Most dangerous extinct predators for humans ?

[theropod]

^Obviously not, such articles are mostly misleading and oversimplified. This is a very good example, the paper states that so many herbivores in its time were that small, not that it hunted them, but that is what the article misconstructed from it. The whole thing seems to have little to do with the paper actually. Those journalists should at least aquire some degree of paleontological and general scientific knowledge before writing things that others then believe.

Apart from that, I think they were just stating the obvious. T. rex being an obligate scavenger is completely ridiculous and was made up to receive some attention. I don't think it really takes a paper to debunk that, when there were no arguments for it in the first place. T. rex scavenging a Parksosaurus carcass? Or hunting the Parkosaurus? Very unlikely. That it would scavenge given the opportunity (eg. a nice large Alamosaurus carcass which is impossible to consume quickly for the competition) is out of the question, but it would not specialize in doing so, it would mostly hunt large herbivores (large Ankylopollexians, ceratopsians, thyreophorans).

[Deleted]

Here are what I think are some of the most dangerous extinct predatory animals for humans:

Nanotyrannus, Megalosaurus, Erectopus, Utahraptor, Ceratosaurus, Dromornis, Brontornis, Inostrancevia, large Dimetrodon species, Redondasaurus, Postosuchus - too large to defend from against, and small enough for humans to fall within prey size range

And as a bonus, here are what I think are some of the LEAST dangerous large predators for humans:

Megalodon, Carcharodontosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Saurophaganax, Pliosaurus macromerus - just compare any of them to a human side-by-side, the reason is obvious, unless you think that large active macropredators prey on animals 2% or less of their own body mass.

[Grey]

Tom Holtz agreed that Spinosaurus would have been more dangerous than T. rex for humans.

“They were at least in part fish-eaters, and they would use these crocodile-like jaws to hold onto fish about the size of a human being and gulp them down,” Holtz said. “So them going after something the size of a human is pretty reasonable. In fact, it’s probably more reasonable that a Spinosaurus would go after a human than a Tyrannosaurus.”

www.nbcnews.com/id/3077280/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/reality-behind-dino-tales/#.UcVhgvn0GXA

[creature386]

Maybe more likely, but still not very likely, as it's fish were likely a lot larger.

[Grey]

Spinosaurus fishes preys were not all white shark sized either, human-sized fishes were also abundant and I doubt it would practice segregation.

[creature386]

I know that not all fishes were Onchopristis sized, but even fishes like Mawsonia would dwarf a human.

[Grey]

Jun 22, 2013 15:04:55 GMT 5 creature386 said:

I know that not all fishes were Onchopristis sized, but even fishes like Mawsonia would dwarf a human.

Would you approach a living Spinosaurus ?

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2013 15:45:05 GMT 5 Grey said:

Jun 22, 2013 15:04:55 GMT 5 creature386 said:

I know that not all fishes were Onchopristis sized, but even fishes like Mawsonia would dwarf a human.

Would you approach a living Spinosaurus ?

No, just no, unless you happen to be a Paralititan...

[creature386]

Jun 22, 2013 15:45:05 GMT 5 Grey said:

Would you approach a living Spinosaurus ?

No, but smaller predators may be more aggressive toward humans.

[theropod]

Jun 22, 2013 15:04:55 GMT 5 creature386 said:

I know that not all fishes were Onchopristis sized, but even fishes like Mawsonia would dwarf a human.

Mawsonia is just as huge as Onchopristis, if not larger going by some enigmatic findings.

Grey: That one would not want to approach something doesn't mean that animal would be among the most dangerous ones for humans. Extant lions or Jaguars are not particularly dangerous to humans, and if only because they have toothache, but I wouldn't want to go near one of them either.

[Deleted]

It also depends on which Spinosaurus we are talking about. MSNM V4047 may just ignore a human while IPHG 1912 may go on to attack said human.

[Grey]

Of course, but simply, the prey size range of Spinosaurus is closer than in other large theropods, so I wouldn't be surprised such a big thing would chase us.

For sure, the smaller predators you all refer would have been far more dangerous.

But in terms of giants predators, the more opportunistic it is, the more I see it dangerous for humans.

[theropod]

In that sense, Saurophaganax or Epanterias would plausibly at least pose a greater thread than Tyrannosaurus of Carcharodontosaurus, because of the quick-striking morphology in their skulls and necks.

[Grey]

Jun 22, 2013 16:03:45 GMT 5 theropod said:

In that sense, Saurophaganax or Epanterias would plausibly at least pose a greater thread than Tyrannosaurus of Carcharodontosaurus, because of the quick-striking morphology in their skulls and necks.

I've always seen allosaurs as a greater threat for a human-sized preys than the larger and more specialized carcharodontosaurs and tyrannosaurs.

I see them proportionnally as agressive as a saltie or a nile croc, only fully terrestrial and much faster.

[theropod]

^In was talking about huge Allosaurids, possibly in a comparable size range to large tyrannosaurs and carcharodontosaurs. No doubt they would not take that much of an interest in human prey, but probably more than more specialized giants, and be also more suitable for catching a human.