Question of the Day, August 23, 2010

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Where are the giant sauropods? The brachiosaurs, ultrasaurs, and diplodocus?

The tyrannosaur is currently being theorized to be a scavenger by paleontologists like Dr. Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies. He theorizes that the eyes are too small (to see prey), the arms are too small (to grab the prey), the olfactory (smell) sections of the skull are too large (it operates on smell), and the legs are built for walking - not running (the calf-bones are the same length as the thigh-bone). The tyrannosaurs are not fighters, they're giant vultures.

The velociraptors are a group (which disqualifies them instantly). They are also about three and a half feet tall (6 feet from snout to tail-tip). They don't deserve to be on this list, they're only here for the ignoramuses who've only heard of them from Jurassic Park.

Pterodactylus isn't a species, it's an entire genus. Certain large species of pterodactyl have wingspans of 1.5 meters; ooooh... scary pelican!

Allosaurs have the best of all traits: decent size (30+ feet in length), good bone structure, long arms, sharp teeth.

There have been bones, I think from triceratops, which show damage from a T-rex tooth. Damage which has healed over time. It must have been attacked by a T-Rex while still alive, which implies our Rexy was a hunter. That's not to say it would never have scavenged, after all it's a free meal, but it seems to be predominantly a predator. It's a similar story with lions. Yes, they'll hunt, but if they can drive a bunch of hyenas or a leopard away from a kill they'll take that
Eye size doesn't matter unless you're hunting in the dark. The position of the eyes and the shape of the brain's vision centres suggests T-rex would have had vision on par with that of a hawk.
Who needs to grab prey when you have jaws like a T-Rex. Look at crocodiles, they use their mouths entirely when feeding

I would have gone for the Allosaurs too, if it said there was a group. There is evidence suggesting that Allosaurs would have hunted together to try and tackle the large sauropods like Diplodocus, but the poll said only one

 

[Abanic]

Where are the giant sauropods? The brachiosaurs, ultrasaurs, and diplodocus?

The tyrannosaur is currently being theorized to be a scavenger by paleontologists like Dr. Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies. He theorizes that the eyes are too small (to see prey), the arms are too small (to grab the prey), the olfactory (smell) sections of the skull are too large (it operates on smell), and the legs are built for walking - not running (the calf-bones are the same length as the thigh-bone). The tyrannosaurs are not fighters, they're giant vultures.

The velociraptors are a group (which disqualifies them instantly). They are also about three and a half feet tall (6 feet from snout to tail-tip). They don't deserve to be on this list, they're only here for the ignoramuses who've only heard of them from Jurassic Park.

Pterodactylus isn't a species, it's an entire genus. Certain large species of pterodactyl have wingspans of 1.5 meters; ooooh... scary pelican!

Allosaurs have the best of all traits: decent size (30+ feet in length), good bone structure, long arms, sharp teeth.

There have been bones, I think from triceratops, which show damage from a T-rex tooth. Damage which has healed over time. It must have been attacked by a T-Rex while still alive, which implies our Rexy was a hunter. That's not to say it would never have scavenged, after all it's a free meal, but it seems to be predominantly a predator. It's a similar story with lions. Yes, they'll hunt, but if they can drive a bunch of hyenas or a leopard away from a kill they'll take that
Eye size doesn't matter unless you're hunting in the dark. The position of the eyes and the shape of the brain's vision centres suggests T-rex would have had vision on par with that of a hawk.
Who needs to grab prey when you have jaws like a T-Rex. Look at crocodiles, they use their mouths entirely when feeding

I would have gone for the Allosaurs too, if it said there was a group. There is evidence suggesting that Allosaurs would have hunted together to try and tackle the large sauropods like Diplodocus, but the poll said only one

Good, now QUOTE YOUR SOURCE.

You see, you're not disagreeing with ME, you're disagreeing with my source. I used the findings of world renown paleontologist Jack Horner to base my argument on. If you want a more detailed analysis of this theory, you can easily find it by GOOGLE searching his name and 'tyrannosaurus'.

Now cite YOUR source. You're not telling anyone where you got your opinion from, which is fine IF you are also a certified expert in paleontology. So if you are really Louis Alverez, Walter Alverez, Robert Bakker, Jose F. Bonaparte, Jack McIntosh, John Ostrom, Paul C Sereno, or Richard Owen then you don't need to cite the source of your opinion because YOU can be the source - because you're an expert (of course a couple of these guys are dead, so it would be amazing if you were one of them). If you're basing your opinion off the findings of these scientists, please give credit where it's due.

If you've found EVIDENCE that Dr Horner's theory is completely screwed up (the healed bone, vision center CT-scan of Rex's brain) then I'm sure he'd love to see it.

Please send it to:
Dr. Jack Horner
Curator of Paleontology
Museum of the Rockies
600 West Kagy Boulevard
Bozeman, MT 59717-2730

Who knows? Maybe it will be enough to get him to reevaluate his theory...

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Where are the giant sauropods? The brachiosaurs, ultrasaurs, and diplodocus?

The tyrannosaur is currently being theorized to be a scavenger by paleontologists like Dr. Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies. He theorizes that the eyes are too small (to see prey), the arms are too small (to grab the prey), the olfactory (smell) sections of the skull are too large (it operates on smell), and the legs are built for walking - not running (the calf-bones are the same length as the thigh-bone). The tyrannosaurs are not fighters, they're giant vultures.

The velociraptors are a group (which disqualifies them instantly). They are also about three and a half feet tall (6 feet from snout to tail-tip). They don't deserve to be on this list, they're only here for the ignoramuses who've only heard of them from Jurassic Park.

Pterodactylus isn't a species, it's an entire genus. Certain large species of pterodactyl have wingspans of 1.5 meters; ooooh... scary pelican!

Allosaurs have the best of all traits: decent size (30+ feet in length), good bone structure, long arms, sharp teeth.

There have been bones, I think from triceratops, which show damage from a T-rex tooth. Damage which has healed over time. It must have been attacked by a T-Rex while still alive, which implies our Rexy was a hunter. That's not to say it would never have scavenged, after all it's a free meal, but it seems to be predominantly a predator. It's a similar story with lions. Yes, they'll hunt, but if they can drive a bunch of hyenas or a leopard away from a kill they'll take that
Eye size doesn't matter unless you're hunting in the dark. The position of the eyes and the shape of the brain's vision centres suggests T-rex would have had vision on par with that of a hawk.
Who needs to grab prey when you have jaws like a T-Rex. Look at crocodiles, they use their mouths entirely when feeding

I would have gone for the Allosaurs too, if it said there was a group. There is evidence suggesting that Allosaurs would have hunted together to try and tackle the large sauropods like Diplodocus, but the poll said only one

Good, now QUOTE YOUR SOURCE.

You see, you're not disagreeing with ME, you're disagreeing with my source. I used the findings of world renown paleontologist Jack Horner to base my argument on. If you want a more detailed analysis of this theory, you can easily find it by GOOGLE searching his name and 'tyrannosaurus'.

Now cite YOUR source. You're not telling anyone where you got your opinion from, which is fine IF you are also a certified expert in paleontology. So if you are really Louis Alverez, Walter Alverez, Robert Bakker, Jose F. Bonaparte, Jack McIntosh, John Ostrom, Paul C Sereno, or Richard Owen then you don't need to cite the source of your opinion because YOU can be the source - because you're an expert (of course a couple of these guys are dead, so it would be amazing if you were one of them). If you're basing your opinion off the findings of these scientists, please give credit where it's due.

If you've found EVIDENCE that Dr Horner's theory is completely screwed up (the healed bone, vision center CT-scan of Rex's brain) then I'm sure he'd love to see it.

Please send it to:
Dr. Jack Horner
Curator of Paleontology
Museum of the Rockies
600 West Kagy Boulevard
Bozeman, MT 59717-2730

Who knows? Maybe it will be enough to get him to reevaluate his theory...

Kristen Leutwyler, in his article Jurassic Jawbreakers featured in Scientific American. In November 1996 if you really want detail. That's where the examples of healed Tyrannosaur-inflicted wounds comes from. Want me to give you a link so you might purchase the article yourself? I got it in my University's library archive, it's a good read
As for the studies on it's brain...you do realise we have T-rex skulls to work with, right? That's not some crazy out-there theory, it's generally accepted fact that Tyrannosaurs had good sight and smell, I don't know where you've got it in your head they didn't

 

[Travis Higuet]

Spinosaurus easily.

followed closely by Velociraptors

I love how people are posting movie clips to "back up" their arguments lol.... like Jurassic Park was filmed live in Africa or something, and originally aired on the Discovery channel.

 

[Abanic]

Kristen Leutwyler, in his article Jurassic Jawbreakers featured in Scientific American. In November 1996 if you really want detail. That's where the examples of healed Tyrannosaur-inflicted wounds comes from. Want me to give you a link so you might purchase the article yourself? I got it in my University's library archive, it's a good read
As for the studies on it's brain...you do realise we have T-rex skulls to work with, right? That's not some crazy out-there theory, it's generally accepted fact that Tyrannosaurs had good sight and smell, I don't know where you've got it in your head they didn't

I have a subscription to S.A. and I'm familiar with a Kirstin Leutwyler, is that the same person (the first name is slightly different)? I can go through my back issues, I've found (from March 1998) "Flyin' Dinosaurs" by Kirstin Leutwyler, do I have the right person?

As for your quote "I don't know where you've got it in your head they didn't", I've answered that twice already. I'll give you ONE more time.

Dr. Jack Horner... the Curator of Paleontology for the Museum of the Rockies... affiliated with the University of Montana and the Smithsonian Institution... the real-life inspiration for Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park... THAT is where I "got it in my head."

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I told you it was in the November 1996 issue, called 'Jurassic Jawbreakers'. If you've got the back issues then feel free to look.

Horner says the eyes are too small. He says nothing about the brain. No, actually, he does say it has good olfaction as he uses it for his vulture argument. So he basically ignores anything that doesn't fit in his theory, like the good vision centres and developed inner ear, both of which you can read about http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2009/10/15/sensory-perception-in-t-rex/ and http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2009/10/15/sensory-perception-in-t-rex/, which seems rather unprofessional of him but there you go. Sorry they're just websites but I'm on summer holidays so can't reference library books unless they're ones I'm familiar with