There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tyrannosaurus rex

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

@johnny rex :

About #225: It's a fantastic discovery, perhaps a bit too good to be true... I don't know but the T-rex vs Triceratops is certainly the most fantasized fight as concerns dinosaurs and perhaps prehistoric life, and when we know how exceptionnal is a complete fossilization. And here we're speaking about two huge beasts, and what's more two huge beasts
having been struggling.

Future observations and deductions promise to be thrilling !
2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

I just come to discover a serious debate on the paleontology world site concerning the probable outcome concerning a fight on land between the t-rex and a spinosaurus as it was depicted in the third sequence of the Jurassic Park franchise. I just repeat that this fight was impossible, these two beasts having not been living at the same period of the Cretaceous (and even more if we consider the last version of the spinosaurus's way of living, i.e. in the aquatic element...). But since it has been realised in a film with mass appeal, let us read !

Here the link with some illustrations:

https://paleontologyworld.com/entertainm...-explained

In one of the most hated moments of the [i]Jurassic Park franchise, the Spinosaurus managed to beat a Tyrannosaurus Rex in the last installment of the original trilogy, Jurassic Park III. Since the Spinosaurus is the main source of terror on Isla Sorna in the sequel, it made sense that the ancient lizard would come out of this battle on top. However, it's questionable how accurate the movie's climactic outcome is, no matter how thrilling the film-makers thought it might have been onscreen.[/i]

The battle between the Spinosaurus and the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the stuff of legend, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Watching two giant dinosaurs unleash terrifying roars as they thrash, stomp, and charge through a misty tropical jungle might be one of the most awe-inspiring special effects achievements in the franchise's history. And though its T. rex opponent puts up a pretty good fight, the Spinosaurus emerges victorious after it snaps its rival's neck between its jaws. It's a clash of epic proportions featuring two of the dinosaurs in [i]Jurassic Park that were actually real before the franchise turned to gene splicing and mutant dino creations.[/i]
Unfortunately, it's also a scenario that would never happen. Not only did the two predators live and go extinct during separate eras of the Cretaceous period, but they were separated by completely different geographic locations; the Spinosaurus was native to what's now northern Africa, while the T. rex roamed the lands that eventually became western North America. But thanks to [i]Jurassic Park 3's magic, the two titans met. The question, though, is whether the sequel called the battle right and whether a Spinosaurus could genuinely beat a T. rex, given the criticism in the fanbase suggesting that too would be impossible. Here's a rundown of each species' strengths and weaknesses and how they might hold up in a battle against one another.

In many ways, the real-life Spinosaurus was like a supersized, aquatic version of another featured dinosaur from Jurassic Park's original trilogy: the Velociraptor. The Spinosaurus weighed seven to nine tons and measured up to 57 feet long. It was a semi-aquatic species that maneuvered well in wet, swamp-like environments, and thanks to its massive fin-like tail, the Spinosaurus was also incredibly fast in large bodies of water. These dinosaurs also had long arms fitted with sharp claws that six to eight inches long that could make cuts up to two inches deep. Those arms, however, hung down in order to aid their hunting of fish and claws could not be rotated to grab as is depicted in Jurassic Park 3.

Additionally, the Spinosaurus's jaw was basically useless in a fight. Its conical teeth were well-equipped to grip slippery fish but were incapable of causing any major damage to other flesh. On top of that, the creature's skull was ill-suited to lateral bending and higher levels of stress, making battle with a traditional bipedal dinosaur like a T. rex. And not only that, but the Spinosaurus' short back legs meant it was suited well to water, but wasn't made for long excursions on land or particular agility. The Spinosaurus also had a major design flaw: its weakest point (its spine) was completely exposed. One bad move and it could be paralyzed by its attacker.

In the Jurassic Park franchise, the Spinosaurus is markedly more intimidating and lethal than the real-life version. Though it would have been impressive to see Jurassic World bring back the Spinosaurus, it probably would not have been an accurate portrayal by any means, given the inaccuracies established in the original trilogy. Some shots show that this gigantic dinosaur's fangs were just as long, if not longer, than those of a T. rex, which was simply not the case. The T. rex had some of the largest teeth recorded of the meat-eating dinosaurs, reaching a huge 12 inches in length. Meanwhile, the Spinosaurus's teeth were a little more than three inches long at most.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the movie's Spinosaurus and the real-life Spinosaurus is the force of its bite. In Jurassic Park 3, the Spinosaurus easily snaps the T. rex's neck by clenching it tightly between its jaws. While this might be possible with a smaller organism, it's unlikely that a Spinosaurus would be able to do that with a dinosaur as robust and muscular as a T. rex. Though the Spinosaurus had an impressive bite force of 2 tons, its teeth would have been too small and dull to grab hold of a T. rex's neck long enough to bite down on it, let alone break it in half. On top of that, the creature's agility in the film is hugely over-played: it is too fast, too flexible, and too agile on land by far.

One thing is for sure about the Spinosaurus: its impressive biological stats make it an undervalued dinosaur in the Jurassic Park franchise but not in the way some may think. The predator is downplayed as a hulking apex predator, which is not true and the portrayal removes all nuance. And as for the question of whether it would beat a Tyrannosaurus Rex in a fight? Concrete answers are hard to come by, because of the differences of opinion in even expert communities, but such a comprehensive victory is basically impossible. Yes, the Spinosaurus was markedly larger than the T. Rex, but it also lacked the muscle and bite power to do any serious damage. Meanwhile, the T. rex had a powerful bite, but it also lacked speed and agility. Ultimately, it's likely that its massive jaws would make up for the difference given that the inaccuracies on show massively exaggerated the Spinosaurus' abilities as this sort of combatant.
[/i]
Ultimately, a lot of the outcome would be determined by where and how the battle took place. Each dinosaur has significant advantages when fighting on its own home turf. The T. rex is an iconic favorite of the six dinosaur species from the first [i]Jurassic Park, but it's far from unbeatable. If it was unfortunate enough to cross paths with a Spinosaurus by a river or a lake, a Tyrannosaurus Rex might just end up as the sail-back dinosaur's largest catch of the day. It would be an easy target in any swampy environment, let alone a large body of water. Meanwhile, a Spinosaurus wouldn't stand a chance if the two dinosaurs were to duke it out in the humid and tropical forests where the T. rex reigned as an apex predator, which is precisely why Jurassic Park 3 was so wrong in its outcome.[/i]
Any pathway to victory would require a lot of power and coordination from the Spinosaurus, which was not a species known for its brains. After all, even in-universe, Dr. Alan Grant - one of the legacy characters returning for [i]Jurassic World 3 - was able to scare one off by igniting boat fuel and setting the path in front of it on fire. If a Spinosaurus and a Tyrannosaurus Rex were to go head-to-head under the same circumstances shown in Jurassic Park III, it's certain that the T. rex would come out on top. Its slight disadvantage of size would easily be made up for by its strength and lethal bite power. What happens in the film is definitely a product of movie magic, but at least the battle's creativity continues to inspire amazement and wonder.

[/i]
4 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******



Tarbosaurus skull 

Tarbosaurus (meaning “alarming lizard”) is a genus of tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that flourished in Asia about 70 million years ago, at the end of the Late Cretaceous Period. Fossils have been recovered in Mongolia, with more fragmentary remains found further afield in parts of China.

Although many species have been named, modern paleontologists recognize only one, T. bataar, as valid. Some experts see this species as an Asian representative of the North American genus Tyrannosaurus; this would make the genus Tarbosaurus redundant. Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, if not synonymous, are considered to be at least closely related genera. Alioramus, also from Mongolia, is thought by some authorities to be the closest relative of Tarbosaurus.
2 users Like Pckts's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

For those who can understand German language, a video explaining the 3D vision enjoyed by a T-rex purchasing a young parasaurolophus (Upper Cretaceous of North America). The predator lost a tooth that was found among the prey's remaining bones 67 millions years after the hunting. The scene was reconstructed by the students of the Hannover university and also underlines the predatory abilities of the t-rex.









" Im Landesmuseum Hannover sind die Dinos los! In Kooperation mit dem Studiengang Mediendesign der Fachhochschule Hannover ist 2011 ein aufwendiger 3D-Kurzfilm entstanden, der den Besuchern des Landesmuseums das Jagdverhalten des Tyrannosaurus rex an Hand modernster Computeranimation veranschaulicht. Nordamerika in der Oberkreide, vor 67 Millionen Jahren: Ein Parasaurolophus befindet sich auf der Flucht vor dem gefährlichsten Raubsaurier dieser Zeit, einem Tyrannosaurus rex. Dies ist der Schauplatz des dreiminütig animierten 3DKurzfilms den Meike Ulferts und Arthur Ulmann, Studenten des Studiengangs Mediendesign an der Fachhochschule Hannover, im Rahmen ihrer Semesterarbeit entwickelt haben. Ausgangspunkt des Projekts ist der Schädel eines Tyrannosaurus rex, wie er im Landesmuseum ausgestellt wird. Der T-rex war nicht nur ein gefährlicher, sondern auch äußerst erfolgreicher Jäger. Ein Grund dafür war sein nach vorn gerichteter Blick. Durch die Überschneidung der Sichtfelder beider Augen entstand ein dreidimensionaler Sichtbereich. Beide Augen sahen die Beute aus einem jeweils etwas anderen Winkel, so dass ein räumlicher Seheindruck entstand, dem sich auch ein gut getarntes Beutetier kaum entziehen konnte. Ein weiteres Merkmal, das ihn zum herausragenden Jäger machte, waren die Nachrückerzähne im Ober- und Unterkiefer. Fiel ein Zahn aus, wuchs innerhalb weniger Tage ein neuer nach. "
2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

I assure you, I just discover this short movie in which the quality of the picture is really amazing... A t-rex cub was discovering its world.





2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

A conference by David Hone about the tyrannosaurus...








" David Hone is a palaeontologist and writer whose research focuses on the behaviour and ecology of the dinosaurs and their flying relatives, the pterosaurs. He writes extensively online about palaeontology and science outreach, blog for the science pages of The Guardian, and has recently written a book about tyrannosaurs: The tyrannosaur chronicles. This talk was filmed at the Ri on 20 April 2017. "
2 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Canada DinoFan83 Offline
Regular Member
***
( This post was last modified: 12-01-2021, 07:12 PM by DinoFan83 )

As of late, I have been of the opinion that Sue, Scotty, MOR 1125, and Bucky exhibit sufficient morphological differences from the holotype T. rex, AMNH 973, to be a different species (and unpublished specimens like Trix and Victoria may be included here as well when they are published). The reasons for this and the implications for T. rex proper are as listed below.

Reasons for this:

-They have proportionally larger and shallower skulls than AMNH 973. This will be elaborated on in a bit.

-They are more robustly built. This is in regards to femur robusticity and ribcage width.

Femur robusticity: As an example. AMNH 973's femur is 127 cm (most recent measurement, Scott Hartman) and 54.5 cm in circumference (Peter Larson & Kenneth Carpenter, 2008). Meanwhile, the femur of MOR 1125 is 107 cm and 51 cm in circumference (Mary Schweitzer, 2016).
This means MOR 1125 is 11.5% more robust than AMNH 973.

Ribcage width: As an example, further back in this thread, there are some images showing dorsal views of AMNH 973 and Sue (156-158). Even though the dorsal view for AMNH 973 shown there is too wide (which I'll elaborate on in a bit), Sue is obviously markedly more robust.

-They have proportionally larger pectoral girdles (this is probably directly correlated to their bigger skulls. These need larger and stronger neck muscles to support, which need more attachment area which in turn necessitates a larger pectoral girdle since that is where neck muscles like the levator scapulae attach to).

As an example, SpinoInWonderland estimates AMNH 973 (which has a 95 cm scapula according to the Theropod Database) at 11.7 meters. Meanwhile, Mickey Mortimer estimates Bucky at 10 meters with a 94 cm scapula (both of those are also from the Theropod Database).
To put that into perspective, AMNH 973 is estimated at 17% longer than Bucky yet only has a scapula 1% longer, meaning Bucky clearly has a proportionally much larger pectoral girdle.

Except for the robusticity difference (which was already addressed with a hyperlink and will be elaborated even more on further down), the outlined differences of a larger and shallower skull together with a larger pectoral girdle are clearly visible between one of the outlined specimens (Sue) and AMNH 973 in these skeletals by GetAwayTrike.

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

All told, this is more difference than separates lions and tigers (going by that link, they do not appear to exhibit the anatomical disparities the outlined specimens do to AMNH 973, and yet are still different species). Another argument in favor of making the species level split of the outlined specimens.

Implications for T. rex:

Naturally, the exclusion of specimens previously thought to belong to it would have implications for what is currently known about T. rex. They are as follows.

-Size: Sue and Scotty are almost always brought up in discussions about the size of T. rex concerning the maximum size of known specimens, as well as how large it was compared to other large theropods. This is because, when counted as T. rex, they are the largest known specimens of it.
However, since they appear to be a different species for the reasons above, they therefore wouldn't be countable among the largest T. rex anymore. This means 3 things: the largest known specimens of T. rex are not as large as often thought, the sizes of Sue/Scotty have no impact on the size of T. rex, and the sizes of Sue/Scotty also have no impact on how large T. rex was compared to other large theropods.

It also may have implications for the average size of known T. rex specimens (which is ultimately a more useful size parameter than maximum size is).
Because my 6000 kg estimate from earlier used Sue as an overall base and included the other 3 outlined specimens in the sample, it will have to be redone while excluding those 4. The exclusion of those specimens could either increase or decrease the 6000 kg estimate, although that estimate could remain the same even with the exclusions. Ultimately, the only way to know for sure is to redo the size calculations and share them as soon as they're redone.

-Robusticity: Similar to their size, many dinosaur enthusiasts enjoy discussing how robust T. rex is (specifically Sue and Scotty), usually compared to other theropods. 
For the same reasons as listed in the size-related paragraph, however, this is affected by the exclusion of Sue and Scotty (after all, one of the very traits that supports their status as a different species is that exact robust build!). Ultimately, how robust Sue and Scotty are would likewise have no impact on how robust T. rex was, as well as how robust it was compared to other large theropods.

And there's more. Below will be the elaboration on how robust actual T. rex AMNH 973 seems to have been, that was alluded to above.

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonder...-648811067

This model of AMNH 973, as also alluded to above, is far less robustly built than Sue even while being too wide. The latter is stated to be the case by Hutchinson et al. (2011), which (as SpinoInWonderland says in the link) is where the dorsal view is from.

Quote:The largest specimen (Sue) has larger absolute bone volumes than all but the Carnegie specimen's, whose dimensions are partly inflated (especially for the lower limb) by the presence of a supportive metal mounting framework that was too tightly integrated with the bones to easily be separated.

Given that even this too-robust dorsal view is not especially robust or wide, I think it's safe to say that with the exclusion of the robustly built specimens outlined above, T. rex turns out to not be as robust as commonly envisioned. This also has implications for how robust it was compared to other theropods, although specific data concerning that will be saved for future posts.

-No female T. rex: Last, but most certainly not least, is the fact that one of the only dinosaurs and the only tyrannosaurid which we know the gender of (MOR 1125) is excluded from T. rex for the reasons above, and so we don't yet have any T. rex we know the gender of.
This is worth mentioning as MOR 1125 has long been famous as the only T. rex for which gender was known, although it should be noted that neither its erroneous inclusion nor current exclusion from T. rex provide any evidence for or against the popular concept of female tyrannosaurids being larger than males. 

Ultimately I would say all the above merits serious reconsideration of the T. rex mental image most dinosaur enthusiasts have.

@tigerluver, if you're interested, this is the information concerning some specimens of T. rex appearing to represent a different species that I mentioned in our private messages.
1 user Likes DinoFan83's post
Reply

United States ChadCarcharo Offline
New Join

(11-28-2021, 09:43 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: As of late, I have been of the opinion that Sue, Scotty, MOR 1125, and Bucky exhibit sufficient morphological differences from the holotype T. rex, AMNH 973, to be a different species (and unpublished specimens like Trix and Victoria may be included here as well when they are published). The reasons for this and the implications for T. rex proper are as listed below.

Reasons for this:

-They have proportionally larger and shallower skulls than AMNH 973. This will be elaborated on in a bit.

-They are more robustly built. This is in regards to femur robusticity and ribcage width.

Femur robusticity: As an example. AMNH 973's femur is 127 cm (most recent measurement, Scott Hartman) and 54.5 cm in circumference (Peter Larson & Kenneth Carpenter, 2008). Meanwhile, the femur of MOR 1125 is 107 cm and 51 cm in circumference (Mary Schweitzer, 2016).
This means MOR 1125 is 11.5% more robust than AMNH 973.

Ribcage width: As an example, further back in this thread, there are some images showing dorsal views of AMNH 973 and Sue (156-158). Even though the dorsal view for AMNH 973 shown there is too wide (which I'll elaborate on in a bit), Sue is obviously markedly more robust.

-They have proportionally larger pectoral girdles (this is probably directly correlated to their bigger skulls. These need larger and stronger neck muscles to support, which need more attachment area which in turn necessitates a larger pectoral girdle since that is where neck muscles like the levator scapulae attach to).

As an example, SpinoInWonderland estimates AMNH 973 (which has a 95 cm scapula according to the Theropod Database) at 11.7 meters. Meanwhile, Mickey Mortimer estimates Bucky at 10 meters with a 94 cm scapula (both of those are also from the Theropod Database).
To put that into perspective, AMNH 973 is estimated at 17% longer than Bucky yet only has a scapula 1% longer, meaning Bucky clearly has a proportionally much larger pectoral girdle.

Except for the robusticity difference (which was already addressed with a hyperlink and will be elaborated even more on further down), the outlined differences of a larger and shallower skull together with a larger pectoral girdle are clearly visible between one of the outlined specimens (Sue) and AMNH 973 in these skeletals by GetAwayTrike.

*This image is copyright of its original author


*This image is copyright of its original author

All told, this is more difference than separates lions and tigers (going by that link, they do not appear to exhibit the anatomical disparities the outlined specimens do to AMNH 973, and yet are still different species). Another argument in favor of making the species level split of the outlined specimens.

Implications for T. rex:

Naturally, the exclusion of specimens previously thought to belong to it would have implications for what is currently known about T. rex. They are as follows.

-Size: Sue and Scotty are almost always brought up in discussions about the size of T. rex concerning the maximum size of known specimens, as well as how large it was compared to other large theropods. This is because, when counted as T. rex, they are the largest known specimens of it.
However, since they appear to be a different species for the reasons above, they therefore wouldn't be countable among the largest T. rex anymore. This means 3 things: the largest known specimens of T. rex are not as large as often thought, the sizes of Sue/Scotty have no impact on the size of T. rex, and the sizes of Sue/Scotty also have no impact on how large T. rex was compared to other large theropods.

It also may have implications for the average size of known T. rex specimens (which is ultimately a more useful size parameter than maximum size is).
Because my 6000 kg estimate from earlier used Sue as an overall base and included the other 3 outlined specimens in the sample, it will have to be redone while excluding those 4. The exclusion of those specimens could either increase or decrease the 6000 kg estimate, although that estimate could remain the same even with the exclusions. Ultimately, the only way to know for sure is to redo the size calculations and share them as soon as they're redone.

-Robusticity: Similar to their size, many dinosaur enthusiasts enjoy discussing how robust T. rex is (specifically Sue and Scotty), usually compared to other theropods. 
For the same reasons as listed in the size-related paragraph, however, this is affected by the exclusion of Sue and Scotty (after all, one of the very traits that supports their status as a different species is that exact robust build!). Ultimately, how robust Sue and Scotty are would likewise have no impact on how robust T. rex was, as well as how robust it was compared to other large theropods.

And there's more. Below will be the elaboration on how robust actual T. rex AMNH 973 seems to have been, that was alluded to above.

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonder...-648811067

This model of AMNH 973, as also alluded to above, is far less robustly built than Sue even while being too wide. The latter is stated to be the case by Hutchinson et al. (2011), which (as SpinoInWonderland says in the link) is where the dorsal view is from.

Quote:The largest specimen (Sue) has larger absolute bone volumes than all but the Carnegie specimen's, whose dimensions are partly inflated (especially for the lower limb) by the presence of a supportive metal mounting framework that was too tightly integrated with the bones to easily be separated.

Given that even this too-robust dorsal view is not especially robust or wide, I think it's safe to say that with the exclusion of the robustly built specimens outlined above, T. rex turns out to not be as robust as commonly envisioned. This also has implications for how robust it was compared to other theropods, although specific data concerning that will be saved for future posts.

-No female T. rex: Last, but most certainly not least, is the fact that one of the only dinosaurs and the only tyrannosaurid which we know the gender of (MOR 1125) is excluded from T. rex for the reasons above, and so we don't yet have any T. rex we know the gender of.
This is worth mentioning as MOR 1125 has long been famous as the only T. rex for which gender was known, although it should be noted that neither its erroneous inclusion nor current exclusion from T. rex provide any evidence for or against the popular concept of female tyrannosaurids being larger than males. 

Ultimately I would say all the above merits serious reconsideration of the T. rex mental image most dinosaur enthusiasts have.

@tigerluver, if you're interested, this is the information concerning some specimens of T. rex appearing to represent a different species that I mentioned in our private messages.

Um no offense but what are you talking about why would scotty sue and other 9ton rexs be removed form rex? Aslo you are using SiW's old work as well to represent these rexs too.  Tyrannosaurus rex – The Sauropodomorph's Lair (wordpress.com) then the whole being too wide argue holds no water "[color=var(--text-normal)]Hutchinson et al states their Sue mount (minimum mass 9.7t, maximum 18t) is too wide, there's no claims of the others mounts ( using that cast ) being too wide, [/color][color=var(--text-normal)]the mount as is is less wide than Sue scaled down to the same length, so it's within the proportional space of Tyrannosaurus in any case" [/color]
3 users Like ChadCarcharo's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

The new Sue's look...







" On July 30, the Chicago Museum of Natural History revealed a life-size recreation of Tyrannosaurus rex specimen FMNH PR 208, also known as “Sue,” which showcases Paleontology’s most accurate depiction of our most complete T. rex. It has muscle and flesh, and she’s even holding an unlucky hadrosaur in her mouth. They nicknamed the recreation of the beast, “Fleshy.” What do you notice first when you look at the animal? "
4 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

T-rex and its ecosystem. Why were they such a size ? What was this huge size implying ? About its preys, about its life, about the juvenile t-rex and so on...








" Tyrannosaurus is perhaps the most famous predatory dinosaur. However, while most Jurassic and Cretaceous ecosystems contained at least one predatory dinosaur far larger than any modern terrestrial predator, few even came close to Tyrannosaurus. So how did it grow so large, and why did so few other predatory dinosaurs? The video aims to answer these questions. 00:00 - Introduction 00:39 - Normal Size Constraints in Large Predators 02:43 - Comparison with Other Tyrannosaurids 03:49 - Tyrannosaurus’s Prey 04:32 - Comparison with Other Ecosystems with Larger Herbivores 06:17 - Hunting Method Compared to Other Theropods 07:57 - Habitat Size 09:54 - Monopoly 10:19 - Tyrannosaurus Juveniles 11:33 - Adult Mortality 13:29 - Conclusion "
5 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Venezuela epaiva Offline
Moderator
*****
Moderators

Ty Rex in Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”
Credit to Rafael Urrutia 

*This image is copyright of its original author
5 users Like epaiva's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

The 26 mega theropod species (over 4 tons) inventored:






The size grows very slowly. But the weight...
5 users Like Spalea's post
Reply

Italy AndresVida Offline
Animal Enthusiast
***

The best tyrannosaurus rex model ever portrayed in a documentary finally showing the heavyweight build of the tyrant lizard king

https://youtu.be/wUHAJ-D-_aU
3 users Like AndresVida's post
Reply

Italy AndresVida Offline
Animal Enthusiast
***

Paleop's latest 3D model for Scotty got a GDI of 11 tons, although not very conservative the result is very impressive and it may be accurate

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author
4 users Like AndresVida's post
Reply

Spalea Offline
Wildanimal Lover
******

T-Rex could have been excellent swimmers. According to famous scientific persons that you will discover in this short video...






Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB