despite the fact of the t.rex's sheer stength and speed, I think he definetly dominates!!!
from danny wu, age 16, melbourne, vic, Australia; September 30, 2001

Thank you Mr.Chandler.You are obviously well educated in zoology.Oh, Brad,since mammals evolved directly from reptiles,does that mean that mammals are also reptiles? No,of course not.Mammals,birds and dinosaurs,and pterosaurs all evolved from reptiles...evolved FROM.But mammals are not reptiles;pterosaurs were not reptiles;and birds and dinosaurs were not reptiles.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 30, 2001

Sorry, in my last post I meant, Giganotosaurus was conidered "stupid" for a THEROPOD not for a dinosaur. Sorry.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2001

Here you go Marcio,I'll compare the 3 dinosaurs for you.
Spinosaurus: This dinosaur was at least 40 ft. long. It had a large spine on its back. It had jaws equipped to catch fish and long arms with large claws at the end. Its jaws were probably not as strong as those of Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex.Its intelligence was average.
Giganotosaurus: A 45 ft. dinosaur from argentina. It had powerful jaws and a stocky build. Its senses were average, but it is considered "Stupid" for a dinosaur. It had 6 inch teeth to top it off.
Tyrannosaurus Rex: A 40 to 50 ft. long theropod from the late cretaceous. This dinosaur has the largest teeth of any dinosaur(13 inches!) T-Rex had much thicker and longer teeth than Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus, who had teeth for slicing. T-Rex had bone crushing teeth. T-Rex had the most powerful jaws of ANY meat eating dinosaur.
T-Rex had keen senses. Forward facing eyes, for stereoscopic vision, well developped Olfactory bulbs for an exceptional sense of smell, and T-Rex had ears similar to those of crocodiles. And crocodiles have excellent hearing. T-Rex was a bird-like Coelurosaur. It was probably one of the fastest large carnivores. T-REX is also considered the most intelligent large carnivore!
Does that answer your question?
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2001

The problem here is that we are using two different definitions of Reptilia. They're both good definitions, they just don't agree.

Reptilia sensu Norman is defined by characteristics posessed by members. All ectothermic amniotes are reptiles. If a new taxon evolves from a reptile ancestor and devolps endothermy, it is not considered a reptile but a member of a new class. All dinosaurs were warm-blooded, and are therefore not part of Reptilia sensu Norman.

Reptilia sensu Honkie Tong, Tim, and Brad is defined by ancestry. Any taxon descended from the most recent common ancestor of turtles, tuaturas, lizards, and crocodiles is considered a reptile. Temperature regulation does not affect classification; even warm-blooded forms like birds are still classified as reptiles because they are the descendants of reptiles.

Norman, are pelycosaurs reptiles in your version of the Reptilia?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 30, 2001

"Dinosaurs were reptiles!"

By conventional classification, yes. But some paleontologists think that they are too different to be called reptiles (like Greg Paul). And if dinosaurs are reptiles, birds are too, which messes up the whole situation even more since both Reptilia and Aves are supposed to be separate classes...
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2001

Four new species! Three thyreophorans and a bird.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 30, 2001

There could be some evidence to suggest that the very first birds were not as endothermic as we would expect in modern birds today. As I remember, examples of late jurassic birds seen to suggest they have growth stages in the bone more common to that of cold-blooded reptiles then of modern birds, prehaps the very first few birds started out just on the treshold between being cold and warm blooded. But birds are reptiles and dinosaurs are too!
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2001

Norman, I have to disagree. Here's why.
Dinosaurs EVOLVED from the first REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
The Thecodont REPTILES are considered direct ancestors of the Archosaurs. Yes, some dinosaus may have been warm blooded, but almost HALF of the dinosaurs had very reptile-like hips.(SAURISCHIA)
Birds evolved from reptiles, you can tell from the similarities beetween them and dinosaurs. AND, some of the dinosaurs that are considered the closest related to birds have reptile-like hip structures. Birds are simply evolved reptiles. If you disagree, then what would you classify dinosaurs as? Mammals? No. Birds? They evolved from dinosaurs.No. What then?
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2001

"I have a theory that T-Rex/Gigantosaurus/Carchodontosaurus (enough of those forwrd slashes) could have had feathers. You see, many of the smaller raptors like dromeasaurs like dromeauraptor or deinonychus evolved into Tetanurans or Tyrannosaurs, like Yangchaungsaurus, Cryolophosaurus and Sinimotyrannosaurus, right? Well, the other day I was watching the dinosaurus roamed on the discover chanel ( I watch that a lot). Many people think that dromearaptor had normal skin, but when dinosaurs roamed teaam displayedthem having feathers, showing similiarities with the australian frilled lizard (also seen in jurassic park. That's frilled lizard, not dromeauraptors!) If they did have feathers it's possible that the dinosaurs they evolved into (T-rex/Gigantosaurus/Carchodontosaurus) had feathers too!"

I find this unlikely for one main reason: Gigantosaurus, Carchodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex were very large. Therefore, their bodies already produced a large amount of heat, which would have helped keep their bodies warm. However, their relative the dromeasaurs were much smaller, and may have needed that layer feathered insulation to maintain a high body temperature.

Though newborn tyrannosaurs, not being as large as adults, may have had a fluffy layer like a baby chick, though as it grew and got larger it woud have shed this layer.

Still, I believe that a while back they found some tyrannosaur skin in Alberta. It was hard and knobby. So that's another reason why a tyrannosaur wouldn't have had feathers.

Well, that's all. Thanks for your time.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; September 30, 2001

In fact,(to finish my last post)as of the discovery of Sinosauropteryx
Prima, it is believed that many coelurosaurs could have had feathers, (that would mean they could be warm blooded). Bigger theropods, I don't know, as I said, at at a young stage T-Rex might have had insulating feathers. But in a Subtropical climat like in the late cretaceous, the adults and juveniles probably wouldn't need a coat of feathers.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 30, 2001

Honkie Tong,how can you truely believe that warm-blooded dinosaurs and birds are reptiles? Do you think that a walrus is an amphibian?
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 30, 2001

I would really really like to find out which is the most OUTRIGHT fiercest mightiest of the three: T REX, GIGANOTOSAURUS (FOUND IN ARGENTINA IN 1994, AND SPINOSAURUS? I want to know which was largest,strongest and most feared by their prey, based on the most reliable scientific information, and If it came to a head to head, which want would prevail as the mightiest of the 3. Thank you.
from Marcio A, age 31, Sydney, NSW, Australia; September 30, 2001

"There are no warm blooded fish."

Many researchers would disagree with you, some species of fishes have been observed to be capable of maintaining their body temperature above that of their surroundings.

Dinosaurs were reptiles!
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

Rupert, here's some info. on Hypsilophodon and Giganotosaurus!

Giganotosaurus: This dinosaur was discovered in Patagonia (Argentina) in 1995. Its name means "giant southern reptile". It is said to be about 42 ft. long. In general it was in beetween 40 and 45 ft. long. It was about 8 tons, and was 18 to 20 ft. tall. It was stockier than T-Rex, but had less powerful jaws. Giganotosaurus is considered "stupid" for a Theropod. It had teeth built for slicing, unlike the bone crushing teeth of T-Rex. Recently, Keith Rigby discovered a new T-Rex in Montana that was biiger than Giganotosaurus. For a few years Giganotosaurus was considered the largest carnivorous dinosaur. It lived 90 million years ago in South America. It lived with dinosaurs like Carnotaurus, Gasparinisaura(which it probably ate), Abelisaurus, and Argentinosaurus(which it probably hunted). How was that?

Hypsilophodon:
Hypsilophodon was a small ornithopod that was related to Iguanadon and other Ornithopods. Its name means "genus of Iguana lizard tooth" Hypsilophodon lived 125 to 115 million years ago (early cretaceous) It lived in England, Spain and Portugal. But it had relatives in all over the world. Including Antarctica! Hysilophodon was bipedal, and resembled a Coelurosaur, but it had a beak-like mouth. Hypsilophodon also had sharp hind claws. It ranked fairly high among the dinosaurs in intelligence among the dinosaurs.
Oh, and Rupert, I sort of agree with what you said, but I think it is a little different then what you said. Coelurosaus are VERY bird- like. It is not completely false to presume at least some of those bird-like dinosaurs could have been warm blooded which means some of them could have had feathers. Bigger dinosaurs, I'm not sure, but its possible that T-Rex, at a young stage, had insulating feathers.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

There are no warm blooded fish.There is no cold blooded bird.There were no cold blooded dinosaurs.ALL reptiles are cold blooded.Today, only birds and mammals are warm blooded.Yes,ALL mammals are warm blooded.Both dinosaurs and pterosaurs were warm blooded.No fish has fur.No bird starts out as a tadpoll.NO DINOSAUR IS A REPTILE.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 29, 2001

i know this an old topic but i got to make clear that spinosaurus would lose to a t-rex for many reasons first t-rex had the biggest teeth of any dinosaur and it also had the most powerful jaws of any dino,spinosaurus didnt have the jaws of a t-rex and while t-rex teeth are about 10 inches spinosaurus are about 3 inches and were shaped to eat fish.oh yeah and t-rex was more heavily built.
from emil m., age 14, ?, fl, usa; September 29, 2001

"not all dinosaurs were warm blooded (and scientists suspect the first birds were cold-blooded either)."

Which scientists? Horner and Dobb speculate about birds devloping endothermy in the Eocene in their book _Dinosaur Lives_, but I've never seen anyone else say that.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 29, 2001

I have a theory that the T-Rex/Giganatosaurus/Carcharodontosuarus(enough of these forward
slashes!)could have had feathers. You see, many of the smaller raptors like Dromaeosarus,Dromaeraptor or Deinoychus evolved into Tetanurans or Tyrannosaurs, like Yangchaungusaurus, Cryolophosuarus and Siamotyrannus, right?

Actually, dromaeosaurids are part of the group Tetanurae, and they're pretty advanced tetanurans too. There is no dinosaur called "Dromaeoraptor." Tetanurae and Tyrannosauria are not synonyms.

"Well, the other day I was watching When Dinosuars Roamed on Disovery Channel(I watch that a lot.)"

It was on just the other day? Darn, I missed it. :(

"Many people think that Dromaeraptor had normal skin, but the When Dinosaurs Roamed team displayed them having feathers, showing similarities with the Australian frilled lizard (also seen in Jurassic Park.Thats the frilled lizards, not the Dromaeraptors!)"

How are feathered dromaeosaurs similar to frilled lizards? And what is "normal skin", anyway?

"If they did have feathers, then it is possible that the dinosaurs they evolved into (T-Rex/Giganatosarus/Carcharodonto-
sarus. Those forward-slashes again!)could have had feathers too!"

There is very good evidence for feathered dromaeosaurs. Several skeletons from China of similar animals preserve the feather structure. But unfortunately for your theory, dromaeosaurs are probably not ancestral to carcharodontosaurs or tyrannosaurs. Here's a more generally accepted view of theropod evolution. (Follow the - and | lines, ignore the dots! The chart shows branching of related groups, not ancestor-descendant relationships.)

THEROPODS (Carnivorous dinosaurs)
|--CERATOSAURIA
|..`--Carnotaurus (non-feathered!)
TETANURAE (basal skin structure unknown!)
|--CARNOSAURIA
|..|--Cryolophosaurus
|..`--ALLOSAUROIDEA
|.....|--Yanchuanosaurus
|.....`--CARCHARODONTOSAURIDAE
|........|--Carcharodontosaurus
|........`--Giganotosaurus
`--COELUROSAURIA
...|--Sinosauropteryx (feathers!)
...`--MANIRAPTORIFORMES
......|--Tyrannosauria
......`--MANIRAPTORA
.........|--DROMAEOSAURIDAE ("Dromaeoraptors")
.........`--AVES (birds)

The coelurosaur theropods (Dromaeosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, etc.) definately had feathers. This is shown by the many coelurosaur skeletons with the feathers preserved- Caudipteryx, Sinornothosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Protachaeptoryx, Archaeopteryx, etc. But it isn't known when feathers first appeared. Are they unique to the coelurosaurs, or did carnosaurs (including carcharodontosaurs) have them too? No carnosaur skin is known, so we can only speculate whether they had feathers, scales, or a different type of skin.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 29, 2001

"I really get tired of people calling dinosaurs "reptiles".They were warm blooded animals directly related to birds.Birds are not reptiles."

Actually, birds _are_ reptiles.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 29, 2001

"But why do you find to idea of an advanced reptile with insulation and homothermic adilities so odd? Just because we do not have any modern examples today?"

I'd say birds are a great example of this. :)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 29, 2001

"If it is no longer cold-blooded,it is no longer a reptile.ALL dinosaurs and birds should be classified as DINOSAURS.Pterosaurs are certainly not reptiles as NO reptile has fur and NO reptile is warm- blooded.If these rules did not exisist,we would have woolly alligators competeing with polar bears.There is nothing about a pteratactyle that remotely resembles any living reptile.They were not reptiles.They were not mammals.They were not dinosaurs."

I don't think when it's not cold-blooded, it's no longer a reptile. Using the same logic, I can argue many dinosaurs were not dinosaurs as they were not warm-blooded. Besides, the "warm" or "cold" bloodedness of an animal has always been disregarded for classifying animals under such broad divisions (there are some "warm-blooded fish, so I guess they must not be fish, based on your argument) I think we identify animals nowadays by the animals they decended from, since the dinosaurs are archosaurs, you can be pretty sure they are reptiles, besides, not all dinosaurs were warm blooded (and scientists suspect the first birds were cold-blooded either). It's extremely poor to identify things based on their properties, it's like saying humans or kangeroos must not be mammals as most mammals don't use two limbs to move, therefore, humans and kangeroos must be birds! Nope, you can't classify things so simply, based on this. It's extremely bad science. We do have more than enough evide! nce to call dinosaurs reptiles. And it would be scientifically wise to do so.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

"I don't what anyone copying off of JP5 of DWDWF!"

I don't see how anybody would copy it, considering it's already a copy in itself. Why make a copy of a copy. I'm sorry, but I'm not too pleased with your blatant copying of Dino Warz here. It's not really right to leach off other people's hard work and ideas like that, and then claiming it as if it was your own. I hope I don't sound too harsh.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

Couple of things I have to get on the right path!:
I don't what anyone copying off of JP5 of DWDWF!
The statist (or however you spell it) is for JP5, and Gloman: DROP DEAD DEINONYCHUS KILLER! )Note: this is a vote of Deinonychus.)
from Alpha Male Deinonychus, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

Tom G., the new unnamed carnivore lived in Argentina 100 million years ago.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

Here's another new meat eating dinosaur discovered in 2000: Nqwebasaurus, discovered in Africa. It's a Coelurosaur.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

Toby N., this is what I know about this new meat eating dinosaur.(sorry to take so long to reply.) This new meat eater was discovered in the Patagonian desert in March 2000. It is estimated to be about 45 ft. long. It is described as "a needle nosed scizor jawed meat eater." It had slightly shorter legs than T-Rex, but was slightly heavier. So that would make it about 15 ft. tall and 7 to 8 tons. Compared with T-rex which was 18 ft. tall and 6 to 7 tons on average.
The paleontologists who discovered it said it could use its jaws to cut with surgical precision. This dinosaur, however, did not have the jaw power or the strength of T-Rex, and T-Rex was more intellingent. That's what I know about it.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

I agree with Leonard, sorry Norman!
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

Ginnia,I like King Bowser in Mario games.I like to beat him up,but I'm not a very big fan of Velociraptors
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 29, 2001

"Nar, I think 45mph is a little too high for rexy. And Bakker more to me like a person wanting to fit his theory rather than find the truth. Truew, many of his ideas were bang on the money, but I don't think this one is. 25-30 mph would have been a better estimate for tyrannosaurus. The smallest tyrannosaurids could have reached 45mph".

Hmmm, I wouldn't be so sure about that. If anything the smaller tyrannosaurids would have been slower than the larger ones for two reasons: 1. The larger tyrannosaurids had a larger stride than the smaller ones. 2. The larger ones would have also been more muscular.

The idea is that the smaller ones wouldn't have been faster just becasue they're lighter. The heavier ones would have also had the advantage of added muscles and longer strides. I think that that's what would have made the larger ones faster than their smaller counterparts.

In any event, I'd see a tyrannosaurs speed possibly bordering on 40mph. Though 45mph may have been too high for running, I think 25-30mph was a little too slow for him as well. T. REx neede to be able to outrun hadrosaurs to hunt and move fast to escape triceratopsian encounters which have gone bad.

I'll fit the next three quotes into one becasue they ssem to follow the same manner.

"Velociraptor
height: 2-4 feet
weight: 95-150
ages: 18-80
walking speed: 15mph
running speed: 50mph

Deinonychus
height: 3 to 5 feet
weight:100-170
ages:5-20
walking speed: 25mph
running speed: 60mph

Utahraptor
height:4-7 feet
weight: 150 pounds to 1 ton
ages: 3-30
walking speed: 27mph
running speed: 70-80mph"

Whoa. Looks like these things are way to fast. Look. I think these guys were built more for agility than speed. They had long tails and could maneuver their bodies quite well, but they ceratinly weren't too fast. In my opinion, dromeasaurs didn't chase down their prey. They probably relied on surprising it by quickly moving out from hiding, then cut and tear whatever they could see. If they worked like this in groups, hunting would have been much easier, as the simply rip through the prey at vital points like the head, neck, legs (to prevent escape) etc. These things weren't meant to be that fast. Plus, Velociraptor and deinonychus were too small to get a good stride and Utahraptor was a little heavy to be running that fast without hurting himself by pressure on his legs and the possibility of falling
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canadian and proud; September 29, 2001

I have a theory that the T-Rex/Giganatosaurus/Carcharodontosuarus(enough of these forward slashes!)could have had feathers.You see, many of the smaller raptors like Dromaeosarus, Dromaeraptor or Deinoychus evolved into Tetanurans or Tyrannosaurs, like Yangchaungusaurus, Cryolophosuarus and Siamotyrannus, right? Well, the other day I was watching When Dinosuars Roamed on Disovery Channel(I watch that a lot.)Many people think that Dromaeraptor had normal skin, but the When Dinosaurs Roamed team displayed them having feathers, showing similarities with the Australian frilled lizard (also seen in Jurassic Park.Thats the frilled lizards, not the Dromaeraptors!)If they did have feathers, then it is possible that the dinosaurs they evolved into (T-Rex/Giganatosarus/Carcharodonto-
sarus. Those forward-slashes again!)could have had feathers too!

I told my scool-friends up at KCJS Wimbledon, and some of them thought I was talking nonsense! Can any of you people out there who think I'm right (or wrong!) please reply and say why.

Best regards,

Rupert

P.S Can anyone give me any information about Hypsilophodon or Giganatosaurus? If so, thank-you!
from Rupert, age 9, London, Greater London, England; September 29, 2001

If it is no longer cold-blooded,it is no longer a reptile.ALL dinosaurs and birds should be classified as DINOSAURS.Pterosaurs are certainly not reptiles as NO reptile has fur and NO reptile is warm- blooded.If these rules did not exisist,we would have woolly alligators competeing with polar bears.There is nothing about a pteratactyle that remotely resembles any living reptile.They were not reptiles.They were not mammals.They were not dinosaurs.
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 29, 2001

Dinosaurs were a group of creatures that lived from 228 to 65 million
years ago.They lived in the Triassic,Jurassic and Cretaceous period.
The smallest dinosaur was Compsognathus,the biggest one was Seismosaurus,and the oldest was Eoraptor.One Australian dinosaur
was called Muttaburrasaurus.Another was Leallynasaura.
from Daniel O, age 6, Perth, Western Australia, Australia; September 28, 2001

Hey tom????? you have to read dinotopia if you did not read it.
from nils, age 10, chico, CA, USA; September 28, 2001

"I really get tired of people calling dinosaurs "reptiles".They were warm blooded animals directly related to birds.Birds are not reptiles.I also hate to hear Pterosaurs called "flying reptiles".The pterodactyles had fur and to have the energy to fly were obviously warm blooded.Pterosaurs were a life-form in a group of thier own with no living relatives...certainly not reptiles!"

Hmm, you seem to have your cladistics badly mixed up here. If the birds are decended from the dinosaurs, all the dinosaurus would not be considered birds, but rather, all the birds would be considered dinosaurs. Birds after all, can be technically considered heavily modified reptiles, in the sense of the word. Pterosaurs were almost certainly reptiles too, based on their cladistics, though the relation isn't clear. But why do you find to idea of an advanced reptile with insulation and homothermic adilities so odd? Just because we do not have any modern examples today?
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2001

It seems like I have yet to make my say about the Jurrasic Park 3 movie...I have to say that I give it 1 star for many reasons. To my first reason, the movie was to broad and short, second, not enough dinosaurs and most of all, the annoying girl they had in there. Wasn't there suppose to me more showing of how intellegent the raptors where, I personally believe that it would of been more interesing on how more intellegent they where if they where pinned against there own dino kind. Like if the movie would of portrayed a pack of raptors attacking and taking down a large herbivore with cooridnated strikes and cooperation. This would of made the movie alot better...and also, how comes the T-Rex was made to look like such a wimp? Don't get me wrong, but doesn't the name "Tyrant Lizard King" mean anything...T-Rex was dominant in the last two movies, why couldn't he stand up against a Spinosaurus, plus he also had the first bite. The movie got alittle too out of hand, I didn't really get bothered by the Velociraptors being already "slightly" larger than there real counterparts but to make the Spinosaurus much much larger than its real self to compete against the T-Rex...I mean this makes Spinosaurus look weak for real life. The Spinosaurus fans should be outraged by this, also it seems to me they made Spinosaurus look even bigger than Giganotosaurus. It would of been really nice if they would of shown Spinosaurus hunting large herbivores instead of chasing down 6ft tall human snacks. They didn't show enough herbivores in the movie, I was hoping to see two triceratops going against eachother, I wanted to see more of the dinosaurs!

This is my opinion on what I believe JP4 should be like, in part 4 they finally let scientist enter the park, but there are major restrictions and only the highest of scientist are allowed. In JP4 they could then show how the dinosaurs fend for themselves, also we could add suspence too, because with so many scientist entering, there are military base camps and navy ships around on patrol around the island. I think it would be really cool to see JP4 like that, or maybe this sounds too much like a National Geographic episode, anyways, all in all if they make a JP4, it's got alot on its shoulders, for 3 seemed to kill the series...and also, in part 4, they should put T-Rex back where he belongs, as the TOP SUPERPREDATOR that he is, is it just me, or just when they switched JP logo and dominant superpredator from T-Rex to Spinosaurus, didn't JP just go down the drain...?
from Shining Synbios, age 19, Green Bay, WI, United States; September 28, 2001

The new dino lived about 100 million years ago
from Brock H, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2001

"Who likes velociraptors??????who likes King Bowser in mario games?"
I really like velociraptors, they are my second favorite dinos, and I don't like Bowser because he is mean.
from gianna, age 10, fremont, ca, ?; September 28, 2001

I really get tired of people calling dinosaurs "reptiles".They were warm blooded animals directly related to birds.Birds are not reptiles.I also hate to hear Pterosaurs called "flying reptiles".The pterodactyles had fur and to have the energy to fly were obviously warm blooded.Pterosaurs were a life-form in a group of thier own with no living relatives...certainly not reptiles!
from Norman, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 28, 2001

Who likes velociraptors???? who likes King Bowser in mario games???
from Andrea.L., age 12, ottawa, ontario, canada; September 28, 2001

I had taken the last couple of days off to further evaluate the likelyhood of a tyrannosaur employing suspended locomtion. Here's what I've come up with:
Tyrannosaurus Rex employing a sprint walk locomtion movement- the tyrannosaur starts with both legs spread apart. At a weight of approximately 6810 kg, the tyrannosaurus had roughly 66806.1 Newtons of force pulling on him in total, that's about 33403.5 Newtons on each leg. As Tyrannosaurus rex lifts one leg, he forces it past the position of the other leg, and the leg hits the ground at about 4.901582 metres per second. This entire motion would take approximately 0.781286672 seconds to execute one full stride (to further determine the tyrannosaurs speed you would have to factor in the stride, but since this isn't essential since I'm determining the effect of superspensory locomtion on the tyrannosaurs leg's rather than calculate which was faster by comparison). While the one leg was up in the air, however, the entire force of newtons pulling on the T. Rex would be directed through the tyrannosaurs leg. However, this was only for a brief period of less than a second, so the effects would have caused no damage to the leg.

Tyrannosaurus Rex employing a suspensory locomotion movement- T. Rex's legs are both in the air while in mid run. One,leg then hits the ground at a speed of 4.901582 metres per second, only when this occurs the leg which hits the ground must support the entire force of newtons pulling on the tyrannosaur. In addition to this, in order for the movement to qualify as suspensory locomotion, the tyrannosaur must lift the leg which just hit the ground before the second one does the same. This means that in order to keep moving, not only must one of the tyrannosaur's legs must always be carrying the weight of the tyrannosaur, but also must be capable of exerting a greater force than that pulling down on it. Keeping up an action like this would have had incredibly straining effect on the tyrannosaurs legs.

So Darius, in order for the tyrannosaur to use suspensory locomtion, the situation must of been desperate. As far as I can determine, though, the tyrannosaur was already fast enough to deal with dangerous situations like escaping an enemy tyrannosaur or an angry tricertops.

Some of you may find the fact that there was 66806.1 Newtons pulling on the tyrannosaurs body unlikely. Allow me to explain.
Today on earth, for every kilogram on your body there is a force of 9.81 Newtons pulling on it.
However, back in the Mesozoic, if I am correct, scientists believe that the planet was a little smaller than it is today. Therefore, there was less gravitational pull on everything there, which is a factor which may have allowed dinosaurs to reach such amazing sizes and weights.
Alas, I was unable to find an estimate to locate the force in Newtons on each kilogram on a body in the late cretacious. So, I used todays force to come up with my comparison.
Still, it is only a comparison, and had I used a force of 7.81 or something else as the force in Newtons pulling on T. Rex, the result of my comparison would have still been the same: it was much less of a strain for T. Rex to move with both feet on the ground. In addition, there was no reason to risk tripping or hurt himself by employing suspensory locomtion when he didn't need to as well.

So Darius, if you are still out there, I want to here those reasons for you to justify your ideas. I think you should know that when someone posts there own way to look at something, many people on this board including myself tend to attack your statements. When you chose not to justify yourself again because you are "lazy" makes you seem even more foolish. It seems the best you could do was to say "you haven't convinced me" or "blah blah blah". I find this as something foolish yet hard to argue with becuase it doesn't really pose a question. It simply critisizes without any grounds whatsoever.

I think that that's just the way you've always seen T.Rex: a runner. That's why you asked "who says T. Rex couldn't run?" But when it came time for you to try to counter what I said, you had nothing to justify yourself. I thinks it's possible that you didn't have any points to do so, so you ended up in a debate you knew you couldn't win but didn't want to lose.

Well you picked the wrong person to argue with.
from Skeptic (guess who's back!), age 13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada baby!!!!; September 28, 2001

"(note: Jurassic Park V: ReBirth Of InGen is copyright by Alpha Male Deinonychus! And so is Dino Warz: Dinosaur Wreslting Confederation!)"

This is a very bad idea, I think it's rather explict that JP and Dino Warz is copyrighted by Michael Crichton and Billy Macdraw, you could run serious implications by writing their stories for them without their permission, and if you intend to claim them as yours, that's going to run some extremely serious legal issues. We tend to be pretty lax about other people using the characters in these stories in your fanfic, but if you are going to take the entire idea and stake it as yours, it's a very bad case.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2001

"So _Tyrannosaurus rex robustus_ is a subspecies of T. rex?

Honkie, what's your opinion on Tarbosaurus bataar? New genus, "subgenus" of Tyrannosaurus, or just another species of Tyrannosaurus?"

Yikes! I was actually refering to the morph of the T.rex, not the subspecies. I should have stated it as "robustus T.rex" instead. Tarbosaurus is extremely similar to Tyrannosaurus...save for a few differences in the brow bone area... I dunno, I suppose we could consider it Tyrannosaurus bataar. But it's extremely hard to classify dinosaurs in detail with the absence of soft tissue, something we obviously lack in quantity in the fossil record.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2001

where dinosaurs mean?
from Chris, age 13, ?, ?, ?; September 28, 2001

Some dinosaurs are dumb and some are smart.
from Jenny.L, age 11, Wentworthville, N.S.W, Australia; September 28, 2001

Dinos are not dumb Troodon was as smart as a modern bird and birds are not dumb.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

When did the new unamed carnovore live?
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

Spinosaurus was a scavager and I know I study dino's.
from nils, age 10, chico, CA, USA; September 27, 2001

Brittey your right the three horned dino is stranger then t.rex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from nils, age 10, Chico, CA, USA; September 27, 2001

Dinosaurs are not dumb like Chris said. becuase I know a few dino's
that are smart like Troodn he was one of the smartest.
from nils, age 10, chico, california, usa; September 27, 2001

I got a joke

Whats a dinosaur with a horn

Hornasaurus
from Brennan, age 10, Perth, WA, Australia; September 27, 2001

"(note: Jurassic Park V: ReBirth Of InGen is copyright by Alpha Male Deinonychus! And so is Dino Warz: Dinosaur Wreslting Confederation!)"

I'd expect them to be copyrights of Michael Crichton and Billy Macdraw....
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2001

He/she is right, dinosaurs aren't dumb, as matter of fact they were probably smarter than you are.
from Chris.W, age 15, Duluth, Georgia, USA; September 27, 2001

Dinosaurs aren't dumb, you are!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

dino's are dumb
from jenna c, age 13, monroe, nc, us; September 27, 2001

And some more stuff regarding their classification.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2001

Some reading on the Tyrannosauridae.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2001

Yes I have heard of it. And it is still unamed. I'm voting for it in the vote section.
from Brock H, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

"I think "T.imperator" could be simply a very large T.rex robustus."

So _Tyrannosaurus rex robustus_ is a subspecies of T. rex?

Honkie, what's your opinion on Tarbosaurus bataar? New genus, "subgenus" of Tyrannosaurus, or just another species of Tyrannosaurus?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 27, 2001

IN March of 2000,a new dinosaur predator was discovered.It was said to be bigger than T-Rex,Charcarodontosaurus,or Gigonotosaurus.I would like to know the name of this dinosaur and information on it.It was discovered in South America.Has anyone else heard of it?
from Toby N, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 27, 2001

I think "T.imperator" could be simply a very large T.rex robustus. Prehaps they could call it a new morph, but I don't think so. Animals tend to reach large sizes if they fed well and lived long enough, typically in capativity, but I don't think its entirely unlikely that these extra-sized rexes could have had a richer-food and less-dangerous habitat than other rexes living elsewhere, allowing them to reach these sizes. It could be the case, for Horner is also turning out extra-sized T.rexes in the area. Prehaps these rexes were lucky enough to live an easier life?

Prehaps we should call this the imperator morph?
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

So Harold, what makes Spinosaurus not a scavenger?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

"you do not know if it was a bull or a cow-( or even if it was bovine )"

Man, you've got to have more trust in people than that. I don't want to always worry that my hamburger could be made of apes or something.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

T.Rex was a scavenger. Buzzards are scavengers. I don't like buzzards or T.Rex. I like Spino.
from Harold, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2001

i heard that a trisaratops are stronger than a t-rex
from brittney, age 13, taylorsville, nc, usof a; September 26, 2001

It is no great insult to be a scavenger.When you eat a hamberger,you do not know if it was a bull or a cow-( or even if it was bovine ). You do not know how the animal you are eatting died.To be a scavenger is simply to use a differant hunting approach.You hunt someone elses kill,and take it from them.T-Rex could take the kill away from any other predator or pack of predators of his time.Predator or hunter, our T-Rex is still King.
from Toby N, age 52, Fernandina Beach, Florida, U.S.A.; September 26, 2001

"Q: Are any sauropod live in Cretaceous period?
from Ang Ling Yuen, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia; September 24, 2001

A: Yes, some Cretaceous period sauropods included Algoasaurus, Astrodon, Malawisaurus, Asiatosaurus, Mongolosaurus, Ultrasaurus, Aepisaurus, Aragosaurus, Losillasaurus, Macrurosaurus, Oplosaurus, Pelorosaurus, Pleurocoelus, Venenosaurus, Cedarosaurus, Aegyptosaurus, Paralititan, Rebbachisaurus, Hisanohamasaurus, Megacervixosaurus, Microdontosaurus, Mongolosaurus, Segnosaurus, Austrosaurus,
Aragosaurus, Chondrosteosaurus, Oplosaurus, Sauroposeidon, Sonorasaurus, Alvarezsaurus, Campylodoniscus, Clasmosaurus, Loricosaurus, Microsaurops, Neuquensaurus, Rapetosaurus, Chiayusaurus, Hisanohamasaurus, Megacervixosaurus, etc."

Segnosaurus and Alverezsaurus are coelurosaurs. How did Alverezsaurus ever get on that list?????
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001
Human error. JC

Just a few comments on Mesozoic Park:

It's an obvious plagarism of Jurassic Park, but it's funny and enjoyable.

"Ah&hellip" Okay, what's up with the &hellip? It was in Old Blood too.

_Allosaurus_ is not known from Mongolia, and the "dwarf allosaur" (as seen in WWD) is Australian.

I'd like to know why you use the name Dynamosaurus impersious. Is it valid again?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

The link for the last view days of Dinotalking is incorrect (it leads to the previous few days).
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001
It's been fixed. JC

"Brad, the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Tyrannosaurus Imperator are of the same species...almost."

So it's a subspecies? (Tyrannosaurus rex imperator?)

"And the "age" is a theroie about when their "teenage" in human years."

Is it a theory based on evidence? I can't imagine a 69-year old Tyrannosaurus being equivalent to a human teenager. What would its entire lifespan be???
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

(*Collective groan) Ughhh....the wrestling posts are back... What will the media dogs think? There are women and children here! Prehaps it would be less distruptive and more profitable for the Zoom (tm.) franchise to set up a Zoomwrestling.com, but I'm not going there!
from Leonard, age 14, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2001
We're not at all associated with PBS's Zoom show. When we started ZoomDinosaurs, that show had been off the air for years - it was later revived. JC

Hey, who likes my fanfic Mesozioc Park Part 1?
from Alpha Male Deinonychus, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2001

Brad, the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Tyrannosaurus Imperator are of the same species...almost. And the "age" is a theroie about when their "teenage" in human years. You may have noticed that the raptor is 4 feet tall. JC, I made a mistake. I put theroies in Dino Science Forum, I need you to move it.
from Alpha Male Deinonychus, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2001

What did duckbills love? I suppose the answer would be their families, going by the example of Maiasaura. What is the range of emotions experienced by living archosaurs?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

Oh, that JDP! I've been there. Here's the paper on Utahraptor, another often-discussed theropod.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

We have rather inflated dino speeds here!

"TYRANNOSAURUS REX:
Height: 18 feet to 20 feet
Weight: 5 tons to 8
Ages: 4 - 69
Walking Speed: 10 MPH
Running Speed: 45 MPH!
Yes Robert .T. Bakker proved the T-rex ran that fast! "

Nar, I think 45 MPH is a little too high for rexy. And Bakker seemed more to me like a person wanting to fit his theory rather than find the truth. True, many of his ideas have been bang on the money but I don't think this one is. 25-30 MPH would have been a better estimate for Tyrannosaurus. The smallest Tyrannosaurids could have reached 45 MPH.

"TYRANNOSAURUS IMPERATOR:
Height: 20 to 25 feet
Weight: 8 to 9 tons
Ages: 3 - 69
Walking Speed: 10 MPH
Running Speed: 40 MPH"

Hmm, isn't T.imperator = T.rex? But I suppose their larger species would not have been that fast, though they would have made up for it with their longer stride, 25-30 MPH, I say.

"VELOCIRAPTOR -?-
Height: 2- 4 feet
Weight: 95- 150
Ages: 18 - 80 (human lifespan also!)
Walking Speed: 15 MPH
Running Speed: 50 MPH"

Nope, not unless their only weaknesses were kyptronite. For a good handle of how fast they really ran, look at juvinile ostriches at about medium dog size, though Velociraptor would have been slower, due to its more robust and less-adapted-for-speed limbs. It's entirely possible an Olympic human sprinter going at 23 miles per hour could have outrun a Velociraptor. I put Velociraptor's speed at about 20 MPH.

"DEINONYCHUS -?-
Height: 3 to 5 feet
Weight 100 to 170
Ages: 5 - 20
Walking Speed: 25 MPH
Running Speed: 60 MPH"

Suspiciously high, 45 MPH could have been the maximum for these animals, which was Ostrich speed. But these animals had considerably more robust limbs which would have limited their speed further. Prehaps 30-35 MPH would be more reasonable.

"UTAHRAPTOR:
Height: 4 to 7 feet
Weight: 500 pounds 1 ton
Ages: 3 - 39
Walking Speed: 27 MPH
Running Speed: 70 - 80 MPH"

Not unless they had bionics, which I don't think existed back then. I can't imagine the impact of an one ton animal suddenly stumbing at over 128 kph. Besides, I doubt he would have achieved this speed in the first place. Given his extreme weight (for a raptor) and robust limb designs, slash this figure to a more reasonable 25 MPH. The fastest dinosaur designs were really the Tyrannosaurids and the Ostrich mimics, not the raptors.

"And...
STEGOSAURUS:
Height: 5 - 10 feet
Weight: 2 - 3 tons
Ages: 2 - 10
Walking Speed: 4 MPH
Running Speed: 25 MPH"

Stegosaurus was among one of the slowest moving dinosaurs, despite what Bakker says. 7-10 MPH sounds good for a max speed.

And the ages seem rather flipped too. Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus would have been the longest living of the lot, while Velociraptor would have had the shortest lifespan, going by what we know about animals.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 26, 2001