Well, it seems like the T-Rex fans are chanting his name! Yep, I'm also one of his fans chanting his name, why do you ask, he is simply awesome in every way. Yeah, he may not really have arms, but his jaws and teeth more than make up for it, so it seems my dino is just that damn good! Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to diss the other great carnivores, I'm just telling you that my dinosaur is a very revolutionized dinosaur. Just think, Giganotosaurus attacked large sauropods by biting them and letting them bleed to death...well, lets put the T-Rex in his place, wouldn't it be better to inflict a major bite wound on him, maybe even break a leg here, and plus he'll be bleeding anyways, all over the place. It would probably be much quicker to kill. Just look at this, T-Rex is more of a superpredator. Spinosaurus was mainly built for catching fish, yes with its great size I'm betting you he could tackle the biggest of carnivores or herbivores, but just look at his teeth, there straight, not curved back to hold prey, still his teeth could do major damage if Spino where to bite any dinosaur in his area...but Carcharodontosaurus was more better built than him for tackling big prey, plus I think Carcha would of been more suited for hunting dinosaurs than Spino.
Now, to all you people who don't believe that T-Rex couldn't run, or that it was slow, your wrong, how in the world could he catch prey if all he could do was walk slowly, " He can't run, cuz the impact of falling could injure him" yes that could be true, but you think he'll be thinking of that when he's hungry? Besides, theres not one predator I see on land that hunts fast prey, just take a nice slow walk, and wow, they caught up to it and killed it...now this is lame, where do you people find that fact that T-Rex could not run fast. Look at an elephant, it may look big, but dang it could beat any human in running, and it weighs about as much as a T-Rex if I'm correct, or was it the other way around. He would need speed to at least keep up with his prey, just look at the tiger, it maybe big and look slow, but it could chase down deer, and also run at very high speed, my point is, if your a predator, you have to at least be as fast as your prey. The T-Rex was not a slow moving predator which just walked slowly around or nor was he a super fast dinosaur like Gallimimus, I would have to at least put him in the middle...dinosaurs where most probably warm blooded, and if T-Rex was warmblooded, this would back his ability to run fast even more. Now to the other thing about T-Rex, now this is really...how should I say, inaccurate..."T-Rex was a scavenger, not a predator" now, for you people who believe this, your saying that all that T-Rex had to do was wake up in the morning, and when he was hungry just turn around and there you have it, a nice plump fat and juicy Triceratops for him to eat right there, every so feet there would be dead dinos all over the place so all that T-Rex had to do was scavenged all day, drink, sleep and reproduce...well, if thats the case than wouldn't there be an over population of herbivores in the dino world? T-Rex had to be on the top of the food chain, and if he was just a scavenger, the food chain would look pretty bad. Look at it, T-Rex most definetly scavenged, but he did not scavenged everysingle time, heck, he wanted fresh meat also, which would mean he would have to kill to do that! I mean think about it, do we want a week old lasagna in the fridge, or would we rather have a nice just out of the oven baked, juicy and hot lasagna, my point is said. Besides his jaws would be a waist of evolution to just be used on dead dinosaurs. I believe that Jack Horner is very wrong on his "theory" of T-Rex, he just doesn't see this side of T-Rex( or maybe he doesn't want to see this side of T-Rex because he made the scavenger comment, and is probably now crying that he shouldn't of since so many T-Rex fans and non fans are getting at his neck for his scavenger comment), I do believe some things that he says is true, but he makes T-Rex look like a useless weak and nimble dinosaur that was just big and slow. T-Rex was nothing like this, this dino was a superpredator, built to tackle dinosaurs, fast, large or small. If nothing would of wiped out dinosaurs in the 65 million b.c. era I'm betting T-Rex would of evolved to become something even more better than he is today, as I said before, Giga maybe bigger, Spino maybe longer, but in evolution, they lose to T-Rex. I am a true T-Rex fan, and I say that he was not slow, nor a 100% scavenger his entire life, he was a predator, with teeth like that, a mass that big and jaws like him, he most definetly was a Superpredator. So here it goes, T-Rex is just as good as any predator of his days or his past, if not better than them.

ps: You T-Rex fans out there, thanks for supporting him so much, it just goes to show we T-Rex fans are using facts to outclass arguments made by other people about our Rex!
from Kamui, age 19, Green Bay, WI, U.S.A.; September 20, 2001

I'll show everyone, without being an expert in animal physiology at
all, why T-Rex is fast.Scientists say it's stride reaches from 14 to 18 feet.
So roughly, T-rex's average stride length is 16 feet
Let's make a "very" conservative estimate. Let's say T-Rex just makes a
single stride per second.16 feet/secondequals= 4.87 m/sec.= 292.6m/min.
= 17,556m/hr.= 17.556km/hr.
See that? T-Rex already exceeds 17 kilometers per hour in a very
conservative estimate, which means it can exceed that speed without getting
agitated at all. Imagine its speed if it were to chase its prey.
HAHA! Mathematical conversions alone will humiliate all you T-Rex
hating people here.Take that Jason. 17 km/hr by virtue of walking.
And you even have the guts to say that you have a belief of your own
and don't believe in that Horner c)(*? Who the hell are you kidding? The
truth is, you just want to get an attention in this forum by making
hate statements at T-Rex, much like what Horner is doing. He gets the
media attention by distorting facts.

And to KC, leg structure of Carosaurs won't make them anywhere faster than Tyrannosaurids.

Why don't you and Jason here start your own anti-Trex club, leave this forum
from Guile, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"We are talking about Tyrannosaur, not today's predators. If the Tyrannosaur was so fierce, the competition would definitely be violent. They seem to show little reserve when fighting each other. There is also no evidence they hunted together, and had pecking orders if they did."

*GASP!!!*....well I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that t-rex hunted at least part of the time.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"I certainly hope you aren't including 'raptors in that. They had longer arms, and were obviously more agile than Tyrannosaur."

Yes, I agree 100%.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"I believe our little sea friends (sharks) would have something to say something about that. Do you see sharks taking a bite, then backing off to let the prey bleed to death? Why does everyone seem to think if an animal has that kind of teeth, it therefore must be an animal that takes one bite and backs off, bleeding its victim? "

What I notice about sharks, is first that their teeth aren't all that similar to theropods (theropod teeth are more similar to lizards', the only thing really in common with sharks is that they're serrated), and that they don't usually attack things bigger than them. When's the last time you've seen a pack of reef sharks take on a grey or humpback whale? Not even great whites do this often, if at all. They tend to attack SMALL things, such as fish for the smaller sharks and seals for the larger sharks. Biting its prey and hanging back let it bleed to death doesn't apply to such morsels.

"Lions and other predators don't seem to show this behavior."

Umm, lions have evolved a totally different method of killing and possess teeth that do not resemble theropod teeth at all. Lions target the throat area, clamping on the trachea until their prey suffocates to death. How is this a good model for theropods?
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"I believe contrary, however. I mean the T. Rex would note that a triceratops could defend itself before runnign in and trying to kill it. If he ran in and missed his bite,I think he could just keep moving to get away."

Yes the t-rex keeps on moving, and the triceratops suddenly lunges foward, right into the t-rex's rump. Ouch.

"If the triceratops turs around to face the T. Rex, T. Rex quickly turns around and runs away."

Wow. You've just agreed with me that t-rex could run. Thank you. And I don't think would turn around, just slow down until the tyrannosaur ran ahead of it as a I stated above.

"If he doesn't take the triceratops down with his first bite, he'll just keep moving to get away before the Triceratops takes him down. One small mistake, however, and the triceratops will get him."

Wow. Again we agree. For the rest, see above.

"But there's still no reason for him to try running with feet off the ground, becasue he could just as easily trip and die just as easily as the triceratops could take him down."

Umm, I still fail to see why t-rex would suddenly trip as soon as it "jogged."
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"Yes, I agree. But if the young one has longer legs in proportion to the rest of it's body and has a faster pace where's the need to lift his feet off the ground, Dairus?"

Hmm...how quickly you forget...this part of my arguement was just to refute the "if one t-rex can do it, so can the other" part of your previous post. And I quote,
"The thing is, though, why would the losing tyrannosaur run with it's feet off the ground to get away when the other could do the same?"

If the challenger uses its superior sprintwalk speed, the old rex would simply launch into a jog and bring down the upstart. Thus, to escape the older rex, the challenger would have to run as well.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"Also, about the tyrannosaur skirmishes. I don't think they wouldn't have competed for females too often. In most species where males compete like this, they tend to be larger than the females. In tyrannsaurs, however, the females are larger. I don't think females would be too impresed over to males fighting eachother over her when she could probably beat them both."

Where did this come from? I didn't even say males competed for females, or vice versa.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"I'm imgining a young, youthful adult male (female) in youthful cockiness and sense of invulrenability, makes the mistake of chalenging an older veteren-rex. Because of it's mistake, it flees quickly, out pacing the old tyrannoasur due to it's lighter weight and longer limbs in proportion to the rest of it's body."

Yes, I agree. But if the young one has longer legs in proportion to the rest of it's body and has a faster pace where's the need to lift his feet off the ground, Dairus?

"I don't know.....I think the speed estimates of a charging triceratops are at least equal to that of a "sprint walk." In addition, the triceratops may have a greater acceleration rate than it's would be together, and promptly gut if this was the case."

I believe contrary, however. I mean the T. Rex would note that a triceratops could defend itself before runnign in and trying to kill it. If he ran in and missed his bite,I think he could just keep moving to get away. If the triceratops turs around to face the T. Rex, T. Rex quickly turns around and runs away. If he doesn't take the triceratops down with his first bite, he'll just keep moving to get away before the Triceratops takes him down. One small mistake, however, and the triceratops will get him. But there's still no reason for him to try running with feet off the ground, becasue he could just as easily trip and die just as easily as the triceratops could take him down.

The faster acceleration might only help triceratops catch up (and for a short time) if T. Rex is already on the run after his mistake.

Also, about the tyrannosaur skirmishes. I don't think they wouldn't have competed for females too often. In most species where males compete like this, they tend to be larger than the females. In tyrannsaurs, however, the females are larger. I don't think females would be too impresed over to males fighting eachother over her when she could probably beat them both.

Tyrannosaurs may have also fought amongst eachother over territory and perhaps prey, but I think the ones who would have picked the most fight were the ones who would win them, like the veteran T. Rex in your story, rather than the younger ones. The younger ones would most likely have picked on something their same size and age. The fights between adults and young in your passage were probably usually caused by adults, looking for an easy meal rather than hunt themselves. Though these fights may have been common, I was looking at this a different way, thinking of younger tyrannosaurs trying to fight with older ones, then ending up running away. So most of the time, the younger ones would leave, reaising they are no match for more experienced combatants.

When I meant "Tyrannosaur Skirmishes," I was talking about where ones ran away, between older and younger, because we were arguing about how the loser would run away. So really, I didn't mean the fights in general, but one where a weaker one would pick a fight with a stronger one (or vice versa) and the weaker would run away. Indeed fights were common among the tyrannosaurs.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 20, 2001

I think you should have a page about dino bones

Thanks
from Ashlee G, age 9, Mitchell, S.D, U.S; September 20, 2001

"Slashing out a wound and bleeding their prey to death."

I believe our little sea friends (sharks) would have something to say something about that. Do you see sharks taking a bite, then backing off to let the prey bleed to death? Why does everyone seem to think if an animal has that kind of teeth, it therefore must be an animal that takes one bite and backs off, bleeding its victim? Lions and other predators don't seem to show this behavior.

"All you anti-Trex hating people here have just proven bone crusing capability........not the meat extracting capability which is the more important one for a scavenger."

Maybe the Tyrannosaur would simply eat the whole bone, and only digest the marrow and other meaty parts, then reject the bone itself, such as owls reject all the fur and bone from its meal.

"Hyenas, even jackals and to some exent vultures all have strict pecking orders, and conflicts especially those of a violent and lethal nature simply do not occur, not amongst the same species scavenging the same kill, at least generally speaking."

We are talking about Tyrannosaur, not today's predators. If the Tyrannosaur was so fierce, the competition would definitely be violent. They seem to show little reserve when fighting each other. There is also no evidence they hunted together, and had pecking orders if they did.

"But your point on larger armed dinosaurs being more agile and faster is certainly way off the mark!"

I certainly hope you aren't including 'raptors in that. They had longer arms, and were obviously more agile than Tyrannosaur.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 20, 2001

JC, someone copied off of one of my stories!
from Alpha Male Deinochus, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001
Let me know which story is the copy (what is the name of the person, the page it's posted on, and the story's name) and I'll delete it. JC

What happened to Billy Macdraw anyways? He hasn't posted in a very long time.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

Honkie Tong - I like your dinosaur picures. what drawing program did you use?
from david, age 13, Billings, MT USA; September 20, 2001

"FDS = Feathered Dinosaur Society. It's a club for amateur paleolife artists who like to put feathers on tyrannosaurs."

Heh heh...the structures on the siblings are indeed some kind of primitive feathers...somewhere in the limbo between spiny scales and actual feathers...prehaps I might come up with a feathered Tinker...but he's 60 percent (4-5 grader in human terms) adult size, so he might be out of his insulation stage by now...
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

"Double PS: Who has the JP/// soundtrack??? I do. Birthyday present. See ya' later!"

(Moving topic out of science forum.)

I haven't been able to find the JP/// soundtrack in stores. Is it worth getting if I already own the JP and TLW soundtracks? JP3 seemed to feature a lot of music from JP, and not many new sounds.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 20, 2001

"I'm not familar with Will Svensen and what is FDS?"

FDS = Feathered Dinosaur Society. It's a club for amateur paleolife artists who like to put feathers on tyrannosaurs.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/fds/
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 20, 2001

I've noticed this in the dinoart section:

Honkie Tong/ Billy Macdraw

Heh heh...though there has been some speculation as to if we are really the same person, and though we do work together when planning the dino stories, we are really two different people. I would prefer it if the dino pictures were simply stated under my name solely. It would do go to clear up any confusion. Mainly Bill does the stories while I do the graphics.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001
Done. JC

"I usually have enough information to participate in the dinosaur debates, but not with T. rex! Where are all of these biomechanical studies published? I need to learn much more about this dinosaur to be a part of Dino Talk!"

There is a very good paper on T.rex movement biomechnics on the internet, showing how T.rex moved as opposed to the locomotionary modes of a race horse and a human. As suspected, Alexander's formula which has traditionally turned up suspiciously high estimates for Triceratops movement and strangely low estimates for Tyrannosaurid movement have been overly simplistic and disregarded many factors that played a new part into determining the speed in these very large animals. This paper really helped me out greatly in my biomechnical report into T.rex, but I can't find it on the net now :(. But I could suggest you look into the math done by Holtz, who do involve quite a bit of biomechnics when determining the effect of the advanced foot structure in Tyrannosaurus which translated into a significant increase in speed and agility.

""There larger arms and better agilitey makes them faster and more agresive prediters."

Uh oh...you are way off the mark here. In fact, due to the advanced design of Tyrannosaurus (Tyrannosaurus is considered an advanced dinosaur design), he had unpresidented speed anf agility for his size. He was certainly more agile and faster than your typical, old-school "larger arms" hunters. I could ramble off a bunch of reasons, many of them including muscle-leverage attatchment points, neck-design, arctometatarsalian pes...etc , not to mention some math, but I abstain. But your point on larger armed dinosaurs being more agile and faster is certainly way off the mark!

"whereas T-rex has teeth that are more blunt, round, and thick at the base and very different from all other large terapods."

There's no derived disadvantage in hunting from this. In fact, such adaptations were necessary for Tyrannosaurus as it bit at forces more than ten times of the carnosaurs. Modern animals who employ excessive bite forces to attack, rather than slice and cut, namely the crocs and alligators all have thick teeth. One more thing! Tyrannosaur teeth certainly weren't blunt! They were quite sharp, in fact, forces at the tip of the tooth at a conservative force of 3,000 newtons (by Tyrannosaurus standards) come to more than 1.5 million pascals! More than enough to penetrate flesh and rend bone. If anything, Tyrannosaurus had an easier time hurting his prey than did the carnosaurs!

"Teeth like this are only seen in animals that are mainly bone crushing scavengers."

Heh, I was about to come to that, but somebody beat me. But in any case, this arguments certainly has a lot wanting and is certainly factually incorrect.

"T-rexes masive body would only be an added benifit for scairing off other preditors."

Granted, but the "only be" operand in this argument is certainly wrong! His size and power, which rated highest among all known land carnviores, would have allowed him to tackle the large prey of his time with greater effiency than all the other predators. Given all his uncompromising adaptations towards hunting, I think he evolved his size more as a hunting, rather than a scavenging adaptation.

"Its almost impossible to say that the features that piont out T-rex being a scavenger where the same as all other carivors, They are eney thing but similer."

You are very correct, the features of other carnivores are so different from Tyrannosaurus that they fit the scavenger theory clearer and better. In their sweeping generalizations, the scavenger arguments have unavoidably included other dinosaurs in. Let me show you two examples.

The small arms argument:

Hmm, Carnotarus, Giganotosaurus both had arms that were smaller, and less functional than Tyrannosaurus, according to the scavenger theory, that makes them even better-adapted scavengers.

The tight bones were too long by proportion to be fast:

This is a very good example. Virtually all carnosaurs, spinosaurids, by proportion have much longer tight bones than the Tyrannosaurids! And so do Tyrannosaurid prey like the hardosaurs! If long tight bones by proportion make you a better adapted-scavenger, the other dinosaurs like A.Fragilis, Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus and co. fit the bill better!
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

who'll win if giganotosaurus fights t-rex.plz answer
from Shivam, age 10, bombay, maharashtra, india; September 20, 2001

"Tyrannosaur confrontations wouldn't have been that common in the first place, because tyrannosaurines would not have risked injuring themselves over a small fight"

I beg to differ. An excerpt from the "Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs," p.269, lines 28-31 (from the top):

"Based on the magnitude of some of the fossil wounds, T.Rex clearly showed little reserve, and sometimes inflicted severe damage to its conspecific foe. One tyrannosaur stuided by Tanke and Currie sports a sovenir tooth, embedded in its own jaw, perhaps left by a fellow combatant."

P.269, lines 32-37 (from the top)

"The usual subjects-food, mates, and territory-may have been prompted the vigorous disagreements among tyrannosaurs. Whatever the motivation behind the fighting, the fossil record demonstrates that the behavior was repeated throughout a tyrannosaur's life. Injuries among younger individuals seem to have been more common, possibly because a juvenile was subject to attack by members of his or her own age group, as well as by large adults."
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

Spinosaurus is a very strong meat eater in Jurassic park 3. But more people are interested in Tyrannosaurus Rex. It is much more popular than spinosaurus.
from gianna c, age 10, fremont, california, U.S.; September 19, 2001

"Tyrannosaur confrontations wouldn't have been that common in the first place, because tyrannosaurines would not have risked injuring themselves over a small fight."

I don't know about that...t-rex apparently showed little reserve in disputes amongst themselves. I'll post a passage from the Scientific American: Book of Dinosaurs to display this point.

The thing is, though, why would the losing tyrannosaur run with it's feet off the ground to get away when the other could do the same?"

I'm imagining a young-adult male (or female), in its youthful cockiness and sense of invulnerability, makes the mistake of challenging an old veteran-rex. Realizing its mistake, it flees, quickly outpacing the older tyrannosaur due to its lighter weight and longer limbs in proportion to the body.

"He probably wouldn't have needed t go that fast anyway, because the winner would probably not have bothered wasting more energy harassing and trying to kill the loser. He's already won."

Yup, I agree. The older rex would have given a short chase, just enough to make sure the young upstart is out of its territory.

"Once again, T. Rex was already fast enough to put distance between himself and an angry triceratops without lifting his feet off the ground."

I don't know...I think speed estimates of a charging triceratops are at least equal to that of the "sprintwalk." In addition, the triceratops may have a greater acceleration rate than its would-be attacker, and promptly gut it if this was the case.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"Most large carnovors have none of these features. All of them have teeth that are sharper, and thiner side to side unlike T-rex.
Teeth like this are of sliceing flesh, which is what is see in carnivors that hunt there prey."

Those thin, knife-like teeth just indicated a different method of killing from that of t-rex. Slashing out a wound and bleeding their prey to death. But any impact with bone with this set of shallow, thin and relatively weak teeth, would result in shattered teeth.

"There larger arms and better agilitey makes them faster and more agresive prediters."

Umm, tyrannosaurids are among the most agile and fast theropods, much faster and agile than more primitive theropods such as the allosaurs, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Larger arms are irrelivant to predatory ability, plenty of animals kill without the use of arms. And besides, t-rex had to reduce its arms in order to specialize in killing with its mouth. Can't have a heavy set of jaws AND a heavy set of arms, it would fall over.

"whereas T-rex has teeth that are more blunt, round, and thick at the base and very different from all other large terapods."

T-rex has thick and round teeth in order to withstand the great stresses of smashing through its prey, muscle and bone alike. Bluntness is also irrelivent, as you don't need sharp teeth if you got 3,000lbs+ of force behind them. Bluntness can also be a result of wear after much usage.

"Teeth like this are only seen in animals that are mainly bone crushing scavengers."

I don't know of any bone-crushing vultures, do you? If you are referring to hyenas, hyenas will often hunt as much as they scavenge. And besides, comparing hyenas to t-rex is not a good comparison in my opinion, as hyenas are not the largest carnivores in their environment, are quadrapedal, and do not possess similar dentition...have you seen a hyena run by with 6-8 inch blades for teeth?

"T-rexes masive body would only be an added benifit for scairing off other preditors."

In fact, t-rex's size may be the PROOF that it didn't scavenge as much as some would like it to. Stuides on t-rex indicate that in order for it to exculisvely scavenge, it'd have to be ectothermic (cold-blooded) to meet energy demands on scavenging alone...and thus far, the evidence doesn't point to a "cold-blooded" metabolism for rexy.

"Its almost impossible to say that the features that piont out T-rex being a scavenger where the same as all other carivors, They are eney thing but similer."

Hmm...if you apply the same logic and arguements that scavenger theorists use on t-rex, you'll find that the majority of the large theropods are scavengers!
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"Well, for one, it would be advantageous in escaping other tyrannosaurs during confrontations gone bad. Another is to put some ditance between it and an angry triceratops it failed to take down."

Tyrannosaur confrontations wouldn't have been that common in the first place, because tyrannosaurines would not have risked injuring themselves over a small fight. The thing is, though, why would the losing tyrannosaur run with it's feet off the ground to get away when the other could do the same? He probably wouldn't have needed t go that fast anyway, because the winner would probably not have bothered wasting more energy harassing and trying to kill the loser. He's already won.

Once again, T. Rex was already fast enough to put distance between himself and an angry triceratops without lifting his feet off the ground.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 19, 2001

Ooops. I was about to say INEFFICIENT scavenger. I'm sorry about the typo error in my post.
from Guile, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

Plant eater fans..I'm sorry about saying theyr'e boring. I take it back. I bet there are some that are really cool.
from Gianna C, age 10, fremont, californya, U.S.; September 19, 2001

I'll add something to that scavenging theory:

Since it aint easy for any scavenger (extinct or not) to find a dead meal everyday, it must be designed to get all the bone-stuck meat it can get (meaning, maximizing its intake of meal from a dead animal).

A T-Rex has short arms, which means it can't possibly get the meat inside bones, or any meat stuck to it, which would make it an INEFFICIENT predtor.

All you anti-Trex hating people here have just proven bone crusing capability........not the meat extracting capability which is the more important one for a scavenger.
from Guile, age 19, Manila, ?, Philippines; September 19, 2001

I'll show everyone, without being an expert in animal physiology at
all, why T-Rex is fast.Scientists say it's stride reaches from 14 to 18 feet.
So roughly, T-rex's average stride length is 16 feet
Let's make a "very" conservative estimate. Let's say T-Rex just makes a
single stride per second.16 feet/secondequals= 4.87 m/sec.= 292.6m/min.
= 17,556m/hr.= 17.556km/hr.
See that? T-Rex already exceeds 17 kilometers per hour in a very
conservative estimate, which means it can exceed that speed without getting
agitated at all. Imagine its speed if it were to chase its prey.
HAHA! Mathematical conversions alone will humiliate all you T-Rex
hating people here.Take that Jason. 17 km/hr by virtue of walking.
And you even have the guts to say that you have a belief of your own
and don't believe in that Horner c)(*? Who the hell are you kidding? The
truth is, you just want to get an attention in this forum by making
hate statements at T-Rex, much like what Horner is doing. He gets the
media attention by distorting facts.

And to KC, leg structure of Carosaurs won't make them anywhere faster than Tyrannosaurids.

Why don't you and Jason here start your own anti-Trex club, leave this forum and make yourselves happy?
from Guile, age 19, Manila, ?, Philippines; September 19, 2001

Who do you people think is the coolest raptor?
from Gianna C, age 10, fremont, california, U.S.; September 19, 2001

No one pays much attention to the Supersaurus. I think It's one of the coolest dinosaurs.
from Rich P, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

I think the most powerful meat eating dinosaur is SPINOSAURUS. But why not lots of people didnt care so much about Spinosaurus and more of the Tyrannosaurus Rex??? I think people soould of liked Spinosaurus more than Tyrannosaurus.
from Dallas A, age 16, Omaha, Nebraska, United States; September 19, 2001

Tyrranosaurus Rex
I have some information about the carnivore Tyrannosaurus Rex.
1. T-Rexes weren't teally considered dumb. They have normal intelligence for a carnivore.
2. T-Rex research tells us that it was really a scavenger. It looked for leftover meat left behind from other carnivores. But don't get me wrong, it was a VERY feirce attacker.
3. It had a size of about 30 feet up from the ground. That's about the size of 7 10 year olds on top of each others shoulders!
4. T-Rex lived in the Cretaceous period. That was the period before dinosaurs all died out.

Now I have a question. How could mammals lived on the earth after dinosaurs if there weren't any creatures left besides some reptiles?
from Ashley Ann Holmes, age 10, Greencastle, Indiana, USA; September 19, 2001

Okay, so T Rex isn't the smartest dinosaur. But who cares? T Rex fans, don't change your mind because Tyrannosaurs are totally cool in my opinion. That is a dino to be scared of.
from Gianna C, age 10, Fremont, California, United States; September 19, 2001

My favorite dinosaur is Tyrannosaurus Rex. I think plant eaters are boring. Meat eaters are more exciting.
from Gianna C, age 10, Fremont, California, Untied States; September 19, 2001

''I find these scavenger arguments so general they could apply to any large dinosaur''

Most large carnovors have none of these features. All of them have teeth that are sharper, and thiner side to side unlike T-rex. Teeth like this are of sliceing flesh, which is what is see in carnivors that hunt there prey. There larger arms and better agilitey makes them faster and more agresive prediters. whereas T-rex has teeth that are more blunt, round, and thick at the base and very different from all other large terapods. Teeth like this are only seen in animals that are mainly bone crushing scavengers. T-rexes masive body would only be an added benifit for scairing off other preditors. Its almost impossible to say that the features that piont out T-rex being a scavenger where the same as all other carivors, They are eney thing but similer.
from KC, age 14, mocksville, N,C, U,S,A; September 19, 2001

I have three dino comments:
The T-rex was as smart as a Tiger, Rexes hunted in "herds", their bite had venom in it, that could kill attack dinos and prey.

The Utahraptor was as smart as the raptors in JP (the first movie), they hunted in "flocks" not "packs", they did use their toe claw but ALSO their bite which matched a Tigers.

The Apatosaurus was as smart as a dog, they moved in "flocks" not "herds" their bite was as strong as a gazelle. (Is that spelled right?"

P.S.: Sorry Apatosaur fans. Face it. Apatosaurs ARE NOT AS SMART AS YOU THINK THEY WHERE!
Double P.S.:
I nearly forgot!: Rexes hunted with the large meat-eater known as Acrocanthosaurs, Raptors hunted with Deinochy, Velociraptors and Troodons as said in my Story, Apatosaurs moved with Parasaurs and Maiasauras...!
from Gojira/Godzillasaurus, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

When did the Utahraptor begin to decline? To what species and how?
from micahel R, age 13, Concord, North Carolina, USA; September 19, 2001

First off, I would like to say thanks alot Brad for the information, as it clears that question up alot. Secondly for Jasons remark, "There's a little something called, "competition."
thats simply not true, at least with most animals thought to scavenge as a way of life. Hyenas, even jackals and to some exent vultures all have strict pecking orders, and conflicts especially those of a violent and lethal nature simply do not occur, not amongst the same species scavenging the same kill, at least generally speaking. On the contrary, hyenas are extremely loyal to one another, at least on the information I have seen. Conflicts of that nature are generally seen among the animals that actually hunt prey, and come across a dead animal. Or maybe I have just seen too many Discovery shows lol. In all honesty, their are probably others that post here that are far better to illustrate the finer points of the possibility of Tyrannosaur predation than I, I was just coming up with another veiwpoint, based solely on the arguements that I have seen. Again, just my point of view, so please, don't anyone get bent out of shape...If I'm wrong, I'm sure there will be plenty to po! int it out to me. Once again, a thanks to Brad for that piece of info, and God bless.
from ECTrex, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

I usually have enough information to participate in the dinosaur debates, but not with T. rex! Where are all of these biomechanical studies published? I need to learn much more about this dinosaur to be a part of Dino Talk!
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; September 19, 2001

"Nice T. rexes, Honkie Tong! But what's up with the manes? Are you a fan of Will Svensen's Gondolend and FDS?"

I'm not familar with Will Svensen and what is FDS? However, the manes are, how do I put it? Speculative display structures that Tyrannosaurus have. Being antisocially social, Tyrannosaurus would have had a great deal of inter-species interaction and prehaps some manes of long scales or feathers might fit the bill.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"When you are a scavenger that large, food is very important to you. Why would they not have a very large need to defend their food?"

Not really true. If Tyrannosaurus was going to be mainly a scavenger, he was going to be extremely rare due to his size. To be mainly a scavenger at his size denotes a smaller portion of the demographic graph. In actual fact, Tyrannosaurus was quite common for a carnivore in his time (going by loose stats). If Tyrannosaurus was mainly a scavenger to start out with, he would never have been able to build up numbers to be quite as common as the fossil record suggests. Besides, simply investing an incredible amount of energy to attaining his great size simply to scavenge seems a very poor evolutionary tradeoff to attain the intimidation factor. (One reason why modern scavengers are smaller than their meal) And of course, I wonder why would an animal that was mainly a scavenger spend so much energy to maintain hunting-specific adaptations. Besides, I find these scavenger arguments so general they could apply to any large dinosaur, for example A.Fragillis/(Maximus?) or even Giganotosaurus. And not to mention T.rex was better equipped to hunt than any of these. Sure reeks of a "mainly scavneger" I think not...

On another note, I have also realized there is a serious lack of predators capable of taking down the largest (aka. Anatotitan) and most dangerous (aka. Triceratops) prey in T.rexes' environment save for T.rex! I don't see why T.rex couldn't have easily explotited this to fill the niche' of preying on the biggest and meanest prey. It seems like a more plasuable and rewarding evolutionary path with a more advantegous payoff instead of evolving his size simply to intimidate.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"You CANNOT move fast when you still have one foot on the ground. You aren't even running when you move like that!"

I choose to differ. Without even putting down my ham sandwich, I can easily show that Tyrannosaurus could easily achieve 40-50 kph without even having to have one foot leave the ground. Let's see. Tyrannosaurus moves 3.5 times as fast as a typical 6-foot tall human for the same step frequency, due to his leg length multiply that by his gracile geometric advantage, that makes him about 4 times faster. Typical human walking speed is about 6 kph for the typical walking frequency in all animals for 2 steps a second. So our Tyrannosaurus is already moving at 20-24 kph when he is walking briskly (which already very fast). The fastest Tyrannosaurus could take strides without achieving a suspensory locomotion mode via biomechnical models is about 3.8-4.3 steps a second, which puts him at a speed of 40-48 kph. More than fast enough to catch his prey, and putting him to break (or at least compete for) the world record for the 100m sprint.

And I don't see the fuss. His prey could not run with one feet off the ground too (in fact, no animal above 2 tons could do this). So if Tyrannosaurus is going to be handicapped by this (which I have proved otherwise), his prey is going to be handicapped also! Doing a little algebra, I have worked out that it translates to no disadvatage for Tyrannosaurus at all. In fact, he is going to have the advantage in speed over his prey. It's kinda like saying a lion could not hunt wilderbeast because it could not fly, and that would be a disadvantage. Nar, I didn't think wilderbeast could fly either... :)
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"Hmmm...I disagree. I believe it WOULD be advantageous, and t-rex was built for speed, and most likely capable of running. Now keep in mind that when I say run, I don't mean a full-out sprint, but more like a fast jog."

Whoops! I have been unclear. What I really meant was, according to biomechnical studies of large Tyrannosaurid limbs, moving with both feet off the ground would not have generated any speed increase for Tyrannosaurus as opposed to the proposed no-leg-left the ground approach. But in any case, as I said, Tyrannosaurus almost certainly did have quite an impressive speed figure for his rapid locomotion phase. Running is after all broadly defined as the animals' "rapid ground locomotion phase", or a phase in the animals' locomotion where the animal moves at it's maximum velocity. So technically speaking, Tyrannosaurus certainly could run, but not in the way most smaller animals would do. No matter what though, he would have been fast!
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"I continue, however, to fail to see why the point is advantageous."

Well, for one, it would be advantageous in escaping other tyrannosaurs during confrontations gone bad. Another is to put some distance between it and an angry triceratops that it failed to bring down.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

Forgive me, I'm not very used to this. I love all dinosaurs and all animals as well. One of main hobbies is to study them. I like the T-Rex most, because it is a truly awesome creature. First of all, it's very large. 40 feet is immense for a land animal regardless of how large the extremely exceptional dinosaurs grew.(Aregentinosaurus,Seismosaurus,Sauroposeidon, etc..)
It had A high level of intellingence for a reptile(Although compared to many mammals it was not very intellingent at all.) Its strength was amazing,(many paleontologists believe it was the strongest predatory dinosaur.) It was a Coelurosaur, a bird-like group of theropods,(Birds are now, in-fact considered Theropods) it probably was quick and agile, athough some Paleontologists believe it was a slow scavenger. Sue,the T-Rex, had a stride of 14 to 18 feet, which mean simply by walking it could outrun humans, considering that most humans have a stride of no more than 2 to 3 feet maximum. There is a lot of debate over how fast T-Rex could move. Some think it could rn 15 to 20 miles per hour in a short sprint, while others think the T-Rex could sprint at over 50 miles per hour. Personnally, I think T-rex was on the faster side. Ther's also much contreversy over whether T-Rex was a hunter or a scavenger. I think that judging from the killing tool of the rex it probably was an able ! hunter, but it would not pass up an opportunity to scavenge a meal.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

Hey JC! You've read every post? In your opinion who's the best debator?
from Superdude, age 9, Sacramento, California, US; September 18, 2001
No comment! JC

"But anyway, thanks for the response, as I mis-interpreted your post about struthio; I thought you were indicating he was a DIRECT descendant of ostriches."

That's alright.

And yeah, I don't think that the ostrich was a DIRECT descendant of the ostrich, probably just a closely related ancestor. All in all, I'll just say that I was only trying to say two things:
1. It was possible for a bipedal like Tyrannosaurus to be fast 'cause he was slightly similar to the ostrich through the bird mimics.
2. Birds came from more than the jurassic birds Brad mentioned.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Country; September 18, 2001

"Brad's Jurassic Gliders? I don't remember that...."

I was referring to the birds you were talking about when you said that birds first apeared in the jurassic. I apologize if I was unclear.

"In your face you D(*& T-Rex lovers! Utahraptor is the only dinosaur ever found with the brain capacity of a human so booyah!"

Ohh, I'm so scared. I don't even know what you're trying to say, but I do know that Utahraptors were no where near as intelligent as humans.

"Hmmm.......I disagree. I believe it would be advantageous, and T. Rex was built for speed, and it was likely capable of running. Now keep in mind that when I say run, I don't mean a full out sprint, but more of a fast jog."

You are correct with the statement that T. Rex was capable of running.
I continue, however, to fail to see why the point is advantageous. Merely by walking fast, T. Rex could hit 40km/h easily. This means that T. Rex could quickly catch up to hadrosaurs easily, without having the risk of tripping and killing himself. Now, I don't understand why he would increase his speed by lifting his feet up off the ground when he is already fast enough to catch his prey anyway? I mean, why put himself in danger of tripping and falling, and probably dying? The chances may be unlikely of such an event, but why risk when you don't have to? I know I wouldn't.

"Nope, I still hold that belief."

Good for you Darius!
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 18, 2001

Utahraptors were considerbly less terrifing than smaller sleeker ones such as Veoloraptor becase Utahraptor was probbly more lummbering than speed like and jumping... think about it

Raptors Rule!
from Eric H, age ?, GPP, MI, USA; September 18, 2001

Utahraptors were considerbly less terrifing than smaller sleeker ones such as Veoloraptor becase Utahraptor was probbly more lummbering than speed like and jumping... think about it

Raptors Rule!
from Eric H, age ?, GPP, MI, USA; September 18, 2001

"My counter statement is. HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE T-REX DIDN'T USE THAT ADVANTAGE IN HUNTING?"

My counter-statemnet is: How can you be so sure that he DID use this in hunting?

"Oh no! A T.rex walking fast is moving extremely fast for a 6-ton animal! T.rex could easily achieve a velocity of 40-50 kilometers per hour simply by walking fast."

You CANNOT move fast when you still have one foot on the ground. You aren't even running when you move like that!

"Jason, do you share horner's slow, plodding EXCLUSIVE scavenger view of t-rex? Or do you have an opinion of your own? Just asking out of curiosity."

I support no one but me.

"I doubt that is very likely. Animals tend to avoid serious conflict when it pertains to food, unless it was scarce."

When you are a scavenger that large, food is very important to you. Why would they not have a very large need to defend their food?

"Allowing that they fought and killed eachother yet wouldn't risk hunting a weaker animal doesn't make sense, at least to me."

There's a little something called, "competition."
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 18, 2001

Nice T. rexes, Honkie Tong! But what's up with the manes? Are you a fan of Will Svensen's Gondolend and FDS?

http://www.angelfire.com/art/gondolend/rexphases.html

'cause I am. :)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 18, 2001

Hey Da Man, I am still waiting for your proof so where is it, huh?
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnet, Georgia, USA; September 18, 2001

Okay, so I did kinda take it too seriously... Still, Horner is both a media jockey and a scientist. I myself have never heard of these hadrosaur tails, but I gotta trust you with this stuff!
from Samuel C., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/trex/ask/ask.html

Postponed, and now cancelled! Thank you for your understanding, they say????? I have no understanding! What, will Horner never return to his job? I would understand if he needed time off, but even if it takes him two months I want to see those questions answered!

Maybe its just a cover story, and he didn't know any of the answers... :)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 18, 2001

"It didn't bother him much though, he was using a different method of locomotion to achieve higher speeds. At his size, allowing both legs to leave the ground in a run is not really advantageous or natural for him to do."

Hmmm...I disagree. I believe it WOULD be advantageous, and t-rex was built for speed, and most likely capable of running. Now keep in mind that when I say run, I don't mean a full-out sprint, but more like a fast jog.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

"He would not have tripped over, but propelling himself vertically simply to achieve a faster step rate is beyond most animals above 2 tons, let alone a 6-ton Tyrannosaurus."

Is this 2-ton thing compared to modern mammals, or dinosauria? Just wondering...
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

"It wouldn't have given him any speed advantage and is not as energy efficent for his size for his sprintwalk. T.rex was better and faster off without letting both legs leave the ground."

I'm not sure about the "energy efficient" part, but I know running would allow t-rex to achieve even HIGHER speeds than this supposed "Sprintwalk." Running simply would increase its stride length is the reason.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

"Say Darius, I wonder what is the need for T.rex to run with both legs off the ground for any time at all? "

I'm not saying that it NEEDED to run, but that it was capable of it in case the need should arise.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

"Hey T-rex fans...
IN YOUR FACE U )(*& T-rex LOVERS!UTAHRAPTOR IS THE ONLY DINOSAUR FOUND WITH THE BRAIN AND MEMORY CAPACITY OF A HUMAN SO BOOYAH!!!
Is that supposed to make us think raptors are stronger than T-Rex??? Its not working.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

However, Tyrannosaurus rex would have been very cursorial.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

Say Darius, I wonder what is the need for T.rex to run with both legs off the ground for any time at all? It wouldn't have given him any speed advantage and is not as energy efficent for his size for his sprintwalk. T.rex was better and faster off without letting both legs leave the ground. He would not have tripped over, but propelling himself vertically simply to achieve a faster step rate is beyond most animals above 2 tons, let alone a 6-ton Tyrannosaurus. It didn't bother him much though, he was using a different method of locomotion to achieve higher speeds. At his size, allowing both legs to leave the ground in a run is not really advantageous or natural for him to do.

"UTAHRAPTOR IS THE ONLY DINOSAUR EVER FOUND WITH THE BRAIN AND MEMORY CAPACITY OF A HUMAN SO BOOYAH!!!"

Heh...I don't want to go into the details, but Utahraptor was about, if you go by EQ ratings, as smart as an Ostrich. Great for a dinosaur, but hardly sufficent for a human in terms of computing power. Latest revisions into paleoneurology have indicated that Tyrannosaurids may have been every one bit as smart as your Utahraptor, if not smarter.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

"I got out one of my older books on dinosaurs recently, and discovered that Carcharodontosaurus was originally estimated to be around 26 feet in length, but now with recent findings putting the animal now in the same catorgory(lengthwise) as T.rex. Does anyone know if the same techinques for estimating the length of that animal are being applied to Spinosaurus Aeyptiacus, giving the animal its estimated 44+ in length?"

The new longer length estimate comes from that new Carcharodontosaurus skull that was found about five years ago. The original Carcharodontosaurus was probably just a smaller individual. The two different size estimates that you will see are not based on the same specimens.

"Also, are there any programs of quality that feature the
animal(not Jurassic Park, but more along the veins of Walking with dinosaurs)?"

I think there is a documentary on Egyptian diosaurus (Spinosaurus, Paralititan, Carcharodontosaurus) being made, but I don't know much about it.
from Brad, age 14, Wooville, ON, Canada; September 18, 2001

"My idea is that from Sinosauraeptrxy sprung the other dinosaurs which eventually developed into birds. This includes Brad's jurassic gliders and velociraptors."

Brad's Jurassic gliders? I don't remember that...?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 18, 2001

"Hey T-rex fans...

IN YOUR FACE YOU D(*& T-REX LOVERS! UTAHRAPTOR IS THE ONLY DINOSAUR EVER FOUND WITH THE BRAIN AND MEMORY CAPACITY OF A HUMAN SO BOOYAH!!!"

What the...? And your point is...?
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 17, 2001

"Oh, Darius, wht happenned to your running T. Rex theory? Did I finally get through to you to show you that he didn't (not couldn't) move that way?"

Nope, I still hold that belief =).

But anyway, thanks for the response, as I mis-interpreted your post about struthio; I thought you were indicating that it was the DIRECT ancestor of ostriches.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 17, 2001

I got out one of my older books on dinosaurs recently, and discovered that Carcharodontosaurus was originally estimated to be around 26 feet in length, but now with recent findings putting the animal now in the same catorgory(lengthwise) as T.rex. Does anyone know if the same techinques for estimating the length of that animal are being applied to Spinosaurus Aeyptiacus, giving the animal its estimated 44+ in length? Also, are there any programs of quality that feature the animal(not Jurassic Park, but more along the veins of Walking with dinosaurs)?
from ECTrex, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 17, 2001

"Oh yeah, skeptic, do you believe that ostriches evolved directly from ornithomimids or indirectly through ornithomimids."

Okay. I am no evolutionary expert. I only have afew simple theories based on others thoughts. Look. My idea is that from Sinosauraeptrxy sprung the other dinosaurs which eventually developed into birds. This includes Brad's jurassic gliders and velociraptors. From these creatures sprung present day birds, like the ostrich. Therefore they are modern descendant of Struthiomimus and galimimus.

In any event, I was talking about T. Rex motion when my idea of Struthiomimus-Ostrich came up. It is known that these things travelled quite fast. The Srtuthiomimus example was also related to T. Rex, so I was only trying to have evidence point towards fast bipedals, to prove Jason wrong.

Oh, Darius, wht happenned to your running T. Rex theory? Did I finally get through to you to show you that he didn't (not couldn't) move that way?
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 17, 2001

Hey Da Man, whats your proof????

And you are to young to course.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 17, 2001

How do i get to the current date.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 17, 2001

What is the largest raptor that has been discovered???
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 17, 2001

Actually, Jason is making a debate just because he wanted to impress the hell out us. Personally, I think his logic is laughable. The most laughable if you'll compare it to the other debaters here. It doesn't need a dino expert or a Honkie Tong to debunk his statement. Common sense will just do just fine.

HAHAHAHAHA!

That's the problem with kids. They always try to impress older people.

For every statement of his, I can always create a counter statement without being a dino expert.

For example, he (like Horner) always insisted on the Turkey smell analogy. That analogy is indirect. It doesn't prove anything.

My counter statement is. HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE T-REX DIDN'T USE THAT ADVANTAGE IN HUNTING?

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. An Anti-Rex statement fully countered.
from Guile, age 19, Quezon City, ?, Philippines; September 17, 2001

Hey T-rex fans...

IN YOUR FACE YOU D(*& T-REX LOVERS! UTAHRAPTOR IS THE ONLY DINOSAUR EVER FOUND WITH THE BRAIN AND MEMORY CAPACITY OF A HUMAN SO BOOYAH!!!
from Da Man, age 14, up yours, my butt, goo goo gaa gaa; September 17, 2001

Well I'm back, and here it is:

"I'm not convinced T. rex was only a scavenger, though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing"

The Complete T. Rex, by Jack Horner and Don Lessem, p.218, lines 9-11 (from the top).

Another interesting quote, to which I agree, p.220, lines 14-15 (from the top):

"To my mind, T. rex was simply the greatest oppurtunist of them all."

I wonder if Horner still holds these beliefs, or if he has changed his mind?
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 17, 2001

DIOSOURS ARE COOL .MY FAVIORTE DINOSOUR IS THE TREX
from saleha k, age 9, chigo, ILL, USA; September 17, 2001

Actually, I think you missed my point Jason. Whats so important about those findings isn't whether the Tyrannosaur circled around(which he probably didn't, just as aligators and crocs, a serious of warning or menacing hisses just before the actually bite) but the establishment of behavior. These weren't animals afraid to move, or limited to to walking for fear of falling down. These were agressive animals, perfectly capable of killing prey, as so evidence by their ability to kill and maim one another. Whether the fights were short or not isn't the point. The point being, if they'll take the greater risk of injury with another rex, why not hunt for themselves? They killed eachother, I would think the most powerful carnivores around would certainly be more of a risk than a hadrosaur. Allowing that they fought and killed eachother yet wouldn't risk hunting a weaker animal doesn't make sense, at least to me. Nothing in nature correlates to that. Then an imal will hunt because it can overpower its prey. But of course, thats all suspect to how one looks at the information, and I will be the first to tell you, I'm far from the most knowledgeable. Maybe I am holding on stubbornly to my personal veiw of the most famous dinosaur of all time, but I honestly think all the evidence points to a ferocious prolific predator...But I would certainly look at any information that would shed some light on this, either way
from ECTrex, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 17, 2001

"Which isn't that fast."

Oh no! A T.rex walking fast is moving extremely fast for a 6-ton animal! T.rex could easily achieve a velocity of 40-50 kilometers per hour simply by walking fast. More than enough to catch his prey. You can't deny the fact that T.rex was well adapted for speed, more so than the other animals in his habitat. He could outrun his prey anytime, and prehaps even keep up the pace for some time. Even 30 kph would have been very fast for an animal his size, (elephants at best manage 25 kph) T.rex could achieve much more simply by walking fast. Don't be unreasonable, there was no way he or his prey could run with both feet off the ground, which evens the table anyway! Talk about circular reasoning on your side!

"I would certainly think these animals competed intensely for food. If he was mianly a scavenger, the contest for food between rexes would be very violent and intense, most likely."

I doubt that is very likely. Animals tend to avoid serious conflict when it pertains to food, unless it was scarce. Then again, fighting over food hardly proves anything about his predatory or scavenging behaviour.
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 17, 2001

Actually, in Horner's book, the Complete T.Rex, he states in the Predator or Scavenger chapter that he believes that t-rex is an oppurtunist, and says that when he claims that t-rex is only a scavenger, he does so to be contrary and rile up his colleagues. I don't have the book with me now, but I'll post the exact page and lines either tonight or tommorow.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 16, 2001

Oh yeah, and skeptic, do u believe that ostriches evolved directly from ornithomimids, or indirectly through ornithomimid relatives?
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 16, 2001

Jason, do you share horner's slow, plodding EXCLUSIVE scavenger view of t-rex? Or do you have an opinion of your own? Just asking out of curiosity.

My view of t-rex is that it was most likely an oppurtunist; depending on the situation it was presented, it would hunt or scavenge.
from Darius, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 16, 2001

Is any body still there.
from Chris.W, age 14 1/2, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

T-rex was probably capable of moving any where from 25 to 40 mph which means no matter how big his legs are he would have to run or at least jog,it had to run because its main prey sources were almost as big as it was if not bigger, and besides what animal do you know of that walks while trying to catch its prey.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

"He could move fast enough just walking quickly."

Which isn't that fast.

"Actually, I think there is a new veiw point to be taken on the T.rex debate. The T.rex fossil of "Stan" shows wounds caused by a fight with a fellow T.rex, presumeablely over a kill."

I would certainly think these animals competed intensely for food. If he was mianly a scavenger, the contest for food between rexes would be very violent and intense, most likely.

"Applying basic logic, if the animal dare not run, according to Horner, why would it risk worse injuries in a fight with the only animal capable of killing itself, namely another rex?"

When they did compete, for territory or whatever, the Tyrannosaur fighting style would most likely involve circleling each other, trying to chase off their opponent, trying to keep the conflict from getting violent. If it did, the fight wouldn't involve dancing around, but would be almost amusingly short and violent. This all based on the fact Tyrannosaur couldn't move vrey fast and was so powerful.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 16, 2001

Your welcome Brad.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

Actually, I think there is a new veiw point to be taken on the T.rex debate. The T.rex fossil of "Stan" shows wounds caused by a fight with a fellow T.rex, presumeablely over a kill. Other skeletons revealed(or suggested) that these animals even feed upon eachother on occasion. Applying basic logic, if the animal dare not run, according to Horner, why would it risk worse injuries in a fight with the only animal capable of killing itself, namely another rex? Clear evidence has established at least one behavioural pattern in this animal, its ferocity. Such evidence proves these animals were certainly capable of fighting, and killing other animals without fear of falling down and killing themselves in the process. Even "Sue" shows signs of a rib that healed, the animal eventually dieing of non-violent causes. With that established behavior, accompanied with the obvious need for more meat than usually required for scavengers (due to its vast size and metabolism) would indicate the animal most certainly indeed hunted, at least on occasion. A lie in wait type of ambush comes to mind, with a short burst of speed from a secluded spot in the dense forest, downwind of the unsuspecting hadrosaur. Sense of smell? Anyone dealing with big game would tell you that comes in handy when hunting, especially in a dense forest enviroment. Well, thanks, and again, just my take on this
from ECTrex, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 16, 2001

"Doesn't anybody talk about small meat-eaters? Dilophasaurus is cool!"

Actually there was a debate earlier which invloved me and afew others over wether Dilophasaurus was scarier in real life or the film. It kind of ended in deadlock.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 16, 2001

"Why would T. Rex automatically trip as soon as he runs? that's absurd. Like Honkie said, it's like saying a falcon flying at 30km/h would die because if it hit a wall at those speeds it would kill itself."

By saying that T. Rex couldn't run I am not claiming that he was not incapable of moving fast, Darius. Look. I'm not saying that if T. Rex did move with both feet of the ground he would automatically trip and fall, I'm saying that he's more likely to fall. Running in such a way may increase his speed, but why would he need to do so when he is already faster than his prey? It doesn't make sense. Why would he risk falling when he doesn't have to? That's my arguement, not "he'll fall if he moves with both feet off the ground." Got that, Darius?

And yes, I am implying that it's possible ostriches evolved from Struthiomimus. All birds had the common ancestor Sinosaureoptrxy. From this dinosaur sprung feathered dinosaurs which included Brad's jurassic gliders and my Struthiomimus, as well as velociraptors. From these creatures evolved modern day birds. So in conclusion I don't think that all birds arose from the popular Archaeoptryx. The origin of birds have been traced further back, and I have National Geographic issues and many books backing me up on my theory.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 16, 2001

""Which person is the main debator"

It seems to me that Brad knows more about dinosaurs than any one else, so I would be in Brads
favor."

Thanks, but I'm not much of a debater. First of all, I don't know nearly as much about T. rex as some of the other participants. And secondly, I don't have strong opinions about T. rex. Third, most of the debates here do concern T. rex.

So I'm out. I think Honkie Tong is the best debator.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 16, 2001

"Can someone tell me what the hip, tooth, foot and claw type of an anklysauras are??????????????????????????????????"

Sure, just let me open _The Complete Dinosaur_ to Kenneth Carpenter's chapter on the Ankylosauria.

Ankylosaur hips are considerably modified from the standard ornithischain pattern. The illium is very large and almost horzontal. The pubis is reduced to a small rectangular bone. The ischium points almost straigt down. The acetabulum (hip socket) is cup-like, rather than just an opening.

The teeth are small and "shaped like tiny hands with the fingers close together". The base of the crown is swollen in ankylosaurid teeth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "foot type". Advanced ankylosaurids have three-toed feet.

And I don't even think that ankylosaurs had claws.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 16, 2001

I think that anklysaurus was pretty much the same as other 4 legged herbivore's but then again like I said earlier I don't know to much about dinosaurs.

"Which person is the main debator"

It seems to me that Brad knows more about dinosaurs than any one else, so I would be in Brads favor.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

Can someone tell me what the hip, tooth, foot and claw type of an anklysauras are??????????????????????????????????
from Danielle D., age 11, Not telling, Colorado, usa; September 16, 2001

I balieve T-rex ran with one foot on the ground because if he ran with both feet off the ground then he really would be crushed by his own weight. I don't think he sprinted though, he probably jogged so he wouldn't trip and break a arm or rib or even die.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

I was really angry when spino killed the t-rex in jp\\\. spino may have been longer but t-rex still wins!
from BA, age 9, MCKINNY, TEXAS, USA; September 16, 2001

"HEY,HOWCOME NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT DILOPHOSAURUS?HE WAS NOT VERY
MUCH SMALLER THAN T-REX!"

Unlike T. rex, which has a new documentary and is always a hot topic, there haven't been that many new theories on Dilophosaurus recently. Rob Gay has done some new work on this animal, and hopefully he will send me his paper again in a format that I can view. (He tells me that D. breedorum is sunk into D. wetherilli)

T. rex was at least ten times bigger than Dilophosaurus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 16, 2001

Does'nt ANYBODY talk about smaller meat-eaters? DILOPHOSAURUS IS COOL!
from BA, age 9, MCKINNY, TEXAS, USA; September 16, 2001

Thanks alot Usen, I appreciate it.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

Suchomimus could most likely beat and aveerege sized t rex,even know
they would never meat and Suchomimus was primalery had to fight for
meat and food a lot o've times,Because see Suchomimius lived in a enviorment where they had to fight for food faceing crocdiles and pteradon's that lived in the area o've Niger but Suchomimius sometimes would have ate Dinosaurs but usally was a fish eater but the big sickle like claw on his hand could easiley puncher a crocidle
and kill a ptreaosaur if he slammed it into the wing of it.If Suchomimus did fight T rex he could just slam the claw into T rex's
stomach rip up and push it down and then T rex easiley die and can't fight back
from SPINO, age ???, ???, ???, ???; September 16, 2001

"I STILL remain unconvinced that it was impossible for t-rex to run."

If that helps you to feel any better, T.rex did "run". Though the way he did it was very different from the way we smaller animals do it. The aim of "running" after all, is to achieve a high speed, no matter how you did it. But no, he couldn't and didn't need to achieve a suspensory locomotion mode to reach high speeds.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 16, 2001