Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

T-Rex Bigger and Hungrier Than Previously Thought

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the super-size-my-dinosaur dept.

Earth 104

gpronger writes "Researchers John Hutchinson (Royal Veterinary College in London) and Peter Makovicky (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago) built digital models of a T-Rex and then added flesh using the structure of soft tissues in birds and crocodiles as a guide. This allowed them to project body mass. By doing this for a number of specimens of different age and size, they could also evaluate growth. At maximum, the adolescents could add 11 pounds in weight in a single day. The adult was found to be 30% heavier than earlier estimates, at more than 9 tons. With this size and appetite, they would need a large range, and therefore also be relatively rare in the ecosystem of the time."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

T-Rex isn't fat (3, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 3 years ago | (#37698312)

It's big-boned

Re:T-Rex isn't fat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698330)

Maybe it's just covered in hot grits?

Re:T-Rex isn't fat (1, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 3 years ago | (#37698444)

Maybe it's just covered in hot grits?

Well, we do know as a fact that it is naked and petrified.....

Re:T-Rex isn't fat (0)

macraig (621737) | about 3 years ago | (#37698932)

Hell, I'm frequently petrified even when I'm not naked, so I can forgive them for that shortcoming.

T-Rex is bird-like, not mammal-like. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698510)

Scientists always give us the impression that these older Reptiles are mammal-like; such as the T-Rex and the Raptors running around the area hunting, or the Brontosaurus wading in a swamp and such.

There is prior proof that all these Reptiles were in-fact covered by various plumes of feathers like the Kiwi bird is, only the older Reptiles seem to be more strong in their skeleton whereas the Kiwi has mammal-like feathers and hollow bones.

My justification for this is of-course proven by my Research-grant pre-paid employees excavating these UNDISTURBED fossils, and we would get better results in favor of my theory so-long as we continually get awarded grants of money at taxpayer's expense. We're doing more than just selling expensive photographs and Scientific(tm) conclusions back to our subscribers: we're paving the way for New Science to rewrite the highschool textbooks to yield results that favor pure wholsome government-forced education.

Re:T-Rex is bird-like, not mammal-like. (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | about 3 years ago | (#37698668)

Mammal feathers? Hollow bones on large load-bearing skeletons? This is new to me.

Re:T-Rex isn't fat (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 3 years ago | (#37698864)

Is it still clocked at 42 miles per hour?

Re:T-Rex isn't fat (1)

Airline_Sickness_Bag (111686) | about 3 years ago | (#37705488)

Just be glad it couldn't reach 88 miles per hour.

Re:T-Rex isn't fat (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#37705732)

Is it still clocked at 42 miles per hour?

Which is the answer to everything you needed to know about the tea wreck.

Pics pls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698326)

Until I see an image of their simulation, I'm going to be stuck imagining T-Rex having more in common with Dennis Nedry than I'd like.

Interesting. (0)

idbeholda (2405958) | about 3 years ago | (#37698328)

Perhaps this also explains Marlin Brando.

Re:Interesting. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698536)

"Perhaps this also explains Marlin Brando."

And Salmon Rushdie.

Re:Interesting. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698748)

And Charles, Prince of Whales.

Re:Interesting. (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#37698750)

Perhaps this also explains Marlin Brando.

And Salmon Rushdie.

And Chris Christie.

Disappointing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698346)

9 tons at the heavier, revised estimate? Elephants can weigh close to 7 tons. Thanks for ruining my childhood

Re:Disappointing (4, Insightful)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | about 3 years ago | (#37699066)

Actually, some very big bull elephants have reached up to around 12 tons. But that's a minor point, because you're comparing apples and oranges.

"Only" 9 tons...for a flesh-eating biped. Think about that for a bit. No other land-dwelling meat-eater has ever come close to the size of the largest predatory dinosaurs. And all those dinosaurs were bipeds.

Elephants are herbivores, and they are strictly quadrupeds with columnar legs. The dinosaur analog for elephants are the sauropods, the largest of which reached up to 10 times the weight of the biggest elephants.

Re:Disappointing (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 3 years ago | (#37700900)

Just to compare to modern carnivores, I think the biggest is the kodiak bear, and it's about ONE ton.

Re:Disappointing (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | about 3 years ago | (#37701442)

Just to compare to modern carnivores, I think the biggest is the kodiak bear, and it's about ONE ton.

Actually kodiak bears are tied with the polar bear and both are estimated to have a max. peak weight of 1500 lbs. for males. Still, it's pretty damn small compared to 9 tons.

Re:Disappointing (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 3 years ago | (#37702022)

Kodiak bears (and Polar bears) are the largest modern land carnivores (whales are a lot bigger).

Re:Disappointing (2)

foote (441858) | about 3 years ago | (#37701100)

9 tons at the heavier, revised estimate? Elephants can weigh close to 7 tons. Thanks for ruining my childhood

I felt that way also when I read about T-Rex size estimates some years ago. Then they were six or seven tons (i.e., elephant-sized). But I had to remember that they were not, of course, the elephants of their time. They were the tigers of their time. So, you scale a tiger up to elephant size and you've got a pretty impressive predator.

Seems unscientific (2, Interesting)

bragr (1612015) | about 3 years ago | (#37698348)

I understand the they used birds because of the evolutionary history, and crocs due to the age of their species and reptilian nature, but I doubt using the human body as a reference to the bodies of our millions of years old relatives would give a clear picture, and the same goes for this experiment. And it could be the case that the birds they used didn't evolve from t-rex, but rather some other (possibly completely unrelated) species of bird, which would skew the results. If I had to guess, I'd say that 30% is in the margin of error for this kind of work.

Re:Seems unscientific (1)

bragr (1612015) | about 3 years ago | (#37698358)

*And it could be the case that the birds they used didn't evolve from t-rex, but rather some other (possibly completely unrelated) species of dinosaur, which would skew the results Note to self: don't post when tired.

Re:Seems unscientific (5, Informative)

Dr_Snugglebunny (1543523) | about 3 years ago | (#37698454)

What? Read the paper. They used the real skeletons (5 of them), not birds or crocodiles, as models.
The researchers' website:
http://bit.ly/qlfC2i [bit.ly]

And the paper: (free to all! open access yay!)
http://bit.ly/ruvel3 [bit.ly]

Re:Seems unscientific (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 years ago | (#37698492)

should mod up your post.

birds and crocs were used as reasoning how the muscles work and where they were.

Re:Seems unscientific (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698584)

He's just saying modern the bird/croc hybrid muscle model they came up with may not be right, and the assumption that it is warrants a high margin of error.

Re:Seems unscientific (2)

Dr_Snugglebunny (1543523) | about 3 years ago | (#37698644)

And the paper is about those kinds of errors; i.e. read the science to critique it, not the press release/Reuters story.

Re:Seems unscientific (1)

AngryNick (891056) | about 3 years ago | (#37699996)

What? Read the paper.

Wow, T.Rex was a bit of a fatty. Thanks for the links.

Re:Seems unscientific (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | about 3 years ago | (#37703720)

Wow, T.Rex was a bit of a fatty.

On the off chance you ever meet one, I'd advise you keep that to yourself. ;-)

This isn't twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37700442)

Why are you using a URL shortener, just post the links?

Re:Seems unscientific (3, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37698602)

The summary is inaccurate, as always. The actual abstract openly states that there is some subjectivity, and gives a range of 6000-8000 kg, with only one particularly large specimin topping 9 tons.

Re:Seems unscientific (1)

Dr_Snugglebunny (1543523) | about 3 years ago | (#37698626)

Precisely. The whole paper seems to be about the uncertainty of such estimates, i.e. the science. And the researchers have done a lot more work on this before; they aren't new to the field and wet around the ears.

Re:Seems unscientific (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 3 years ago | (#37705454)

And it could be the case that the birds they used didn't evolve from t-rex, but rather some other (possibly completely unrelated) species of bird, which would skew the results.

The common ancestor of birds is not T-Rex, so yeah. The most likely ancestor is one of the raptor family of dinosaurs -- aside from having a generally a more bird-like skeleton, a main key is in the structure of their wrists which can be seen evolving increasing degrees of flexibility in the raptor line to be more and more like the structure of a modern bird's wrists.

That said, a modern bird is still going to be the closest living relative to T-Rex. They're probably closer to T-Rex than crocodiles are.

Of course the end result is still a huge estimate -- i.e. guess. But informed guesswork can still be science.

Clay over skeletal models and magic theories (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37698354)

At best its a guess, at worse its a chunk of non fictional art. Take with your grain of salt

Inferred holocaust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698364)

A goat, a lawyer and two velociraptors wouldn't hold over one for very long.

Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 3 years ago | (#37698380)

Well, this new evidence certainly makes this scene [wikipedia.org] a lot less hot....

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (2)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#37698556)

You owe me a new keyboard....

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about 3 years ago | (#37699716)

and a clean LCD screen. Perspective, an amazing thing.

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | about 3 years ago | (#37699814)

What do you mean perspective? That's literally an exhibition of two t-rex skeletons in a reconstructed mating position. It's quite intentional.

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about 3 years ago | (#37699976)

And I could see it as just two T-rex, waiting around for prey. Since I did not know the context, I chose correctly without knowing. Wonder what that says about the direction my mind is going these days.

As a side note, the museum actually did that and stated it is two t-rex mating? could make for some inteesting floor conversations...
Child: Daddy, what are the dinosaurs doing?
Uncomfortable Dad: Why Billy, they are just hanging around waiting for prey
Child: That's funny, cause it looks like the same position you and Mommy make sometimes when I hear strange sounds.

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (1)

eharvill (991859) | about 3 years ago | (#37701492)

Child: That's funny, cause it looks like the same position you and Mommy make sometimes when I hear strange sounds.

I must be doing it wrong. T-Rex-style and BJs coincidentally ended shortly before the birth of my kid. :-/ I sure wish I had to make up a crazy story of what mommy and daddy were doing...

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37706938)

You are doing it wrong... well, you're partner is, anyways.

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699810)

Mod this +1 rule 34.

Re:Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (0)

Starfleet Command (936772) | about 3 years ago | (#37700574)

Damn, /b/eat me to it. LOL

Hogwash! (-1, Troll)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 3 years ago | (#37698410)

Those so-called "fossils" were planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster when he created the universe last Tuesday.

Everyone knows that.

Re:Hogwash! (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 3 years ago | (#37698776)

    I call bullshit on that.

    The FSM, Jebus, and Thor were playing poker last Tuesday. Guess who lost, and has to babysit this rock? Here's a hint, he passed the job of rewriting history to Loki.

Re:Hogwash! (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 3 years ago | (#37699022)

But how does the FSM escape being eaten by the very large and hungry T-Rex? I know that sometimes just hearing about the FSM makes be a bit peckish myself.

Re:Hogwash! (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37700188)

Well, the "Flying" part helps quite a bit. :)
And the Beer Volcano kept the T-Rexs (Rexes?) in a mild stupor at all times.

Re:Hogwash! (1)

jamiesan (715069) | about 3 years ago | (#37701064)

Yeah, especially when the T-Rexes said Bud-LITE

Incorrect (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37706950)

They where put there by the Anti-Pasta to make us doubt the FSM.

T-Rex notification... (1)

gunship167 (622202) | about 3 years ago | (#37698434)

While T-Rex is a theropod, it isn't a Velociraptor, so, the only real question is has ANYONE notified Randall Munroe?

Hold on to your butts (2)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37698458)

Good thing George Lucas didn't make Jurassic Park, or he'd be re-releasing the movie every time we found out something new about a dinosaur.

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

djl4570 (801529) | about 3 years ago | (#37698514)

Imagine what would happen if they found one that looked like Jar-Jar Binks.

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | about 3 years ago | (#37698560)

It annoyed the T-rex during the opening credits and was promptly eaten. Which of course is why the T-rex is so pissed off later in the movie. It tasted terrible.

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | about 3 years ago | (#37698652)

T-Rex : It tasted like a reptile, duck, rabbit, shit sausage that wouldn't stop talking about "Mee'sa (some other shit that I didn't pay attention to)".

socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers (0)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | about 3 years ago | (#37698756)

If there is nothing interesting going on in you life (other that something stupid like "should i use Gnome3 or KDE") you care about what going on in other peoples lives because their life is more interesting than yours. If something interesting was going on in your life you would just be one of the oblivious people content with you piece of pie but your not and that is why you are all here . Yay for not being stupid, but wouldn't your personal life be happier if you were stupid?

Re:socially-inept, technology-literate news-monger (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37700208)

Um, what are you going on about?

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 3 years ago | (#37698638)

can you imagine trying to train a t-rex to use a lightsaber?

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37698672)

I guess it depends on the t-rex's midi-chlorian count.

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37706958)

Can't be harder then Luke...and certainly less whiny.

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

bytesex (112972) | about 3 years ago | (#37698886)

Yeah, especially since it turned out that the infamous, super-dangerous, maliciously intelligent Velociraptor turned out to have the size of a turkey. In order to open doors, they'd have to jump. And they were so scary to humans, you could use them as footballs.

Re:Hold on to your butts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699490)

Yes, but try that with Velociraptor's larger cousins, Deinonychus [wikipedia.org] or Utahraptor [wikipedia.org] , and you're likely to have lost a leg. Or a lot worse. The movies greatly exaggerated the size of Velociraptor. Alternatively they got the name wrong. Either way there were Velociraptor-like dinosaurs of the size depicted in the Jurassic Park movies and much larger than that.

Randall Munroe has underestimated the size of the "Velociraptor problem".

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

Politburo (640618) | about 3 years ago | (#37700812)

It's kind of a cross between deinonychus and utahraptor, though utah hadn't been discovered until filming was underway. When Crichton wrote the book he used an old reference, and then they exaggerated the size for the movie (which turned out to not be an exaggeration after the utahraptor discovery).

Plus velociraptor just sounds better anyway.

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37706970)

Why do you assume small thing aren't scary. I mean, a fast animal the size of a turkey can still kill you, especially if it's working with a pack.

Re:Hold on to your butts (2)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 3 years ago | (#37700926)

I don't care what the remake said. Rex shot first!

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

Monchanger (637670) | about 3 years ago | (#37701374)

In related news: when asked about the company's upcoming plans, an InGen spokesman responded simply by saying: "we're gonna need a bigger boat."

Re:Hold on to your butts (1)

FyberOptic (813904) | about 3 years ago | (#37706816)

When I first saw this, I thought you said "we're gonna need a bigger goat." Which at the time also made total sense!

Sounds good! So when can we clone one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698480)

...and bar-b-q it?

About Time... (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#37698528)

It's about time the poor T-Rex started getting some more respect. When I was a kid, it was the biggest, baddest carnivore out there. Then it got demoted from a vicious hunter to a carrion eater, sniffing out dead carcasses like a vulture. Then they started putting feathers on it. Oh! The humiliation!. Glad to see they are upping it's need to feed.

Still, I guess it's fared better than the Brontosaurus. Not only did they go extinct, but they apparently never existed at all. A skeleton of a smaller animal, called Apatosaurus was discovered before the larger Brontosuarus was. However, on closer examination, it was discovered that the Apatosaurus was simply a juvenile and the Brontosaurus was the full grown adult version of the same animal. Since the Apatosaurus was found first, that became the official name. Poor Brontosaurus.

Re:About Time... (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37700282)

I get where you are coming from. One of my favorite posters when I was about 8 or so (1981) was a wall poster that had all of the more famous dinosaurs on it. (I think I still have it in storage somewhere) And as time went on that poster become increasingly incorrect, especially in naming, but also in the number of species. I also liked the Bronto, he was like the big dude on the block that just chilled all day hangin' out, eating some leaves, not bothering anyone.

Science, ruining my childhood posters, one step at a time. Even Pluto isn't a planet anymore!

Re:About Time... (1)

Kompressor (595513) | about 3 years ago | (#37704596)

Here's another one for you, in case you missed it: Triceratops didn't exist [nationalpost.com] .

Seems to be the same gaffe that they made with the Apatosaurus.

Re:About Time... (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37706822)

Yeah, I remember reading about that a while ago. I have no dinosaur heroes left. :(

pics or it didn't happen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698530)

Scumbag article: makes conclusion based on digital model; fails to show pics of said model.

FAIL. Get this trash off the front page.

Gods creation is present everywhere. (2, Funny)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | about 3 years ago | (#37698630)

This clearly shows God's divine hand in the creation of the dinosaurs, as us simple humans can't even get it right. It proves unequivocally that scientists don't even know what the hell they are doing. If we can't even trust their mangling of God's creations of Crocodile, Bird and Dinosaur, how can we even trust their so-called "Carbon Dating" witchcraft? Obviously scientists' inherent atheist devil-worship is to blame for letting them act as tools of Satan. Serpents were said to exist, in fact they are partially the cause of the downfall of man when he ate from the tree of knowledge. The inherent weakness of women enables temptation to take root, and the inherent protectionist and paternal nature of Man made him weak to his wife's request to partake out of the love such superiority brings.

The Bible is the only 100% true thing in existence. Its been verified time and time again, through the creation of Adam, and Eve from his spareribs as proven by the "Eve" mitochondrial theory, to Noah's flood, as proven by the ice-shield that surrounded the Earth (after all, what else would block the UV rays to let Noah and Abraham live to be hundreds of years old?), to Jesus our-lord-and-savior who has been proven to exist via numerous secondary documents in the Roman Empire. There is so much science in the Bible that us minions of God have recently discovered, Did you know that the Bible even predicted the discovery of bacteria?

"And ... neither shall you eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs" (Exodus 22:31)

How could a multiple Millenia old collection of documents predict such things without microscopes if it weren't for the divine insight of God? Clearly, the Bible is the only 100% true thing in existence. It is absurd to think otherwise. Science can't touch God. Jesus died for your sins, so you would no longer have to sacrifice your livestock. Such a loving God we have, letting us spare our livestock so we may not go hungry by sacrificing his only Son. Repent sinners, you will one day face judgement!

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 3 years ago | (#37698704)

You forgot to mention that God gave us the Flintstones and only the blind fools and tools of Satan don't see it for what it is.... a documentary.

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (0)

macinnisrr (1103805) | about 3 years ago | (#37698718)

I wish I had (or knew how to use) mod points. This is right up my alley as far as humour goes. Strange that when I read it it was modded simply "2".

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (0)

cosm (1072588) | about 3 years ago | (#37698744)

Yes....go on...you were saying? [youtube.com]

TROLLOLOLOLOLOL

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698752)

I know this is humorous sarcasm, but you wrote so much that I'm slightly worried you may actually believe what you said.

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (2)

jc42 (318812) | about 3 years ago | (#37703096)

Actually, it might just be an excellent example of Poe's [wikipedia.org] Law [rationalwiki.org] . There don't seem to be any real cues that it's satire or serious, so different people interpret it differently. This is probably more a sign of the readers' mindsets than a comment on the message itself.

And those of us who understand this are presumably examples of the third possibility: a "meta" viewpoint that reads it as both serious and satire simultaneously.

I found myself in a real quandary: Should I post this, or should I give the author another "Funny" mod? Maybe I should first see if I want to reply (seriously or jokingly) to any other posts? Nah ...

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (1)

Kompressor (595513) | about 3 years ago | (#37704638)

a "meta" viewpoint that reads it as both serious and satire simultaneously.

Schrödinger's viewpoint? Don't open the box, or you'll collapse the waveform!

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 3 years ago | (#37708926)

Hey, you're right! Too bad I posted that message; I'd have given you a "funny" mod for that reply. ;-)

(Hmmm ... I wonder what the technical term is for that bit of circular logic.)

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37700296)

Instant classic.

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37700674)

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved." --Francis Crick

Form your own opinions.

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (0)

g4b (956118) | about 3 years ago | (#37700816)

gosh, you had me going, almost started a christian flamewar against a religious nut. but its just an antireligious nut with humor.

wtf is with bacteria

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 3 years ago | (#37701510)

Its a glorious day for Slashdot when an obvious offtopic troll flamebait post filled with logical fallacies (primarily the strawman, and ridicule) gets modded "funny". Humorous intent there may have been, but it really brings some perspective-- apparently you can be as gigantic of a troll as you want, so long as you make your ridicule funny enough.

For everyone chortling over how stupid and backwards the religious nuts are, note that you are giving approval to a gigantic logical fallacy and applauding the drowning out of reasonable conversation. Hope you all feel super proud of yourselves.

Re:Gods creation is present everywhere. (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37707012)

Comic, for the most part, are just trolls on a stage.

11 pounds in a single day (0)

anti-pop-frustration (814358) | about 3 years ago | (#37698816)

the adolescents could add 11 pounds in weight in a single day

So does my wife.

Re:11 pounds in a single day (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#37698846)

"At their fastest, in their teenage years, they were putting on 11 pounds or 5 kilograms a day," John Hutchinson of the Royal Veterinary College in London told Reuters.

"Just think how much meat that is. That's a hell of a lot of cheeseburgers ... it's a whole lot of duck-billed dinosaurs they needed to be chowing down on."

Hadrosaurs or duck-billed dinosaurs were common plant-eaters that lived alongside T. rex, making them an obvious meal for the giant meat-eaters.

if you are anything like a duck-billed dinosaur, you should watch out.

Re:11 pounds in a single day (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37700010)

So does your mother.

misunderstanding about extinction (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698924)

I don't think dinsosaurs got wiped out due to a natural disaster.
If you consider birds and how they instinctively hate cats from birth because they're a huge threat to their safety,
wouldn't it also be true that all organisms large and small would have instintively hated all large lizards since theyre a threat to their safety?
And so you have every other animal going up against dinosaurs so obviously theyre going to die out eventually.

think of the (dinosaur) children! (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 3 years ago | (#37699038)

the adolescents could add 11 pounds in weight in a single day. The adult was found to be 30% heavier than earlier estimates at more than 9 tons.

isn't anyone concerned about this dinosaur obesity epidemic?!

This makes sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699078)

Apex predators seem to be rarer birds than the more common 'less noble' creatures. That is, there are a lot few eagles than sparrows. However, the smaller less noble creatures have a better chance of survival once things go bad.

On a more serious note; this is why the world needs global warming. If we are to bring back T-rexs, and velocorapters, we need to get this planet about 20 degrees warmer. Then we can start resurrecting all these noble species that once ranged the Earth.

-If I disagree with you, It must be because I am faggot. It is the only possible reason I would ever disagree with your intelligent rational, and well reasoned understanding of the world, and the universe that exists around you.

test of ... (1)

E.I.A (2303368) | about 3 years ago | (#37699720)

Why would something get SO big just to test our faith? ***Starting time machine....Fastening seatbelt....OK, now off to 4000BC to figure this all out!

This thread need pictures (0)

larpon (974081) | about 3 years ago | (#37699800)

Here's one of the best interpretations of how it might have looked - a huge hungry monster:
T-Rex [blogspot.com]

Hungry hungry dino (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | about 3 years ago | (#37700598)

Good thing dinosaurs never discovered the properties of pot... now THAT would be a big hunger.

(or maybe they did... and went extinct)

Further addding to (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 3 years ago | (#37700662)

The idea that T-Rex wasn't a carnivore, but a carrion eater. Too big, too fat, pathetic arms that wouldn't allow it to get back up quickly in a hunt(if ever) and probably slow as a sloth.

Calvinosaurus (1)

HiggsBison (678319) | about 3 years ago | (#37701176)

A museum guard reaches for his pistol, but the dinosaur is upon him and he is messily devoured. Patrons of the arts flee for their lives. Priceless paintings are ripped to shreds, wealthy benefactors trampled, and the museum is in ruins.

Good to See Some Respectable Paleo Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37702006)

...after that ugly kraken nonsense.

Not at all surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37705536)

I saw the "Sue" skeleton, which ironically turned out to be male. It was massive. Most reconstructions show a fairly slim T-Rex where as Sue was barrel chested. You've got to look at it compared to Elephants. I've seen live Elephants and they run 5 to 7 tons and Sue dwarfed them. The chest was bigger. The Leg bones were bigger and the skull was much bigger. Imagine also an Elephant that was 42 feet long. Elephants don't have tails or much of a neck. I've heard estimates as low as 3 to 4 tons. That's silly because you could fit a buffalo in it's stomach and they run 1,000 to 2,000 pounds. I've seen a lot of dinosaur skeletons but I couldn't take my eyes off Sue for a solid hour. Everything about the skeleton was massive. I've heard claims the legs weren't strong enough for them to run. The leg bones look like they could have comfortably supported a tank. It looked fast and hungry. I haven't seen the skeleton from that giant South American version but I doubt it was as fast and it's the shear size and apparent speed of it that was terrifying. You have to look at them as a lion the size of a bus.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?