Post by theropod on Apr 6, 2014 18:10:09 GMT 5
This guy is pretty much the lion fanboy among T. rex fanboys:
Great, having no competition means being the best. If I am the only one to turn up to a weight-lifting competition, I’m automatically the best weight-lifter ever?
T. rex is the only theropod for which having stressed bones is an advantage, because if they break from all this stress, it will use the fragments to spear other theropods, because it is so intelligent it can use tools!!!!
Spino however only had a 4.8-5.6ft skull and that would have made it 41-47ft
A fairly strange paralell, isn’t it?
MOR008 skull was a bit different than Sue's because it was a maleAnd again...
T. Rex's growth rates have proven to be explosive depending on their health and how much they consumed. This would mean yes, T. Rex can get much larger than Sue. We have plenty of carnosaurs and they do not show signs of such growth rates. This being the case, they likely did NOT have itHmm, because nobody studied them?…no, even that’s not really true: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16380967
There’s nothing so special about T. rex growth rates. It is actually one of the few dinosaurs known from osteologically mature specimens.
he is referring to this quote from Coria & Calvo
Now, I presume giant Carcharodontosaurs from this formation are so common it could be one of litterally dozens of species!
burningice744 said:
Why the hell would someone try that? Oh yeah, T-rex hate. He's the only theropod with this size and still have weapons like bone-crushing teeth, binocular vision, perfect sense of smell, bulky body, powerful brain, muscled joints, strong bone design, and the most important, no competition that isn't his own species. Spinosaurids and Carcharodontosaurids, for example, had competition. Tyrannosaurus had ZERO competition, means that if he lived with competitors, he'd exterminate them all. burningice744 said:
I've hold a tooth, saw the skeleton, and hold a leg bone, and they were original, for scientific research. I'm not a fanboy, I'm a researcher you little kid >-> If Tyrannosaurus was weak, I'd say "Tyrannosaurus was weak" and would give you proof of it. And another thing which shows you're a kid is that you don't know what age have to do with it. I hope you realize little fanboy kids like you don't accept facts. burningice744 said:
So why didn't it have ANY bone stress? Are you F***ing kidding me? You see, Spinosaurus HAD competition. Tyrannosaurids had ZERO competition, it means any competition they had, was completely exterminated. The only competitors they had were other Tyrannosaurids.burningice744 said:
Because there was NO theropod that could win more than 5/10 against Tyrannosaurus. Deal with it. He was the only dinosaur with this much weapons. Some people really say absurd things like 20,000lbs bite. But I'm giving you truth and you're denying it, because you just don't want to deal with the fact Tyrannosaurus was the best theropod to ever walk the earth. I'm not fanboying, but which theropod had binocular vision, crushing power, high ratio of bone stress, and many other? Only T-rex. T. rex is the only theropod for which having stressed bones is an advantage, because if they break from all this stress, it will use the fragments to spear other theropods, because it is so intelligent it can use tools!!!!
CryolophoFan2010 said:
read it, but i won't believe. its jaws are narrow so it didn't have a strong bite. it didn't need one, it just grabbed 8 m swordfish out of the water and ripped it apart with his claws, seriously watch planet dinosaur to know that. KILLSHOCK1100 said:
From what we have, giganotosaurus and spinosaurus were possibly larger. The most complete giga is about 50% complete and the recent spino specimen is just a snout. Their estimates are not conclusive but giganotosaurus was if anything just slightly longer by about half a foot whereas T. Rex was actually taller due to giganotosauruses much thinner and shorter legsSpino however only had a 4.8-5.6ft skull and that would have made it 41-47ft
A fairly strange paralell, isn’t it?
KILLSHOCK1100 said:
Actually, we have evidence that MOR008 was in fact larger or about 46ft. For starters, it's a complete skull in a quite good condition. Second, we have multiple T. Rex specimens and third, we have two specimens that are about 90% complete. This clearly means that the estimates are very accurate.MOR008 skull was a bit different than Sue's because it was a male
KILLSHOCK1100 said:
Where are your sources that MOR008 was smaller than Sue? That's completely false and that skull was very much complete. The entire skull has been measured and observed by multiple paleontologists and they all agree that its skull was much larger than Sue's as it was. If anything, that might mean that MOR008 was even larger. KILLSHOCK1100 said:
It's illogical to take the studies of a completely different family of dinosaurs and imply it with other, very different animals. That's like saying a lion can run over 70mpr because cheetahs couldT. Rex's growth rates have proven to be explosive depending on their health and how much they consumed. This would mean yes, T. Rex can get much larger than Sue. We have plenty of carnosaurs and they do not show signs of such growth rates. This being the case, they likely did NOT have it
There’s nothing so special about T. rex growth rates. It is actually one of the few dinosaurs known from osteologically mature specimens.
KILLSHOCK1100 said:
Either way, many paleontologists have observed MOR008 and they all say its larger than Sue's skull.
Those
features on that giga fragmented case do not confirm anything. It just
slightly suggests it but we do not even have a full giga skull and have
no complete lower jaw to compare it with. Not to mention, but that
fragmented case is still just a piece of lower jaw with no teeth and was
completely damaged. For all we know, it could be a number of creatures
and the estimates are flawed.
Either way, many paleontologists have observed MOR008 and they all say its larger than Sue's skull.
Those
features on that giga fragmented case do not confirm anything. It just
slightly suggests it but we do not even have a full giga skull and have
no complete lower jaw to compare it with. Not to mention, but that
fragmented case is still just a piece of lower jaw with no teeth and was
completely damaged. For all we know, it could be a number of creatures
and the estimates are flawed.
The presence of a squared anterior end, with a
flat symphysial surface, and an anteroventral pro-
cess, mentioned by CALVO, 1989 for MUCPv-95, are
shared by both specimens, and this is a combination
of derived characters only reported in Giganotosau-
rus CORIA & SALGADO, 1995 . Also, the geologic hori-
zon is the same for both specimens
flat symphysial surface, and an anteroventral pro-
cess, mentioned by CALVO, 1989 for MUCPv-95, are
shared by both specimens, and this is a combination
of derived characters only reported in Giganotosau-
rus CORIA & SALGADO, 1995 . Also, the geologic hori-
zon is the same for both specimens
