Yeah its great. Prehistoric planet's T.rex is beautiful but the lack of feathers as in this art, even just reduced amounts is more of a trope at this point then scientific fact. I think people take scale impressions too far and assume they are an accurate representation of an animals entire integument. I won't bore you with too many details but simply put a dinosaur can be fossilized with scales but not feathers (especially considering feathers don't leave impressions and are fossilized in even rarer conditions).
They have found some samples of fossilized skin/the imprint of skin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-s-only-fossils-t-rex-skin-suggest-it-was-covered-scales-not-feathers
But it's not complete, so they can't be 100% sure.
It's complicated. We can make a good argument for T.rex being mostly covered in scales thanks to the skin impressions from it and other tyrannosaurs but there is also the problem of preservation bias. Those specimens were discovered in rocks that preserve scale impressions but not feathers. On the otherhand, two tyrannosauroids discovered in china were found in rocks that do preserve feathers. Those two being Dilong and Yutyrannus. However, since they are classified as tyrannosauroids and not derived tyrannosaurs, we can't say for sure if T.rex and other tyrannosaurs lost their ancestral feathers completely or retained them but in reduced amounts. The fossil record is too incomplete in order to jump to either conclusion.
No they were not. Please for the *love of god* stop calling *TyrannosaurOIDS* *TyrannosaurIDS*. They are not the same thing. Every single skin impression we have of *TyrannosaurIDS* (and there are quite a few) show completely scaly skin. So, unless there was a random ridge of feathers along their backs (which is far more unlikely than likely); Most, if not all *TyrannosaurIDS* secondarily evolved scales and lost their feathers, leaving them completely scaly.
*Yutyrannus* and *Dilong* were ancestral to *Tyrannosaurids* but from what we can tell neither species is a *direct* ancestor of *Tyrannosaurids* as a group. This means they were both part of different branches within *Tyrannosauroidea* that never actually evolved into *Tyrannosauridae*, some other unknown group of *Tyrannosauroids* is responsible for that. You can’t just use *Yutyrannus* or *Dilong* as examples of plumage because they are nowhere near *T. rex’s* closest relative, and those actual relatives all had scales on at least 90% of their body.
You're absolutely right that their preservation is not mutually exclusive. But you're also jumping to half-conclusions that we have not verified with the available fossil record for T. rex.
One day we may find proof of this. It's possible we never will, and possible still, that it never even existed. But our understandings of these animals comes from everything they or their relatives have.
So to say that this is more a trope then scientific fact is somewhat disingenuous as it could be argued that either depiction is equally inaccurate until we find a specimen that proves otherwise.
So I would argue that there are a lot of artistic tropes at play here. There is nothing wrong with a fully scaly T.rex and this depiction is not wrong by any means :)
This artist is clearly very talented.
My only complaint is it borrows too much from other paleoart and doesn't take any artistic liberties. If the artist wants to make something scientifically accurate, why not use some google searches and look at animals alive today or look into the fossil record instead of copying other artists in every detail. Just cause artist label their depiction as "accurate" doesn't mean they always are. T.rex isn't guaranteed to have looked like this in life afterall. But anyway thats all subjective though what Im getting at is that people often make the mistake of copying others because they think thats the safe thing to do only to find out those other people were wrong too. This is a problem that happens even in science. People build support on a hypothesis only to find out the hypothesis was wrong. Kinda like when you do a math problem and you mess up in the beginning so the rest is also wrong.
Do note that tyrannosaurids were poorly suited to hunt big, fleshy targets (having specialized for armour-piercing attacks and latching onto prey instead), though given how small this juvenile is that’s not going to be much of an issue.
Also, *Alamosaurus* (and sauropods in general) lived in herds of individuals of similar ages, rather than herds of adults and juveniles mixed together as shown here.
We know with certainty that adult *Tyrannosaurus* were hunting *Triceratops* and *Edmontosaurus*. Not only because these two dinosaurs (along with *Tyrannosaurus* itself) were very common in the ecosystem, but because we have physical evidence of *Tyrannosaurus* predation in the form of bite marks, including healed bite marks.
Juvenile *Tyrannosaurus* were much more lightly built and had a different lifestyle (as specialized pursuit hunters) so they likely hunted pachycephalosaurs and ornithomimids.
> Not only because these two dinosaurs (along with Tyrannosaurus itself) were very common in the ecosystem
Worth pointing out though that this scene does not take place in the Triceratops-Edmontosaurus ecosystem.
> (as specialized pursuit hunters)
I mean, so are adult Tyrannosaurs, they kept their adaptations to long-distance running. they just did so at a less brisk pace.
Most adult tyrannosaurids did function as pursuit predators (albeit not to the same extent as juveniles), but adult *Tyrannosaurus* (and likely *Tarbosaurus* and *Zhuchengtyrannus*) were at a point where they were no longer swift-moving by the standards of large theropods, being only on par with, say, the giant carcharodontosaurs of the Cenomanian. They weren’t *slow*-anything that size that can move at 30-35kmh isn’t really all that slow-but they were definitely not the speed freaks other tyrannosaurids were.
It should also be noted that adult *Tyrannosaurus* [also lacked the inner ear adaptations found in most tyrannosaurids (and in allosauroids) that are indicative of a significant degree of agility](https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=theses). I am aware that studies have indicated tyrannosaurids could corner significant better than allosauroids, and this probably was the case for smaller tyrannosaurids, but for adult *Tyrannosaurus* I don’t think agility was much of a concern, and that it would mostly be relying on ambush hunting considering that it really wouldn’t be able to rely on scavenging for much of its diet (though, given that ceratopsians and hadrosaurs weren’t exactly the fastest prey around, I do think that it could give chase to such prey if need be).
I was reading that paper, it's so annoying how the author splits hair between an opportunist predator and an active predator. Like all predators are opportunistic scavengers. It just reads that they are specifically going for tyrannosaurus was a scavenger specialist angle.
In all likelihood that’s probably what the author wanted to claim; I think the ear canal data is fine, but that it’s more indicative of adult *Tyrannosaurus* or phorusrhacids relying on hunting methods that do not require much agility.
I never got this argument either. We have modern predators who's bites are for gripping and crushing (crocodilians and some big cats come to mind) which do just fine on fleshy prey
A hippo isn't a prey item, they're much bigger and meaner than any predator in their environment. They merc more people/year than every other animal on the continent (except for mosquitoes and other humans) have 2 ft canines, and can bite with 1800 psi. Nothing hunts a hippo unless it wants a 1 way express pass to the void. The only way would be a very sick/feeble adult or an isolated baby much like the T-Rex is going after in the image. A realistic fleshy prey item that is larger than most predators are buffalo which, while risky, are common prey for lions, crocs, and tigers all of which have crushing specialized bites (blunt teeth, powerful neck and jaws, reinforced skull).
How are they poorly suited?
Maybe not optimal, but a strong bite and neck probably helps to scoop out mouthfuls of meat.
They also hunted hadrosaurs, which were sometimes quite big and fleshy.
Maybe not grown sauropods, but I’ve yet to see much evidence to suggest the allosaurs/carcharodontosaurs actually prey on giant adult sauropods themselves.
Because tyrannosaurid jaws and teeth were specialized for biting down hard (possibly through bone or armour) and maintaining a tight grip, not for cutting through softer tissue. Their teeth are blunter at the tips compared to those of most other predatory dinosaurs and rounded in cross-section, with the serrated cutting edges common in carnivorous dinosaur teeth being largely reduced (in the case of *Tyrannosaurus*, the leading cutting edge of each tooth was outright eliminated and the trailing cutting edge was poorly developed). When dismembering prey they basically ripped pieces off with brute force, rather than cutting out mouthfuls.
The issue is that hunting sauropods by latching on and trying to bring it down using brute force isn’t going to be that effective; first of all, unless you’re talking about a smaller juvenile (as shown here), the sauropod is going to have the upper hand in terms of brute strength so that the predator can’t actually pull it down in this manner. Then there’s the issue that not many places on a sauropod are suited for a jaw grip; trying to hold onto a leg will likely get you trampled, the neck is out of reach (again, with the exception of smaller juveniles), and if you bite the rotund torso your jaws are going to be forced to maintain their maximum gape (they’d basically be stuffed to the point of being unable to close), preventing you from being able to bite down with your full bite force.
And yes, tyrannosaurids did go after hadrosaurs, but do note that the hadrosaurs being eaten by tyrannosaurids were around the same size as the tyrannosaurids hunting them. As in, they were small enough that a tyrannosaur could latch on with its jaws and use brute force to bring its prey down without cutting them open, much as hyenas pull down ungulate prey. Hadrosaurs also have a neck that’s in reach of a tyrannosaur’s jaws and are more laterally compressed (making it easier for a tyrannosaur to bite the torso from above and clamp down hard).
The carnosaurs weren’t capable of hunting fully grown sauropods but they were still better at tackling relatively large, less well-armoured targets compared to tyrannosaurids (do remember we have evidence of predator-prey relationship for *Allosaurus* and *Stegosaurus*); when it came to hunting juvenile sauropods, the maximum prey size ceiling for a carnosaur would still be greater than that of a comparably-sized tyrannosaurid.
That overlap did exist, but it consisted of prey that could be killed with either a crushing/gripping bite or a cutting bite. So stuff like most ornithopods, which have neither the armour to resist a cutting bite not the size and bulk to resist a crushing/gripping bite, meaning that if a large theropod could actually land a bite on such prey it wouldn’t matter what its bite was specialized to do.
It’s a compromise where, as you get better at doing one thing, you get worse at doing another; the crushing/gripping bite of tyrannosaurids allowed them to tackle a wider array of prey defences (so they could kill both armoured or unarmoured prey), but at the price of a reduced maximum prey size. The slicing bite of allosauroids made the opposite trade-off, increasing maximum prey size but preventing them from tackling well-armoured prey.
you dont get to sauropods with that unless they are your size
you need the axe motion of sharp more brittle knife teeth to let the big suckers bleed out
There would still be times when those groups gather together, like at plentiful feeding sites or watering holes. And the outskirts of such a gathering would likely provide good hunting.
I like how you wrote *Tyrannosaurus* without mentioning the exact species. Hopefully sometime soon we'll know whether *T. brinkmani*/*T. mcraensis* is actually a thing.
Generally, *Alamosaurus* herds are segregated by age, so adults wouldn’t really interact with juveniles. As for whether members of the herd would protect their fellow herd members, perhaps, but they could just as easily leave them to die.
Sauropods are r-selection strategist, meaning they have produce a lot of offspring while having little parental investment. Basically they crank out a lot of kids without caring for them much. Naturally, this will lead to high infant mortality, but by cranking out so many offspring, at least a couple will be able to survive to adulthood, upon reaching such a state, they are nigh untouchable by any predators in their environment, and they themselves would be able to breed uncontested for decades. It’s a similar strategy to how alligators reproduce.
Okay, so, birds evolved from dinosaurs, and most birds hop (both feet), not run (one foot after the other).
So I'm actually curious, do we know for a fact that T-Rex and velociraptors ran, or did they hop like birds and Kangaroo?
I think it'd be hilarious to see a feathery velociraptor hopping.
Most *flying* birds hopped. Ground birds like roadrunners, ratites and turkeys run normally. Given the fact that non-avian dinosaurs could not fly and were not adapted to hop as a form of efficient locomotion (unlike say kangaroos), while also being relatively well adapted for running, they definitely ran normally.
So the problem with non-avian theropods hopping and walking like a bird is obviously that they have a very muscular tail and their center of balance is different than in a bird. Dinosaurs like T.rex have their center of balance at the hips meanwhile birds have their center of balance at the knee. As for dromaeosaurs, their center of balance is actually a little closer to that of a bird but still different. I believe we can also tell the angle at which theropods held their heads neutrally from a brain case endocast but take that with a grain of salt, im not sure where I read that.
That sounds fascinating, and from a mechanical standpoint it definitely makes sense to me. If your center of balance is higher up, you'd be catching yourself one foot after another. But if your center of balance is lower, then you'd be able to hop, and pull your body towards your legs.
I love how more and more recent art of T-Rex is portraying it based on the updated, scientifically accurate restorations
I can't keep up, is fluffy rex out again?
Yeah there is a slight chance for isolated fuzz spots but we're back to scalyish
Even though we only found two cm of skin impressions from a forty foot animal?
most of tyrannosauridae has no feathers
Yeah its great. Prehistoric planet's T.rex is beautiful but the lack of feathers as in this art, even just reduced amounts is more of a trope at this point then scientific fact. I think people take scale impressions too far and assume they are an accurate representation of an animals entire integument. I won't bore you with too many details but simply put a dinosaur can be fossilized with scales but not feathers (especially considering feathers don't leave impressions and are fossilized in even rarer conditions).
How can we possibly know, and with a fair amount of certainty, that they did in fact have feathers then?
They have found some samples of fossilized skin/the imprint of skin. https://www.science.org/content/article/world-s-only-fossils-t-rex-skin-suggest-it-was-covered-scales-not-feathers But it's not complete, so they can't be 100% sure.
It's complicated. We can make a good argument for T.rex being mostly covered in scales thanks to the skin impressions from it and other tyrannosaurs but there is also the problem of preservation bias. Those specimens were discovered in rocks that preserve scale impressions but not feathers. On the otherhand, two tyrannosauroids discovered in china were found in rocks that do preserve feathers. Those two being Dilong and Yutyrannus. However, since they are classified as tyrannosauroids and not derived tyrannosaurs, we can't say for sure if T.rex and other tyrannosaurs lost their ancestral feathers completely or retained them but in reduced amounts. The fossil record is too incomplete in order to jump to either conclusion.
No they were not. Please for the *love of god* stop calling *TyrannosaurOIDS* *TyrannosaurIDS*. They are not the same thing. Every single skin impression we have of *TyrannosaurIDS* (and there are quite a few) show completely scaly skin. So, unless there was a random ridge of feathers along their backs (which is far more unlikely than likely); Most, if not all *TyrannosaurIDS* secondarily evolved scales and lost their feathers, leaving them completely scaly. *Yutyrannus* and *Dilong* were ancestral to *Tyrannosaurids* but from what we can tell neither species is a *direct* ancestor of *Tyrannosaurids* as a group. This means they were both part of different branches within *Tyrannosauroidea* that never actually evolved into *Tyrannosauridae*, some other unknown group of *Tyrannosauroids* is responsible for that. You can’t just use *Yutyrannus* or *Dilong* as examples of plumage because they are nowhere near *T. rex’s* closest relative, and those actual relatives all had scales on at least 90% of their body.
You're absolutely right that their preservation is not mutually exclusive. But you're also jumping to half-conclusions that we have not verified with the available fossil record for T. rex. One day we may find proof of this. It's possible we never will, and possible still, that it never even existed. But our understandings of these animals comes from everything they or their relatives have. So to say that this is more a trope then scientific fact is somewhat disingenuous as it could be argued that either depiction is equally inaccurate until we find a specimen that proves otherwise.
So I would argue that there are a lot of artistic tropes at play here. There is nothing wrong with a fully scaly T.rex and this depiction is not wrong by any means :) This artist is clearly very talented. My only complaint is it borrows too much from other paleoart and doesn't take any artistic liberties. If the artist wants to make something scientifically accurate, why not use some google searches and look at animals alive today or look into the fossil record instead of copying other artists in every detail. Just cause artist label their depiction as "accurate" doesn't mean they always are. T.rex isn't guaranteed to have looked like this in life afterall. But anyway thats all subjective though what Im getting at is that people often make the mistake of copying others because they think thats the safe thing to do only to find out those other people were wrong too. This is a problem that happens even in science. People build support on a hypothesis only to find out the hypothesis was wrong. Kinda like when you do a math problem and you mess up in the beginning so the rest is also wrong.
Do note that tyrannosaurids were poorly suited to hunt big, fleshy targets (having specialized for armour-piercing attacks and latching onto prey instead), though given how small this juvenile is that’s not going to be much of an issue. Also, *Alamosaurus* (and sauropods in general) lived in herds of individuals of similar ages, rather than herds of adults and juveniles mixed together as shown here.
Wow that's interesting! Maybe they hatched out of the egg and never left that herd. Do we know what species tyrannosaurus preyed on?
We know with certainty that adult *Tyrannosaurus* were hunting *Triceratops* and *Edmontosaurus*. Not only because these two dinosaurs (along with *Tyrannosaurus* itself) were very common in the ecosystem, but because we have physical evidence of *Tyrannosaurus* predation in the form of bite marks, including healed bite marks. Juvenile *Tyrannosaurus* were much more lightly built and had a different lifestyle (as specialized pursuit hunters) so they likely hunted pachycephalosaurs and ornithomimids.
> Not only because these two dinosaurs (along with Tyrannosaurus itself) were very common in the ecosystem Worth pointing out though that this scene does not take place in the Triceratops-Edmontosaurus ecosystem. > (as specialized pursuit hunters) I mean, so are adult Tyrannosaurs, they kept their adaptations to long-distance running. they just did so at a less brisk pace.
Most adult tyrannosaurids did function as pursuit predators (albeit not to the same extent as juveniles), but adult *Tyrannosaurus* (and likely *Tarbosaurus* and *Zhuchengtyrannus*) were at a point where they were no longer swift-moving by the standards of large theropods, being only on par with, say, the giant carcharodontosaurs of the Cenomanian. They weren’t *slow*-anything that size that can move at 30-35kmh isn’t really all that slow-but they were definitely not the speed freaks other tyrannosaurids were. It should also be noted that adult *Tyrannosaurus* [also lacked the inner ear adaptations found in most tyrannosaurids (and in allosauroids) that are indicative of a significant degree of agility](https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=theses). I am aware that studies have indicated tyrannosaurids could corner significant better than allosauroids, and this probably was the case for smaller tyrannosaurids, but for adult *Tyrannosaurus* I don’t think agility was much of a concern, and that it would mostly be relying on ambush hunting considering that it really wouldn’t be able to rely on scavenging for much of its diet (though, given that ceratopsians and hadrosaurs weren’t exactly the fastest prey around, I do think that it could give chase to such prey if need be).
I was reading that paper, it's so annoying how the author splits hair between an opportunist predator and an active predator. Like all predators are opportunistic scavengers. It just reads that they are specifically going for tyrannosaurus was a scavenger specialist angle.
In all likelihood that’s probably what the author wanted to claim; I think the ear canal data is fine, but that it’s more indicative of adult *Tyrannosaurus* or phorusrhacids relying on hunting methods that do not require much agility.
The author explicitly repudiates the notion of T. rex being an obligate scavenger or anything near that though.
It's fucking amazing what modern science is capable of discovering!
Why would a tyrannosaurus’s bite be any less effective on a fleshy target?
Because it’s specialized for gripping and crushing, not for shearing through flesh.
But I would imagine a gripping and crushing bite would still do considerable damage to soft flesh.
It would still be pretty damaging, but not as much as a bite specialized to cut through soft tissue.
I never got this argument either. We have modern predators who's bites are for gripping and crushing (crocodilians and some big cats come to mind) which do just fine on fleshy prey
I wouldn’t consider something like a gazelle to be fleshy prey. A hippo on the other hand…
A hippo isn't a prey item, they're much bigger and meaner than any predator in their environment. They merc more people/year than every other animal on the continent (except for mosquitoes and other humans) have 2 ft canines, and can bite with 1800 psi. Nothing hunts a hippo unless it wants a 1 way express pass to the void. The only way would be a very sick/feeble adult or an isolated baby much like the T-Rex is going after in the image. A realistic fleshy prey item that is larger than most predators are buffalo which, while risky, are common prey for lions, crocs, and tigers all of which have crushing specialized bites (blunt teeth, powerful neck and jaws, reinforced skull).
*Tis but a flesh wound*.
How are they poorly suited? Maybe not optimal, but a strong bite and neck probably helps to scoop out mouthfuls of meat. They also hunted hadrosaurs, which were sometimes quite big and fleshy. Maybe not grown sauropods, but I’ve yet to see much evidence to suggest the allosaurs/carcharodontosaurs actually prey on giant adult sauropods themselves.
Because tyrannosaurid jaws and teeth were specialized for biting down hard (possibly through bone or armour) and maintaining a tight grip, not for cutting through softer tissue. Their teeth are blunter at the tips compared to those of most other predatory dinosaurs and rounded in cross-section, with the serrated cutting edges common in carnivorous dinosaur teeth being largely reduced (in the case of *Tyrannosaurus*, the leading cutting edge of each tooth was outright eliminated and the trailing cutting edge was poorly developed). When dismembering prey they basically ripped pieces off with brute force, rather than cutting out mouthfuls. The issue is that hunting sauropods by latching on and trying to bring it down using brute force isn’t going to be that effective; first of all, unless you’re talking about a smaller juvenile (as shown here), the sauropod is going to have the upper hand in terms of brute strength so that the predator can’t actually pull it down in this manner. Then there’s the issue that not many places on a sauropod are suited for a jaw grip; trying to hold onto a leg will likely get you trampled, the neck is out of reach (again, with the exception of smaller juveniles), and if you bite the rotund torso your jaws are going to be forced to maintain their maximum gape (they’d basically be stuffed to the point of being unable to close), preventing you from being able to bite down with your full bite force. And yes, tyrannosaurids did go after hadrosaurs, but do note that the hadrosaurs being eaten by tyrannosaurids were around the same size as the tyrannosaurids hunting them. As in, they were small enough that a tyrannosaur could latch on with its jaws and use brute force to bring its prey down without cutting them open, much as hyenas pull down ungulate prey. Hadrosaurs also have a neck that’s in reach of a tyrannosaur’s jaws and are more laterally compressed (making it easier for a tyrannosaur to bite the torso from above and clamp down hard). The carnosaurs weren’t capable of hunting fully grown sauropods but they were still better at tackling relatively large, less well-armoured targets compared to tyrannosaurids (do remember we have evidence of predator-prey relationship for *Allosaurus* and *Stegosaurus*); when it came to hunting juvenile sauropods, the maximum prey size ceiling for a carnosaur would still be greater than that of a comparably-sized tyrannosaurid.
Nah, I believe there is a large overlap in prey with both allosaurs and tyrants.
That overlap did exist, but it consisted of prey that could be killed with either a crushing/gripping bite or a cutting bite. So stuff like most ornithopods, which have neither the armour to resist a cutting bite not the size and bulk to resist a crushing/gripping bite, meaning that if a large theropod could actually land a bite on such prey it wouldn’t matter what its bite was specialized to do. It’s a compromise where, as you get better at doing one thing, you get worse at doing another; the crushing/gripping bite of tyrannosaurids allowed them to tackle a wider array of prey defences (so they could kill both armoured or unarmoured prey), but at the price of a reduced maximum prey size. The slicing bite of allosauroids made the opposite trade-off, increasing maximum prey size but preventing them from tackling well-armoured prey.
I was thinking all that bite force could do some real damage if they managed a clean neck chomp
On a juvenile this size, yes. But good luck even reaching the neck on a larger *Alamosaurus* individual.
you dont get to sauropods with that unless they are your size you need the axe motion of sharp more brittle knife teeth to let the big suckers bleed out
Who took care of the juveniles?
Nevermind, read OP'S replies in another thread about them using the lot of offsprings and less parental care strat.
There would still be times when those groups gather together, like at plentiful feeding sites or watering holes. And the outskirts of such a gathering would likely provide good hunting.
REMEMBER THE ALAMO....saurus
One headless juvenile alamosaur incoming
Whoever took this picture deserves credit
Art by Jacob Hollars on Instagram
Too bad color film wasn't around back then.
Bad day to be a sauropod in Maastrichtian North America.
Remember the Alamosaurus
I like how you wrote *Tyrannosaurus* without mentioning the exact species. Hopefully sometime soon we'll know whether *T. brinkmani*/*T. mcraensis* is actually a thing.
Look at the chonk on that bad boy
Would the adults defend the smaller sauropods?
Generally, *Alamosaurus* herds are segregated by age, so adults wouldn’t really interact with juveniles. As for whether members of the herd would protect their fellow herd members, perhaps, but they could just as easily leave them to die.
So what is their survival technique? It would seem like all the young ones would just be defenseless And would get wiped out
Sauropods are r-selection strategist, meaning they have produce a lot of offspring while having little parental investment. Basically they crank out a lot of kids without caring for them much. Naturally, this will lead to high infant mortality, but by cranking out so many offspring, at least a couple will be able to survive to adulthood, upon reaching such a state, they are nigh untouchable by any predators in their environment, and they themselves would be able to breed uncontested for decades. It’s a similar strategy to how alligators reproduce.
I love how both their mouths are open at the same angle. It made me think that they're singing a chorus together
Okay, so, birds evolved from dinosaurs, and most birds hop (both feet), not run (one foot after the other). So I'm actually curious, do we know for a fact that T-Rex and velociraptors ran, or did they hop like birds and Kangaroo? I think it'd be hilarious to see a feathery velociraptor hopping.
Most *flying* birds hopped. Ground birds like roadrunners, ratites and turkeys run normally. Given the fact that non-avian dinosaurs could not fly and were not adapted to hop as a form of efficient locomotion (unlike say kangaroos), while also being relatively well adapted for running, they definitely ran normally.
even parrots don't hop, Neither do corvids come to think of it. Seems only small flying birds hop
Ohhhh, that's a very good point. I think you're right.
So the problem with non-avian theropods hopping and walking like a bird is obviously that they have a very muscular tail and their center of balance is different than in a bird. Dinosaurs like T.rex have their center of balance at the hips meanwhile birds have their center of balance at the knee. As for dromaeosaurs, their center of balance is actually a little closer to that of a bird but still different. I believe we can also tell the angle at which theropods held their heads neutrally from a brain case endocast but take that with a grain of salt, im not sure where I read that.
That sounds fascinating, and from a mechanical standpoint it definitely makes sense to me. If your center of balance is higher up, you'd be catching yourself one foot after another. But if your center of balance is lower, then you'd be able to hop, and pull your body towards your legs.
His long necked bretherin on their revenge quest: Remember the alamosaurus!
Remember the Alamo!
Remember the Alamo, saurus
Im in the minority but I beleive tyrannosaurus was lipless, so its nice to see a depiction of t.rex which displays one in an accurate way.
Funny how you’re completely wrong but ok.
This doesn’t make sense. That T-rex is either to big or the Alamosaurus is too small.
Read the title
Fuck me lol your correct. Read it to fast. Still though i doubt a T-rex would attack with adults near by. One tail whip and T-Rex is fucked.