The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: T Rex  (Read 13366 times)

Offline Mindseye

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
T Rex
« on: 20/10/2005 15:46:40 »
Due to a variety of things, such as mobility and body shape, I have a theory that T Rex may have been semi-aquatic, probably living more in deep swampland, with similar habits to the crocodile. I think in some cases it may have laid down and pushed itself over the mud (hence only vestigile arms, larger ones would have been an easy, fatal, target for its prey) and used its tail to swim in deeper water. I mention this now with a recent discovery of a smaller dino' with similar traits. Does anyone have any good reasons why it shouldn't also be true of T Rex?

M


 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: T Rex
« Reply #1 on: 21/10/2005 01:52:49 »
Hi mindseye and welcome to the forum

The problem i see with t- rex being semi aquatic is the fact that t-rex's food sources wern't, i suppose it would be easy to find out if your theory is correct or not by finding out what type of rock or earth t-rex's fossils have mainly been found in , also i believe the latest theory suggests that t-rex was mainly a scavenger eating mainly dead animals that it came across,but also taking the odd live prey that had become lame or sick. a bit like a hyena.

I believe we do have a few people with a good knowlege of dinosaurs, maybe one of them will repley and give you a anwser:)

Michael                                      
 

Offline Mindseye

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #2 on: 22/10/2005 14:30:14 »
Hi Michael, thanks for getting back to me. I think that it preyed on whatever it could perhaps. Weak/dying animals on land and anythng that strayed too near the water's edge when it was in swamps.
IF you get a chance, lay out a TR skeleton with the feet drawn up behind it as though it were swimming, and the head and spine in a horizontal line down to the tail. It just seems to make more sense. Interesting.

 Ian
 

Offline Exodus

  • Phileas Fogg
  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
  • Geology
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #3 on: 23/10/2005 01:48:42 »
How can the T rex body shape relate to it being semi aquatic? Its hardly streamlined... why cant you accept the fact that it was a fearsome hunter... i'll possibly sway to the idea that it may have been a scavenger, possibly feeding on remains... but do you think a semi aqautic animal would have had such a large, top heavy skull and jaw comparitive to its body? Also, the predicted shape of its abdomen, how would this have aided their movement across this soft mud?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #4 on: 23/10/2005 02:14:32 »
...as a firm believer in empirical study I took my sons toy T Rex and threw it in the bath, result...it just flopped about a bit and then sunk. QED.

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

Offline Mindseye

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #5 on: 23/10/2005 10:42:17 »
>>How can the T rex body shape relate to it being semi aquatic? Its hardly streamlined... why cant you accept the fact that it was a fearsome hunter..."

 Not keeping up to speed on all this then? T Rex was a scavenger. Body mechanics didn't allow it to turn quickly, so it couldn't pursue prey. And 'why can't you accept' is a little strong don't you think? I said what I thought, I've said nothing about what I accept. These are just thoughts, taht's all.

 >>i'll possibly sway to the idea that it may have been a scavenger, possibly feeding on remains... but do you think a semi aqautic animal would have had such a large, top heavy skull and jaw comparitive to its body?

 Yes. Ever seen the proportions of a half grown tadpole? Perfect for the life it leads. If TR was a hunter, its big, unwieldy head would make running and turning even more awkward, I think that it could get away with it because it spent a lot of time supported by water. Things don't evolve for nothing. It's proportions say a lot about why it turned out the way it did. Why have such a large skull for tearing at carrion, when other carrion eating dinosaurs skulls were in proportion to their bodies? Why did it lose the use of its forearms? It's also got a very thin set of neck vertebrae in relation to the skull weight.

>>Also, the predicted shape of its abdomen, how would this have aided their movement across this soft mud?

'Predicted'. And note I said semi-aquatic. I think that it waded, swam, pushed and walked through mud and water, an opportunistic feeder. Just thoughts.

 M
 

Offline Mindseye

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #6 on: 23/10/2005 10:43:28 »
...as a firm believer in empirical study I took my sons toy T Rex and threw it in the bath, result...it just flopped about a bit and then sunk. QED.

LOL! Now THAT is more like a proper study.:)

M
 

Offline rahonavis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #7 on: 11/11/2005 11:59:14 »
Hi Mindseye,

People used to think that Sauropods ('Brontosaurus' shaped dinosaurs) lived in swamps due to their enormous size and the popular notion that they could not have supported their body weight on land. This theory has since been abandoned and infact Sauropod trackways have been found with just the forefeet touching the ground, indicative that the animal was padding along a river bed as it swam across it. But far more trackways have been found of Sauropods which have traversed open land, indeed I believe Tyrannosaur trackways have been found across land also.

The fact is, T. rex was not built for an amphibious lifestyle. A crocodile's tail is broader than it is deep for propelling it through water, whilst Tyrannosaur tails were deeper than they were broad. Tyrannosaurs lacked the broad ribs associated with large swimming animals and as already noted were not streamlined like crocodiles. They would have been too top heavy for efficient swimming. Infact, all the evidence points to T. rex having been adapted for long distance walking, befitting a scavenger of its size. It had a femur / tibia ratio indicative of this mode of life, for example.

What was the recent find you alluded to in the first message of a similar aquatic dinosaur? Thanks.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #8 on: 21/11/2005 13:43:40 »
Tyrannosaurus rex probably lived in forests, where its prey (plant-eating dinosaurs) could find plenty of food. T. rex fossils have been found in western North America and Mongolia.
From what I can rather, scouting around various geology websites, there were only a few areas of wetland in Mongolia at the time of T Rex. Forests and open grassland made up a far larger proportion of the land area. As T Rex fossils have been found over a large area it seems  to indicate that T Rex was not aquatic.
 

Offline rahonavis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #9 on: 24/11/2005 10:13:19 »
Hi Dr Beaver,

This feels like nit-picking, but there were no grasslands in the late cretaceous. I think adult T. rex were probably too large to have inhabited forests. I imagine plains made up od whatever low lying plants passed for grass at the time were its likely stomping ground.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: T Rex
« Reply #10 on: 25/11/2005 10:13:50 »
quote:
Originally posted by rahonavis

Hi Dr Beaver,

This feels like nit-picking, but there were no grasslands in the late cretaceous. I think adult T. rex were probably too large to have inhabited forests. I imagine plains made up od whatever low lying plants passed for grass at the time were its likely stomping ground.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4446998.stm
quote:

A study of fossil dinosaur dung has for the first time confirmed that the ancient reptiles ate grass.
Grass was previously thought to have become common only after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
But grasses were probably not a very important part of dinosaur diets - the fossilised faeces show the big beasts ate many different types of plants


quote:

The 65-67 million-year-old dung fossils, or coprolites, are thought to have been made by so-called titanosaur sauropods; large, vegetarian dinosaurs.

"It's difficult to tell how widespread [grass grazing] was," Ms Strömberg told the BBC News website, "Dinosaurs seem to have been indiscriminate feeders."
The study also sheds new light on the evolution of grass. Grasses are thought to have undergone a major diversification and geographic proliferation during the so-called Cenozoic, after the dinosaurs had gone extinct.
But the researchers found at least five different types of grass in the droppings.
This suggests grasses had already undergone substantial diversification in the Late Cretaceous, when the giant beasts still walked the Earth.

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #11 on: 25/11/2005 19:00:46 »
Rahonavis - is there some scientific distinction between "plain" and "grassland" of which I am not aware?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: T Rex
« Reply #12 on: 26/11/2005 00:03:03 »
quote:
Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

Rahonavis - is there some scientific distinction between "plain" and "grassland" of which I am not aware?



AIUI, a plain is a flat, open, and featureless land.  A plain may or may not include expanses of featureless vegetation such as open grassland.  I would expect the term 'plain' could just as easily be applied to a large flat open field of snow or ice.

Grass is a particular form of plant, characterised by certain physical attributes (e.g. The inclusion of silica in the leaves).  What it appears to me  Rahonavis was referring to was the kind of terrain on which we would now expect to see expanses of flat open grassland, but without the grass, but the niche occupied now by grasses then being occupied by some other vegetation.
 

Offline rahonavis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #13 on: 26/11/2005 14:22:23 »
Thanks another someone, that was indeed my meaning. It seems you've turned up some evidence that grass wasindeed present by the late cretaceous though. So I stand corrected [:I]
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #14 on: 27/11/2005 23:31:30 »
OK, thanks, that's cleared that up. I've always previously heard the term "plain" used to refer to open grassland. However, a lot of the sites I looked at did in fact refer to grassland.
 

Offline tony6789

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #15 on: 01/02/2006 14:47:11 »
Ok ok ok mindseye. What u r saying could be by every chance, possible. But also look at the facts. T-r was in no way adapted for swiming. But then again he could have used it's tail for swimming. the truth i don't know.

- Big T
 

Offline Ray hinton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
    • http://uk.geocities.com/rayhinton56@btinternet.com/photopagetan.html
Re: T Rex
« Reply #16 on: 02/02/2006 01:33:40 »
Mickey,Mickey,Mickey,
how can you say that about hyenas,they kill more fit animals than lyons,its just that they are weedy little things compared to lyons so they just walk up and take over the kill,the fact that this happens mainly at night,may make it less than common knowledge.

every village has one !
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: T Rex
« Reply #17 on: 02/02/2006 03:26:45 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
quote:
Mickey,Mickey,Mickey,
how can you say that about hyenas,they kill more fit animals than lyons,its just that they are weedy little things compared to lyons so they just walk up and take over the kill,the fact that this happens mainly at night,may make it less than common knowledge.
:D

WHAT I WROTE
also i believe the latest theory suggests that t-rex was mainly a scavenger eating mainly dead animals that it came across,but also taking the odd live prey that had become lame or sick. a bit like a hyena.

REPLY
Not much wrong with that. Correct Hyena's do catch  fit Animals, but also scavenge lots of dead animals and on occasions will even hassle lions to such a degree that the lions give up there kill to them. And when activly hunting live prey hyena's will always firstly look for the easy kill, weeding out the lame, sick  young and old.

And hyenas are far from weedy,and have more powerful and stronger bites than your weedy lions. :)

Michael                 HAPPY NEW YEAR                    
« Last Edit: 02/02/2006 03:30:38 by ukmicky »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #18 on: 02/02/2006 04:18:14 »
I gave up my dinner to a hyena once, but we shared dessert.:)

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

Offline rahonavis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: T Rex
« Reply #19 on: 02/02/2006 10:40:45 »
A vulture may be a better comparison than a hyena. CAT scans of T. rex skulls show that it had very large olfactory lobes, as do vultures, which indicate that it had a very good sense of smell. This would be important for tracking down animal carcasses perhaps some miles away. Wheras vultures glide long distances in search of a kill, T. rex seems to be well adapted for long - distance walking. Once it found the carcass, it would frighten off any dining predators / smaller scavengers and eat (vultures are ugly-looking for a reason!).

Many times it would be last on the scene. T. rex toothmarks have been found in the underside of the sacrum - the least accessible part - of a Triceratops; demonstrating that it was gleaning the last scraps of meat from the carcass.
 

Offline Ray hinton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
    • View Profile
    • http://uk.geocities.com/rayhinton56@btinternet.com/photopagetan.html
Re: T Rex
« Reply #20 on: 06/02/2006 01:59:24 »
lions  are a lot bigger than your lilly livered hyenas,anyway dont go picking on lions,unless of course you want a visit from virginia mcenna.
   

RE-HAB IS FOR QUITTERS.
 

Offline Raliel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
T Rex
« Reply #21 on: 10/06/2007 11:31:34 »
As far as I am aware, the evidence points to T-rex actually being a very capable runner, being able to reach speeds of up to 25mph, the fact that it's bones were birdlike in structure and filled with air, would cut down on body mass considerably..... notably one of its earlier ancestors was feathered, and although T-rex probably was not feathered overall, if you stick some basic flight feathers on the forelinbs, they become rudders and stabilisers for fast running ( think ostrich or roadrunner wings ) it would explain why the forelimbs are so small but very strong
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
T Rex
« Reply #22 on: 18/06/2007 04:20:57 »
From summations of research that Ive seen by John Horner, T-r may have had a hard time running, and especially changing direction quickly.  With its massive size, vestigial arms, and high center of gravity, a slip and fall (according to Horner) would likely have injured the animal severely, possibly even killing it.  Considering those same features, it would have been extremely difficult for T-r to get back to its feet again, especially if it is wounded in the foray.  The leg proportions do seem to indicate an evolution toward a long distance walker, though I have seen plausible opposing views that it may have run for short distances at a good clip.  It just seems risky to run if there is a decent possibility of mortally injuring yourself.

btw...hello everyone  ;D

 
 

Offline Raliel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
T Rex
« Reply #23 on: 18/06/2007 10:49:46 »
the tail was almost certainly held out stiffly and used as a rudder for maneuvering, and those tiny forelimbs, as I stated above, obviously had some use, they were very strong.... and if some form of plumage were applied to them, they could well have performed the role of stabilisers or rudders, I just do not see such a large, hot blooded animal relying on scavenging, such a successful group of carnivores must have been well suited to their environment and would have required
plentiful supplies of meat....something that opportunist/ scavengers would not have been able to gain
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
T Rex
« Reply #24 on: 18/06/2007 16:39:19 »
Surely, though, T-rex's forelimbs were only small compared to the rest of its bulk. They were still pretty big & powerful - & don't I remember them having rather fearsome claws?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

T Rex
« Reply #24 on: 18/06/2007 16:39:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums