So... T REX

S&L: Discussion of matters pertaining to theoretical and applied sciences, and logical thought.

Moderator: Charon

Hunter of Scavenger

Scavenger
1
8%
Apex Predator
2
17%
Opportunistic:Primarily Hunter
6
50%
Opportunistic: Primarily Scavenger
3
25%
MEAT IS MURDER!!!
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
Mayabird
Leader of the Marching Band
Posts: 1635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:53 pm
19
Location: IA > GA
Contact:

#26

Post by Mayabird »

Comrade Tortoise wrote:
Would it have been grasslands for the entirety of T-Rex's existance? I thought that grasses only evolved and began to diversify towards the end of the Cretaceous and became far mroe prevalent afterwards. I know that grasses were found in fossilized dinosaur feces, but those were towards the very end, around 67 million years ago.
Well, grassland-like. I suppose you could call it thinly forested scrub.
That works. I didn't know if I'd fallen behind in the latest fossil discoveries.
<line 2>
I :luv: DPDarkPrimus!

Storytime update 8/31: Frigidmagi might be amused by this one.
User avatar
Mayabird
Leader of the Marching Band
Posts: 1635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:53 pm
19
Location: IA > GA
Contact:

#27

Post by Mayabird »

Time to throw more fuel on the fire.
Da Beeb wrote:T. rex 'had razor-sharp senses'
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter, St Louis

Scavenger or top predator?
Tyrannosaurus rex may have been a big beast, but it appears to have possessed the sensory skills of much smaller, more agile animals.

The finding is something of a puzzle in light of other evidence showing it had only a limited range of movement.

Palaeontologists presented their latest research on the carnivorous dinosaur at a conference in St Louis, US.

The results inform the hot debate over T. rex's feeding behaviour: was it more scavenger than top predator?

Dr Lawrence Witmer, from Ohio University, used the medical scanning technique of computed tomography (CT scanning) to reconstruct the shape of the animal's brain, including its inner ear, which is involved not only in hearing but also balance.

The structure of its inner ear suggests it had excellent hearing and balance.

"The inner ear provides very important clues about behaviour," said Dr Witmer. "It talks of relative types of movement; for example, how agile they were.

"T. rex has the inner ear of a much smaller, very agile animal. It had a heightened sense of equilibrium and balance.

"But there's evidence it went beyond that, that it emphasised that."

The Ohio researcher said the T. rex also employed rapid turning movements of its eyes and head to track its prey.

'No dancer'

However, Dr Jack Horner, a leading expert on Tyrannosaurus rex, has uncovered evidence that casts the dinosaur as lumbering and awkward.

The animal possessed a strong ligament that would have made its body very rigid, restricting its range of movement, he said.

"It was rigid from the neck all the way back to the tail," Dr Horner told the BBC News website. "It wasn't a dancer."

Dr Horner and colleagues carried out microscopic analysis of the dinosaur's vertebrae. They found tissue remnants related to the animal's nuchal ligament, which provides passive support for the head and neck.

Since the amount found in the vertebrae is proportional to how stiff the ligament would have been, the researchers determined it would have been very rigid in their T. rex.

"We think this applied to all dinosaurs, certainly all saurischians - all the meat-eating dinosaurs and all the sauropods," Dr Horner said.

"I think we need to re-model dinosaurs and think of them as being very rigid. They're just not as fluid as we thought."

They would have needed lots of space to turn in order to avoid falling over, he added.

Despite evidence of rapid eye movement to track prey, Horner thinks the overall evidence points to T. rex being a scavenger rather than a top predator.

The dinosaur has been found in comparatively large numbers - top predators tend to be comparatively rare - and also had teeth specialised for crushing bone.

"You don't need bone-crushing teeth if you're killing another animal, you just take the meat and go," he explained.

Dr Horner and Dr Witmer presented their evidence at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4723150.stm
I :luv: DPDarkPrimus!

Storytime update 8/31: Frigidmagi might be amused by this one.
User avatar
Mayabird
Leader of the Marching Band
Posts: 1635
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:53 pm
19
Location: IA > GA
Contact:

#28

Post by Mayabird »

It's still on topic, dammit! More evidence for the hunter side.
Sight for 'Saur Eyes: T. rex vision was among nature's best

Eric Jaffe

In the 1993 movie Jurassic Park, one human character tells another that a Tyrannosaurus rex can't see them if they don't move, even though the beast is right in front of them. Now, a scientist reports that T. rex had some of the best vision in animal history. This sensory prowess strengthens arguments for T. rex's role as predator instead of scavenger.

Scientists had some evidence from measurements of T. rex skulls that the animal could see well. Recently, Kent A. Stevens of the University of Oregon in Eugene went further.

He used facial models of seven types of dinosaurs to reconstruct their binocular range, the area viewed simultaneously by both eyes. The wider an animal's binocular range, the better its depth perception and capacity to distinguish objects—even those that are motionless or camouflaged.

T. rex had a binocular range of 55°, which is wider than that of modern hawks, Stevens reports in the summer Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Moreover, over the millennia, T. rex evolved features that improved its vision: Its snout grew lower and narrower, cheek grooves cleared its sight lines, and its eyeballs enlarged.

"It was a selective advantage for this animal to see three-dimensionally ahead of it," Stevens says.

Stevens also considered visual acuity and limiting far point—the greatest distance at which objects remain distinct. For these vision tests, he took the known optics of reptiles and birds, ranging from the poor-sighted crocodile to the exceptional eagle, and adjusted them to see how they would perform inside an eye as large as that of T. rex. "With the size of its eyeballs, it couldn't help but have excellent vision," Stevens says.

He found that T. rex might have had visual acuity as much as 13 times that of people. By comparison, an eagle's acuity is 3.6 times that of a person.

T. rex might also have had a limiting far point of 6 kilometers, compared with the human far point of 1.6 km. These are best-case estimates, Stevens says, but even toward the cautious end of the scale, T. rex still displays better vision than what's needed for scavenging.

The vision argument takes the scavenger-versus-predator debate in a new direction. The debate had focused on whether T. rex's legs and teeth made it better suited for either lifestyle (SN: 3/2/02, p. 131: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020302/fob1.asp).

Stevens notes that visual ranges in hunting birds and snapping turtles typically are 20° wider than those in grain-eating birds and herbivorous turtles.

In modern animals, predators have better binocular vision than scavengers do, agrees Thomas R. Holtz Jr. of the University of Maryland at College Park. Binocular vision "almost certainly was a predatory adaptation," he says.

But a scavenging T. rex could have inherited its vision from predatory ancestors, says Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Mont. "It isn't a characteristic that was likely to hinder the scavenging abilities of T. rex and therefore wasn't selected out of the population," Horner says.

Stevens says the unconvincing scene in Jurassic Park inspired him to examine T. rex's vision because, with its "very sophisticated visual apparatus," the dinosaur couldn't possibly miss people so close by. Sight aside, says Stevens, "if you're sweating in fear 1 inch from the nostrils of the T. rex, it would figure out you were there anyway."
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060701/fob2.asp
I :luv: DPDarkPrimus!

Storytime update 8/31: Frigidmagi might be amused by this one.
User avatar
Ali Sama
Initiate
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:34 pm
18
Location: lake forest, ca, usa
Contact:

#29

Post by Ali Sama »

it could have hunter other predetors as they where eating their prey.
"In eternal damnation we sow the seeds of man, so we may delight in their pain and sorrow, basking them in our infinite love.."
Charles reed March 21, 2230

My live Journal
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#30

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

No, not really. A) there is no point in that B) The laws of thermodynamics would preclude a huge, relatively common hyperspecialized carnivor like that and C) no evidence of this.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
User avatar
Ali Sama
Initiate
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:34 pm
18
Location: lake forest, ca, usa
Contact:

#31

Post by Ali Sama »

Comrade Tortoise wrote:No, not really. A) there is no point in that B) The laws of thermodynamics would preclude a huge, relatively common hyperspecialized carnivor like that and C) no evidence of this.
i don't mean exclusivly but as a part of it's diet.
"In eternal damnation we sow the seeds of man, so we may delight in their pain and sorrow, basking them in our infinite love.."
Charles reed March 21, 2230

My live Journal
User avatar
Comrade Tortoise
Exemplar
Posts: 4832
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:33 am
19
Location: Land of steers and queers indeed
Contact:

#32

Post by Comrade Tortoise »

No animal would take up that niche, especially not one with a T-Rex's anatomy. Taking down other predators as part of the diet is too damn risky to an organism. Predators do not like getting hurt for every meal they eat.

Have you ever considered the reason why there are only 3-4 trophic levels in your standard ecosystem?

Producers (plants usually)
Primary COnsumers(herbivors)
Secondary Consumers (carnivors, or opportunists)

Rarely, you will have a tertiary consumer, a large predator that sometimes takes down a smaller one. Like an eagle that eats snakes or something, but you almost NEVER have anything higher than that.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

There is no word harsh enough for this. No verbal edge sharp and cold enough to set forth the flaying needed. English is to young and the elder languages of the earth beyond me. ~Frigid

The Holocaust was an Amazing Logistical Achievement~Havoc
Post Reply