLOSAURUS, AND HULSANPES. ONLY DEINONYCHUS AND UTAHRAPTOR ARE BIG GAME HUNTERS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT PYRORAPTOR. I THINK THE DISCOVERY OF A FRENCH DROMAESAUR IS GREAT, BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT AMERICAN THEROPODS CAN MOVE TO EUROPE, AND VICE VERSA.*) and if Utahraptor can't jump then....I don't know. Deinonuchus is the best.*NOT REALLY. UTAHRAPTOR IS BIGGER, STRONGER, AND IT CAN JUMP AS! GOOD AS ANY OTHER DROMAESAUR, MAYBE EVEN BETTER. It's medium sized, it can jump, and of course it's the true dino for the sickle toe claw, Deinonychus was the first to have it(I think)*YES, DEINONYCHUS IS THE EARLIEST DROMIE EVER FOUND, BY FAR.*. So if Velociraptor is real small*YEAH* and if Utahraptor can't jump*WHO TOLD YOU THAT? DID YOU READ THE ARCHIVES? HONKIE TONG'S POSTS? HE'S THE T - REX EXPERT, I DON'T THINK HE AT ALL LIKES OR STUDIES OTHER DINOSAURS, KNOWING HIM. UTAHRAPTOR'S LEGS WHERE A BIT MORE ROBUST IN COMPARISON TO BODY SIZE THAN OTHER "RAPTORS," BUT IT WAS WAY LARGER, SO SUBSEQUENTLY IT HAD LONGER LEGS ANYWAY. AND IT'S LEGS WHERE VERY MUSCLED, LOTS OF MUSCLE SCARS ON THE FEMUR AND TIBIA.** then Deinonychus must be the true deadly killing machine!!!! *DEPENDS WHAT YOU MEAN BY "THE TRUE DEADLY KILLING MACHINE."*
-rapter(raptOr, I know. I just wanna still sign it raptEr.)"
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

And hardcore Rex fans, please don't

1) Attack me

2) Give me passionate essays about the coolness of T - Rex.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"Rapter I'm a fan of all raptors (I like Deinonychus and Utahraptor best). utahraptor probably didn't need to jump as much because it is alot bigger than deinonychus and Velociraptor. And Rob i wouldn't call Tenontosaurus small prey."

Tenontosaurus was not really small prey. It could run as fast as a horse, so the deinonychus would need to be really patient, and then really fast to dash out of hiding and attack. That must have been eaxctly how they hunted, how else do you explain a design which sacrificed so much (durability, raptors where fragile, of course, the larger ones less so, but still...) for pure, unparalleled speed, yet they had robust limbs, meaning that they where not the fastest? They waited, and when something was nearby, the charged at lightning speed, and brought it down. And I'm only talking about deinonychus and utahraptor here, by the way. Tenontosaurus wouldn't be the smallest animal these dinosaurs attacked either, I think, and it was dangerous in it's own right. It had a long whiplash tail, which could do damage, and as I said earlier, was a pretty fast runner. I like raptors too. T - Rex may be the best land hunter ever to exist, ever, but there's a certain coolness about raptors which T - Rex doesn't have.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"NO!!! I CAN'T VOTE FOR MY FAVORITE DINO!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!"

You've only just noticed?!
You know, I had a similar tantrum when I found out.
It's sad, isn't it.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 27, 2001

"We've rehashed the "falling T. rex" on this list quite extensively,
it still does not disqualify T. rex as a high speed carnivore.
Perhaps they had a mechanism for dealing with a high speed fall
(twisting to the side, translating the direction of momentum, etc.)
Perhaps they -simply didn't fall-. It would be quite easy to
demonstrate that the rock climbing life style of mountain goats is
unlikely, as a single slip would result in their crashing to their
death. But the goats persist in clinging to their perches."

The problem of _T. rex_ falling down disappears if _T. rex_ was just
really good at not falling!
from Cool, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

NO!!! I CAN'T VOTE FOR MY FAVORITE DINO!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 26, 2001

Rapter I'm a fan of all raptors (I like Deinonychus and Utahraptor best). utahraptor probably didn't need to jump as much because it is alot bigger than deinonychus and Velociraptor. And Rob i wouldn't call Tenontosaurus small prey.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Raptors may not have been especially fast but their legs were made for power which makes them good for jumping and kicking. And the big raptors were more advanced and more intelligent than other dino's of their size and of their time.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

diloph, real Velociraptors were tiny, only about the size of your medium dog, two feet tall and fifteen kilos in weight. It was the kind of animal you could kick and it would just die of severe internal injuries. But the tide has turned against the raptors in the idea that they were "good" huinters of big prey. So if you're thinking these are bad, big animals that took out big dinos left and right, well, let's say that's far from the truth. Raptors remnind me more of hunter-grabers of small prey rather then iguanadon-attackers.
from Rob, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Independence Day

what? On about raptors not deadly? Then you really don't know about raptors at all....do you agree, Joe Bob?
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

(smiles)

hehehehe!!! I've been scrolling in the Favorite Dinosaur section to see if there are a lot of votes on raptors. There is....on Utahraptor and Velociraptor!!! Deinonychus is by far the best, as Velociraptor is wayyy too small and Utahraptor can barely jump, what's the use of being a raptor if you can't jump. Raptors can hunt larger prey than itself(with the exception of Velociraptor) and if Utahraptor can't jump then....I don't know. Deinonuchus is the best. It's medium sized, it can jump, and of course it's the true dino for the sickle toe claw, Deinonychus was the first to have it(I think). So if Velociraptor is real small and if Utahraptor can't jump then Deinonychus must be the true deadly killing machine!!!!
-rapter(raptOr, I know. I just wanna still sign it raptEr.)
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Oh shut up raptor myth killer raptors were really special just because T-rex can kill them don't mean they are weak and stupid and such. so stop insulting rapters.
from rapter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Face it Joe Bob, the day of the raptor popularity is over, it has long been over. It's time to kill the myth. Finally, for a much belated amount of time after JP, the long list of misconceptions and falsehood has finally run its course. Raptors aren't specially deadily at all, they're just about as dangerous about your typical 3-meter carnivorous dinosaur and no where in the leauge of Allosaurus or Tyrannosaurus. The raptor's brief burst of ultrapredator reputation is long over, and only people like you and uninformed Velociraptor fans are dragging it to the soggy end. Look at the pitiful state of raptormania now and compare it to just a mere three years ago. On the other hand, Tyrannosaurus is going from strength to strength ever since 1915 and their wildy sucessful design is giving us a more powerful and powerful picture as more is learned about them. Tyrannosaurus has gone from the 1905 trunk-upright bipedial, slow-moving dim predatory Allosaurid to the 2001 hunched over, mind blowing fastest 6-ton animal, harderst biting, exceptionally smart, super keened sensed, ultra tough, very agile giant coelurosaur.

Compare this to Utahraptor, who when unviled in 1993, was touted as the deadilest dinosaur on earth, a ultra-fast killer of sauropods, to the 2001 version, which has been severly ungraded. Utahraptor now is seen as not built for speed as all, chronicly fragile in construction like all the other raptors and yet still too clunkly and ungainly to move at his extremely ungracile limbs at any great speed at all, serving well only against prey of a much smaller size then the assumed sauropods. In fact, Utahraptor wasn't any more dangerous (in fact, due to his slower speed might even be less so) then your typical 20 foot dinosaur carnivore. The era of raptordom is over, over, over. From now on, it's lose, lose, lose and lose for them. Of course science will in the end win out over movie-logic, as the people grow tired of the illusion and want to truth, JP3's showing the raptors as "human-intelligent" hardly raised any hackles (in fact, now paleontologists are so done over with JP rubbish, they hardly reacted to JP3 except that "it was a nice monster flick") at all. The JP movie's effectiveness in shaping public opinion on dinosaurs have been much-diminished (thus the rather cold reception for Spinosaurus), and the raptors aren't going to ger much more from there. For such a group of dinosaurs so enshrouded in movie-myth, how else did you expect it to end? Of course science will win over the movies and the hype in the end. Just like Jaws will fail to villify sharks forever, Jurassic Park will fail to hype the raptors forever. And the time has already come for a long time, the raptor's era of JP-inspired frenzy is over. What else can happen? You didn't think a bunch of movie-makers will send eviction notices to paleontologists all around and tell them to scram, because raptors are now going to be shown THEIR way didn't you? Of course science will win over in the end. The JP raptor is finished.
from Independence Day, It's a flag it's not a rag., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

This is another thing thats wrong in the original JP (Its not to do with dinosaurs). near the start it shows the people in San Jose (the Costa Rican capital) and it shows San Jose as a kindof beach town but really San Jose is about 100km from the sea.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Da Masta is right about swarming. If you say one intelligent thing about raptors (or any other dinosaur other than T-rex) being good hunters, and sometimes not even say anything anti-T-rex, then suddenly a bunch of people send stupid and insulting posts like "raptrs )(*&!!!!!!", huge long posts about how raptors (or other dinosaurs) were bad hunters, and disgusting, rip-your-guts-out dino deathmatches where T-rex always wins.
from JOE BOB B., age 10, Menlo Park, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

What does "ok" mean? Don't you mean "okay" or "O.K."?
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

How would've Carnotaurus hunted? Because its lower jaw is fragile and lightly built and its arms are completley useless.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

"Deinoychus is 3m long...."

DeinoNychus
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Diloph Deinoychus is 3m long and Velociraptor is 1.8m long so that dinosaur hunter is wrong
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Get this.

I got a new CD called Dinosaur Hunter, and it's like an encyclopedia. so I look up Velociraptor, just to see if it's good enough to be added to my favorite list. Then they show a picture that says that Velociraptor was 5 feet tall. I ask my dad about it, he says the encyclopedia is probably more accurate than here. So now I'm confused whether that encyclopedia is right, which I think it is, or it's wrong. And that Deinonychus was like 4 feet tall, and Velociraptor was bigger. They also call Deinonychus small and Velociraptor, well, NOT small. COULD YOU PLEASE HELP ME??
from diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Get this.

I got a new CD called Dinosaur Hunter, and it's like an encyclopedia. so I look up Velociraptor, just to see if it's good enough to be added to my favorite list. Then they show a picture that says that Velociraptor was 5 feet tall. I ask my dad about it, he says the encyclopedia is probably more accurate than here. So now I'm confused whether that encyclopedia is right, which I think it is, or it's wrong. And that Deinonychus was like 4 feet tall, and Velociraptor was bigger. They also call Deinonychus small and Velociraptor, well, NOT small. COULD YOU PLEASE HELP ME??
from diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

I think Da Masta is jealous of Honkie, having repeatedly having his own head handed back to him by Honkie.
from raptor myth killer, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Raptors are ultra-overhyped. For starters, I don't see anything distinct about their morphlogy that puts them as ultra-dangerous. Is a pack of Raptors any more dangerous then a pack of other dinosaur predators of the same size? And why do people automatically assume raptors=pack animals? Exactly how much evidence do we have of that for ALL types of raptors being pack hunters? Exactly how useful are their sickle claws? Does it make them 100 times more deadily? If anything, raptors don't seem as deadily as they are hyped, they are not really smart by bird standards, so I doubt their intelligence plays a big part (face it, super intelligence is not really important for dinosaur life). Heck, their sickle claws could be only used in defense, for all we know. Slashing a large line across with a claw? How much use is that on very large prey? How deep exactly is the cut? Not very, it'll take a lot of slashes to bring down large prey. When you wanna do damage, you bite a chunk out of your prey. Sickle claws seem pretty extra and good if prehaps you wanna hang on or defense, but either then that, that hardly makes them any too much more deadily then other carnivorous dinos of the same size. Worse, their stocky limbs are not built for speed, only short bursts of rapid acceleration good for small prey but entirely useless for distance. What happens if dromies try their luck on large dinos? Nothing much! The large dino will outpace them rapidly and any dromie that managed to latch on will be carried away and with all the rodeo buckling, and the raptor's fragile construction, attacking large prey many times their size would be extremely dangerous and they weren't built to take the fall hard. Utahraptor? I think he didn't commonly hunt prey larger then the hyplios in his area. Raptors might try their luck on large prey when it looks real pathetic, but I can't picture them taking down ultra-large prey they snag like in the books. And remember that Tendontosaurus? Well well, they lost FOUR raptors trying to kill that. It was probably some weak looking one and they thought waht the heck, let's try for him and WHAMMIE, FOUR DOWN. Heck, some even went to say that stocky-limbed, fragile consruct, I'll-be-hanging-on-for-dear-life-instead-of-killing raptors could attack supersauropods (did they even exist then?). What exactly make raptors deadily? Hunting in packs (if they even did)? No, other much larger and stronger and tougher carnivores did that too, and in fact we may even have MORE evidence for them hunting in packs then do the dromies. Izzit their intelligence? No, unless you wanna prove that a bunch of Ostriched-brained dinos could come up with anything resembling complex gaming plans. Is it their sickle claws? Sorry, but these things are overhyped, they dun do more damage then a good pair of jaws. Is it their forelimbs? Nope, they may be impressive but hardly good for killing large prey fast, and lots of other small carnivorous dinos had impressive forearms too. Is it their jaws? Nothing special there. SO WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT RAPTORS?

Nothing much really, raptor popularity only surged after JP when people think that the ostrich-brained dudes could open doors and run up to 70mph, in actual fact, their intelligence, though high by dino standards, was not enough to exibit anywhere near packish, wolf-like behaviour, and that they have to most clunky, ungracile limbs ever that made acceleration, not speed their forte. Raptor top speed is quite slow indeed. Is it them hunting in groups (to use "pack" would be to insult the term)? People immediately assume that too, but how much more deadily does it make them then other genera that do the same? Raptor ability has been severly overestimated. Look at it this way, even primitive Allosaurus could have flattened them quite easily. And were they ever dominant? Never! They were just nice little coelurosaurian experiements that utterly failed when put up against other more down to earth designs and finally was regated to a small-prey niche, skitting amoungst the feet of larger predators in their smallest, dog-like form. Sucessful? Deadly? Harh, can things get more ultra-fake. In fact, the true lesson we should learn from the raptors is that putting too many innovations into one design is bad, bad, bad for hunting big prey. Just stick to one main and foolproof way of doing it ok?
from Raptor myth killer, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Velicraptor and other dromeosaurids of its size probably chiefly ate small mammals, lizards, etc. Tyrannosaurids wouldn't have even bothered with them. Maybe the larger dromeosaurids were capable of taking larger prey, such as small, weak, hadrosaurs, or other creatures like that. However, we know that no big dromeosaurid probably ever interacted with T-Rex or even any Tyrannosaurid.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

"T-rex could kill triceratops,but not without getting injuries."

I think this myth is all to often used as a "consolation" statement, but the truth is, most often its only an unlucky Tyrannosaurs that would take injuries from a Triceratops battle. An attack on Triceratops will be a carefully planned and deliberated affair on the hand of the Tyrannosaurus, not a hasty, heat of the moment thing, and the entire thing may even be called off when the predator feels the chances of sucess are not good (or the actual attack may be called off midway, before contact is made). But once the ball is started rolling, it's extremely unlikely that Tyrannosaurus will take any injuries from such an attack, given the intense and comprehensive prelude to the action. If you see a Tyrannosaurus making contact with a adult Triceratops, the Triceratops is most of the time pretty fate-sealed without getting off his own shot in return. Most of the time Tyrannosaurus kills Triceratops, he would be unhurt in the battle. Prey defend when the attack comes, in the heat o! f the battle, the predator however, gets to choose his ground and bide his advantages. Unless the Tyrannosaurus was inexperienced or just plain unlucky, he would kill Triceratops quite easily once the attack was on. You see, Triceratops' best chance are keeping Tyrannosaurus at bay with his horns, and prevent a fight from actually happening, when contact is actually made, like 3 out of 4 fighter planes shot down in combat, they won't have the chance to even fight back.
from King, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

There have been several great melees involving T.rex versus his-supposed-throne-usurper here, involving dinosaurs of all sort whose fans are ready to jump at the slightest thing they see as an "advantage" over a Tyrannosaur. For Giganotosaurus, it was the simple fact that it was larger, for Allosaurus, it was the arms, for Spinosaurus, it was a combination of the two, for the raptors, it was the fact they had sickle-claws.

Of course, they always started out hot and then fizzled out when the animals were really taken apart in detail and figured out. The most common reason why T.rex has always triumphed in all the cases was mainly due to the fact that the opposition lacked the scientific fortitude to carry out the fight they started. Opposition quarters tend to grate overly on one supposed point (sometimes, their only point in the whole engagement) and lose focus on the big picture, leading to their downfall. While an pro-Allosaurus fan keeps grating on and on about why their dinosaur should be the tyrant king, because of its arms vs. T.rex tiny arms, he actually loses focus on the big issue. While what he is running over the same idea over and over again, his opponents has already gone into great detail and length as to why having bigger arms won't prove to be much of an advantage. The case that the Tyrannosaur fans procure in defense is usually greatly detailed and powerfully argued (in no small part thanks to Honkie), and mostly refutes most of the opposition's arguments. The opposition on the other hand, goes on grating on the same issue, annoying more people who weren't involved before and inciting even more support for the Tyrannosaur fans, leading to a vicious cycle in which support for the Tyrannosaur fans rise and the opposition decline.

It also helps greatly that Tyrannosaurus is in itself, one of the best-engineered killing dinosaurs ever to walk, making most arguments for the opposition an uphill battle. Anti-Tyrannosaurers usually have a hard time arguing how a Allosaurus would stand up to a Tyrannosaurus that was faster, stronger, more agile, harder-hitting, and light years ahead in evolutionary innovation. Even the fossil record and the incredible sucess of the Tyrannosaurid family makes arguing for Tyrannosaurus really easy and offers even more support. Even as raptor fans try to argue that raptors were supposedly more deadly in packs, and the deadilest dinosaurian predator ever to live, they face the hard task of explaining why, in that case was the raptors one of the predatory species ousted from the big-game niche when the Tyrannosaurids arrived. (And these Tyrannosaurids were not even the front-line, late KT, super derived models like Tyrannosaurus rex).

It's hardly strange T.rex is still on top. As what somebody aptly put it. "Size does not matter, anatomy does" and T.rex obviously has the best anatomy.
from King, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

"Actually, it wasn't just Dromaeosaurids that held their hands inwards. All theropods seem to have had this feature. EVEN EARLY ONES? LIKE HERRERASAURUS? HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE "HERRERASAURUS"?

As I understand it, nearly every theropod could not pronate their hands. And although I'm not overly sure about _Herrerasaurus_ per se, I have been in talks with someone who can confirm that even the early _Dilophosaurus_ could not face its palms downward.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Thank you JC. But could you please tell me what the website adress is? (if you know it, of course.)
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001
See: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/%7Erowe/dinosaur-administrivia.html

"Raptors like Deinoychus did hunt prey much larger than itself (this is proved by the fossil with a Tenontosaurus and 4 Deinoychus) but not huge hadrosaurs. And thats strange that they show the raptors attacking a hadrosaur because the raptors that hunted prey near the size of a hadrosaur (Utahraptor, Deinoychus) lived long before hadrosaurs."

More proof for my theory. Velociraptor and other dromaesaurus did not die out (until the K-T extinction, that is!) because they did not compete with tyrannosaurids for food. They ate smaller prey than tyrannosaurus, prey which T - Rex didn't even bother with. And tyrannosaurids all hunted creatures that where too big for the dromaesaurids. But the larger dromies, who could compete with the tyrannosaurids for food, died out. Tyrannosaurids where more effective, and the new prey which was evolving was getting more and more dangerous, and tyrannosaurids could cope better with it than the dromies.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Tom G and Neko, being here makes me see how much about dinosaurs there is to learn, too much, and I really want to know it all, but it just seems impossible. I really envy people like Brad and Tim M.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

"Well, this is what happens when you decide to downplay the awesomeness of the great T. rex."

I think it was mostly the paleontological community that didn't like JP\\\. Most people (know nothing about dinosaurs,) accepted spinosaurus as the dominant dinosaur, and turned to spino fans. But it doesn't matter, they don't like dinosaurs and they forget it as soon as it isn't showing any more. But you should be carefull not giving T - Rex respect, especially here, he's just too popular.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Huh? Whoever taking advice from Yoda is mentally deficent, Yoda does not exist, he's just a shrivled, wrinkled piece of an old fart of green rubber. Advice coming out from such sources should go straight to the rubbish bin."

WAHAHAHA, Joe Bob B is right, you've never shown us any real dinosaur knowledge. You're Honkie's yes-man, "Yes Honkie," "Good one Honkie," "That was great Honkie!" but you never said anything of value about dinosaurs. But when the opportunity to insult someone came up, you really made someone feel bad masterfully. And no, I didn't mean it as a compliment. At least you didn't join those sad people on the sci forum who felt they had to show some "muscle," probably because they felt their case was kinda shaky, so thank you for that. But this is a dinosaur forum you know.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

">_< ack, all of you have so much more knowledge about dinosaurs here. I feel so....stupid here. I'm trying to find a place where I can talk about dinosaurs with individuals whose not so smart....=\ oh well, I'll just continue reading for as long."

Neko, dinosaurs is a subject worth it. I'm perhaps not the best person here to get advice from, and if you don't like what I'm saying, ignore it, but if you are really passionate about dinosaurs, then you don't want too many games with them. They'll tell you sweet fanny adams about dinosaurs. Invest in books and paleontology magazines to get your knowledge. Games are fun to play, but if you really want to know about dinosaurs, surf the net, read articles, remember them, buy books on them, read them, I even attempt to memorise some of mine! If you really like dinosaurs and want to be an expert level dino fan, (yeah, OK, I know I'm not, but I have an idea of how to get there!) then read dino books, (not JP ones!) magazines, and web sites. And the result will be worth your trouble. And even if you aren't at other people's levels, then still go in and talk to them. It'll gain you valuable knowledge, even if you lose the argument. See, I'm nowhere near the best here, but I try to g! o right in and get with arguing with the big guys. And it helps. I learn from them. You try to do the same. If you want, this is just advice. But I suggest you take it if you really like dinosaurs. Passionately.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Hello? Are you there?! T - Master, what you've done is, "hey everybody, I'm back!" (not an exact quote! You didn't really say that but that's the effect of your message!) And then not put any posts up. I'm really trying to study more stuff, to crawl up to the level of the top people here, and I need a test! To see if I've got better! T(rivia) - Master hasn't done any trivia for a month! If you've decided you've had enough of trivia, then tell me! Cause it was good and I don't want it to end!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

"If any of you own or played the lost world game for the playstaion game console, you should see that brachiosaurus CANNOT lower their neck so that it's head + their whole neck is 6ft off the ground, if that would happen, Brachiosaurus would brake his neck off of his body."

Yes, that is pretty impossible! But their necks wouldn't break off, just their sternocleidomastoid muscles and vertebrae wouldn't allow them to lower their necks so much, even if they tried! Some recent (I think) studies show that brachiosaurids couldn't hold their necks vertically, they where at an angle to the ground, but they still held their heads higher than any other sauropods.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

Velociraptor is deadlier than Utahraptor because of its more swift and agile build
from William C, age 18, Sydney, NSW, Australia; December 26, 2001

Rex fans are real good at rubbing it in. They're right, most of the time, but, out of the blue, there's always a few messages with a little passionate essay on the "tyrant lizard king."

The giga fans probably just couldn't stand it any longer!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 26, 2001

T-rex could kill triceratops,but not without getting injuries.
from Donovan c., age 12, ?, singapore, ?; December 25, 2001

Your right...Wahaha...I believe thats your name, I've seen some books saying " The Biggest and Baddest Meatereater of the All" and guess who's pictured on the cover, right...Giganotosaurus. I mean, its getting really out of hand, I don't want kids to think and grow up, thinking, bigger is always better. It's like The Incredible Hulk, up against Magneto...sure Hulk is strong, taller and bigger, but he doesn't stand a chance against the Master of Magnetism. The debate over this should be final about the victor, and also who is more dangerous...wait, let me reinstate that, they are both just as dangerous, I would never want to go one on one with either of them, unless I had maybe a tank of course, and a grenade, just in case they swallow, I can take them with me...but thats just me :)
I also think, we T-Rex fans have scared away all the Giga fans, or else, there in hiding, because we T-Rex fans are vicious and proud, willing to stand up for why our dino is THE TRYANT LIZARD KING! Even I say all of this, I'm still very fascinated about Giganotosaurus, and I hope to find more information about him when it comes out, for we know very little about him, just that he's bigger than T-Rex. :)
from ***DinoSol***, age 19, Green Bay, WI, USA; December 25, 2001

I doubt the size of Tyrannosaurus vs. Giganotosaurus matters. You see, when you want to determine the TRUE TYRANT KING (TM.), it can't be done merely by size, no siree...size does not matter, anatomy does.

You see, it seems to me Giganotosaurus indicates an animal that is considerably larger built then Tyrannosaurus, with a deep gut and a long tail, but that's just size. Tyrannosaurus on the other hand, instead of going into size, went into actual abilities. A heavily built frame more muscled then Giganotosaurus (better power to weight ratio and hence agility and actual output strength), ultrakeen senses (steroscopic vision, LF ears, ultrakeen nose), better neural control (larger brain by a factor of 2) hence better motor and sensory function, far superior speed (Gracile limbs plus arctometatarsalian condition made limbs far more efficent then the Giganotosaur limb), toughness advantage (more heavily built frame resistant to more damage), and all the most important weapon advantage (Tyrannosaurus has ultimate jaw killing power).

In short, even if a 47 foot Giganotosaurus goes up again a 37 foot Tyrannosaurus, the end result will be pretty much the same. The Giganotosaurus may have a 10 foot advantage, but it's more of a disadvantage, he's outrun, outmaneuvered and worst of all outgunned. One direct hit from Tyrannosaurus is more then crippling, and one hit is all the Tyrannosaurus needs (not to mention Tyrannosaurus' ability will not be seriously compromised until Giganotosaurus gets a good number of bites in, but given how much more agile and faster Tyrannosaurus is, Giganotosaurus will be luckly to get one in). Worse, given Tyrannosaurus' superior senses, the animal is more likely to detect the presence of Giganotosaurus beforehand, and have the advantage of surprise. Given the ability of Tyrannosaurus to seriously disable and kill in just a bite, coupled with his early-warning advantage, I doubt Giganotosaurus stands much of a chance. The size of Giganotosaurus is about as revelant in this fight as how much meat T-rex is gonna get from this fight. You see, size does not matter, anatomy does, and it's the anatomy where T-rex excels and Giganotosaurus fails miserably. The supposed trump in size Giganotosaurus holds (and an way overused one by Giganotosaurus quarters) is nothing but a myth that evaporates whenever the two dinosaurs are seriously compared against each other. T-rex is pretty much unbeatable.

As in the case of the Spinosaurids, they were even worse in the matter of anatomy. They could put up a decent fight, but they're less off a fight then Giganotosaurus is. A 60 foot Spinosaurus is simply a dinosaur that's piled on so much weight on an already less combat-effective frame that it becomes pratically useless. Horner's propogandaish "ideas" about a 60 foot Spinosaur being unbeatable is pretty thin, the moment the battle is being considered. Unlike Japanese Godzilla flims, where monsters stand and slug it out, a supposed Tyrannosaurus vs. Spinosaurus will be very mobile and the agressor who is the more agile of the two and can put out superior firepower wins. Heck, at his supposed 60 foot bulk, can Spinosaurus even maneuver to hit Tyrannosaurus effectively? And what's the worst he can do? A bunch of lacerations from his hand claws that were so far behind and slung under his body that using them as effective weapons in such a melee is difficult? Or biting with his conical teeth coming from his lightly WW1 biplane build skill? At most he can get a few shallow lacerations or gouges off Tyrannosaurus, (if he can even hit the agile Tyrannosaurus in the first place, the blow would most likely be a glancing or a slight one). What can Tyrannosaurus do? I'm sure we're all already so familiar folks: Mamamiyah, he could EXCAVATE 500 lbs plus of meat in a single bite from Spino (how hard can Spino be to hit? Being slower and much less agile) not to mention crush the internal structure of Spino at the same time. That kind of damage takes out most kinds of animal pretty quick, Spinosaurus included. I think Spino will be even LESS a fight then Giganotosaurus. It was so obvious that in JP3 the directors had to blatantly cheat to make the Spino win. (Hmm...T-rex not getting in a hit in JP3 would make the fight look ridiculusly one sided, but then Spino can't die becos he's the new bad boy...ok, we'll let T-rex get one in just to make the fight look fair and then Spino finishes him off...WELL GOOD WORK MISTER, YOU JUST MADE THE FIGHT LOOK DUMBER AND SPINO A GREATER LOSER...DUH...HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE SPINO VS. T.REX FIGHT??? WELL DUHHHH T.REX WAS OBVIOUSLY BETTER SO TO MAKE SPINO WIN THE FIGHT IS GONNA LOOK RIDICULUSLY UNREALISTIC...CONGRATS ON LISTENING TO HORNER ANYWAY...
from Wahaha, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

"And considering that trikes lived in herds, he'd have quite a time getting at the weak individuals, too!"

Actually it could work to the Tyrannosaur's advantage. Triceratops defence best works when they are clustered close together against the opponent, which is not feasible when they are feeding in a dispersed pattern. Given the advantage of surprise, the fleet footed Tyrannosaur will have little problems moving up to the selected weak target and giving it a solid bite. The rest, they say, is history. Of course, even better if the Triceratops herd is panicked and confused by the sudden attack. Nuff said, Triceratops main defences only work if the predator fails to get the jump on him. After the bite, the Tyrannosaur can retreat and wait out the rest. The herd can form all the defensive formations it wants, but sooner or later, the attacked individual will either bleed out, or die from septic shock. A bite from a Tyrannosaurus is in fact, pretty much a death sentence. I doubt Triceratops herds care much for their dead, and would soon leave the dead/dying member behind for the Tyrannosaur/s to feed.
from Cool eh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

I think T.rex, like any other predator, would have gone for the softest and easiest target, so his order of preference should be most commonly the Hardosaurs, and less commonly dinosaurs like Triceratops, and rarely Ankylosaurids.

If push came to shove however, T.rex was fully capable of dispatching a full grown adult Triceratops with little qualms.
from John, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

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

Raptors are not too hyped. They could take on a hadrosaur if they lived at the same time. A quartet is way too small, though. It would take 10 or more middle-size raptors like Deinonychus to bring down a hadrosaur. Five for Utahraptor, and 20 for Velociraptor. Also, I think even a HUMAN would die if something THAT big farted.
from JOE BOB B., age 10, Menlo Park, You figure it out., See previous answer.; December 25, 2001

"I think T Rex would've killed Triceratops but only either sub adult or juvinile healthy ones or very sick adult ones."

And considering that trikes lived in herds, he'd have quite a time getting at the weak individuals, too!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

"http://www.twoguysfossils.com has what they claim are Spinosaurus teeth for $15-30. They're small teeth, about 1 to 1.75 inches long."

Seems a bit small for spino teeth. Thanks for telling me anyway! :)
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

"Remember da masta, when I wrote down the length of Giganotosaurus, I also stated that if the length is true, and as of now the largest specimen we have of Giganotosaurus is I believe 43 or 47 ft lng. As of now, that is what the books and facts say, so this is the reason why I believe that T-Rex can be in Giga's league for length as well...Until of course a bigger Rex or Giga is found... :)"

Yes, I just thought that that was a point worth making.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

~~ MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY! ~~
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001

"We all know that dromaesaurids held their hands facing inwards, not ventrally, like they where shown in JP3, because of their carpal bones, and that half - moon shaped bone in their wrists, I'm
not clear about the details, but we get the picture that they held their hands facing inwards."

Actually, it wasn't just Dromaeosaurids that held their hands inwards. All theropods seem to have had this feature. EVEN EARLY ONES? LIKE HERRERASAURUS? HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE "HERRERASAURUS"? NOT THAT IT'S RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC! YOU SHOULD SEE MY POINTS ANSWERING HONKIE TONG. IT WOULD BE PRETTY TIRING TYPEING IT ALL OUT AGAIN.

"Well, that's an adaption for grabbing and holding small mammals, not tearing other dinosaurs! Some people think that they jumped on other dinosaurs, held on with their hands, and kicked at it's side with their legs! But they'd need to have downwards facing hands to do that, and we know that they couldn't move their hands so that the claws faced downwards!"

I think you may be right!

"But, on the other hand, it's very conventient for grabbing small mammals or lizards,and holding them up to bite their little heads and kill them. The velociraptor chases the little mammal, it has
long hands, (comparatively to body size;) and it reaches out with them, and brings it's inward facing hands, like claspers, on either side of the little mammal, moves it's hands inwards, grabs the
mammal, stops, holds it up, bites it's furry little head. That's what it was adapted to do, and that's what it did."

So they don't use their big toe claws in hunting at all? That's sort of surprising. I DID SAY ABOUT SMALL DINOSAURS, ABOUT THEIR OWN SIZE BEING HUNTED. THEY WOULD HAVE ALMOST UNDOUBTEDLY HUNTED SMALL MAMMALS, AS WELL THOUGH.

How do you explain the Velociraptor and Protoceratops that were fossilized in a fighting position? SOMEONE'S ALREADY ANSWERED THIS ONE! THE VELOCIRAPTOR SEES AN UNGUARDED NEST. HE CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER ANIMALS AROUND, AND HIS SENSE OF SMELL TELLS HIM IT'S SAFE. HE RUNS UP TO THE NEST, AND STARTS FEEDING. OH YEAH. JUST A THOUGHT. WOULDN'T THERE BE FOSSILISED EGGS WITH THE FOSSIL AS WELL? A FOSSIL NEST? THEY DON'T JUST DISAPPEAR. HMMM. PROTOCERAPTOPS WAS ONLY ABOUT 2m LONG, NOT MUCH BIGGER THAN VELOCIRAPTOR. THE VELOCIRAPTOR THOUGHT IT WAS MORE OR LESS SAFE TO ATTACK IT. PROTOCERATOPS WAS ABOUT THE LARGEST ANIMAL A VELOCIRAPTOR COULD PICK ON, I THINK, AND EVEN THAT WAS DANGEROUS FOR THE RAPTOR.

How do you explain big dromaeosaurids, like Utahraptor?

READ THE POST TO HONKIE. THESE FELLAS COULD HUNT CREATURES AS BIG AS IGUANODON, IN MY OPINION. WELL, MAYBE A BIT SMALLER. BUT STILL ANIMALS CONSIDERABLY BIGGER THAN THEM.

I would consider submitting your theory to the Dinosaur Mailing List. And don't ask me how to do that, because I don't know. I just read the archives.MAYBE JC KNOWS. I'D BE GRATEFULL IF YOU COULD TELL ME JC."
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001
You sign up to be on their mailing list (if you're underage, you should get your parent's okay to be on any mailing list) and then either respond to an interesting post or start a new thread. There are instructions online somewhere at the site and you should be very familiar with their rules before posting anything. Also, read their posts for a long time first to make sure that you're familiar with their format and the style that the users there have (it's quite different from this page). Then, state your case succinctly, logically, and unemotionally (and cite references). JC

Uh, when I meant "everyone" I meant four people in the science forum.

Because I MEANT the four people calling me a jerk and saying that I know nothing or very little about dinosaurs. I guess I should have stated it clearer! You guys are fine, ignore my message!

I thought that I had put this message on the sceince forum?

Well, nevermind, most people I guess get on the sci forum through the talk forum, I'd think.

God I hope I didn't insult anyone...
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 25, 2001