Worked out why the t-rex is so angry in films

[TaSwavo]

The t-rex in the films is almost always put in deep forest.
The game shows us that is bound to drive them mad as I see in the game a ridiculous expectation for large amounts of grassland...

Is there a legitimate reason why folks think they needed/wanted grassland - or is it the paleoscientists stretching into non-science conjecture and pretending it's a hypothesis. Have to remember a lot of geologists get involved in paleoscience and there lies a question of scientific veracity as peer review is self affirming (like theoretical physics, where things are based upon the non-proven and so are not proven but get doctorates because money is there).

Where does the "meadows with a bit of woodland" T-Rex come from?
I KNOW the films needed heavy forest for cinematic effect but at times it makes more sense, unless t-rex was a scavenger after all.


Where do Frontier get their data from as I expect there are disagreements even now?

 

[Phantomreaver85]

The t-rex in the films is almost always put in deep forest.
The game shows us that is bound to drive them mad as I see in the game a ridiculous expectation for large amounts of grassland...

Is there a legitimate reason why folks think they needed/wanted grassland - or is it the paleoscientists stretching into non-science conjecture and pretending it's a hypothesis. Have to remember a lot of geologists get involved in paleoscience and there lies a question of scientific veracity as peer review is self affirming (like theoretical physics, where things are based upon the non-proven and so are not proven but get doctorates because money is there).

Where does the "meadows with a bit of woodland" T-Rex come from?
I KNOW the films needed heavy forest for cinematic effect but at times it makes more sense, unless t-rex was a scavenger after all.


Where do Frontier get their data from as I expect there are disagreements even now?

Just judging by the size of t-rex and his body shape shows it would be much more suitable for grassland habitat , a big muscular animal like that would have a horrible time trying to not only get up to top speed to chase prey, but also would be far less maneuverable in a woodland area.

As you can see by the size of his jaws and his arms, his main method of killing would most likely have been by a bite and hold of the neck suffocating the prey, or simply tearing the throat/snapping the neck. Which means the kill would have to be very quick from start to finish as t-rex is clearly not built for stamina.

He would waste FAR less energy taking down prey running in a virtually straight line in a grassland area than he would zig-zagging through trees.

I also don't personally believe the whole scavenger theory as the head is just not built for it. An efficient scavenger would want to have a small head with a narrow snout to be able to reach and take advantage of whatever flesh is left behind on a carcass that is already fed on and a smaller lighter frame meant to conserve energy...the more muscle you have the more energy you burn, the more energy you burn the more you have to eat.

Basically with that head and body design, a t-rex would be in a state of perpetual starvation if he primarily scavenged because he couldn't chew, he doesn't have the teeth for grinding bones he has teeth for cutting/tearing off very large pieces of flesh. Most predators that don't swallow prey whole will from what I have seen eat at least 60 to 75 percent of a kill leaving little but bone, fur, small bits of meat that were to hard to get to, and sometimes the guts (usually intestines). His teeth aren't bone crushing as alot of fans of the theory say. Under that much bite force they would actually snap and sever bone leading to sharp jagged edged bone chunks. This means he would have to rely on relatively small animals compared to him to be able to swallow bones and all whole to get the most out of his meal without also tearing up his own throat in the process.

He would be constantly searching for the next meal using up much more energy than it would take to simply ambush, sprint at, and take down bigger prey that would provide much more food and take mere moments to bring down if successful. Not to say he couldn't scavenge at all or never did, but to have primarily scavenged is extremely unlikely.

He just doesn't have the tools to maintain the life of a scavenger in my opinion.

Sorry for the long post....I just like dinosaurs lol.

 

[TaSwavo]

I think the scavenger idea is more along the lines of hyena than vulture. By that I mean they would be 'kill stealers', taking the kills of smaller creatures. You're quite right that the teeth alone suggest it was no vulture, picking the bones clean.

I still wonder though about how it would hunt in open grassland. It's never going to outrun the more agile herbivores. Do you think it might have been a fighter, taking on the larger, better defended prey?

 

[Iskariot]

It seems t-rex also hunted in packs, and they might have been smart enough to surround their prey, just like for example Lions, or chimps do.

 

[Phantomreaver85]

I think the scavenger idea is more along the lines of hyena than vulture. By that I mean they would be 'kill stealers', taking the kills of smaller creatures. You're quite right that the teeth alone suggest it was no vulture, picking the bones clean.

I still wonder though about how it would hunt in open grassland. It's never going to outrun the more agile herbivores. Do you think it might have been a fighter, taking on the larger, better defended prey?

All this is just my opinion but I would guess he killed in a way very much like a rogue lion, a very muscular animal built not for stamina but one very strong quick strike. However rather than a stealthier ambush I would guess he was a patient stalker.

I imagine he would wander, following his prey with his sense of smell. His head was obviously very muscular and those jaws would have had incredible bite force. He was a living vice with legs. He probably did opportunistically feed on smaller animals from time to time but he was after the big game.
He would stalk from a distance the slower but bigger meals, close in for one quick chomp of the neck, then rip those huge chunks of flesh off at his leisure.

Now it could be said that the lion has stealth on its side which obviously would have been an issue for t-rex but you have to take the prey into account most large herbivourous dinosaurs had small brains for their immense size. This would have made them not only slow moving but also slower to react and process information compared to mammalian prey which has a larger brain in a relatively smaller body. Alot of people believe many of the larger species also had poor vision or sense of smell to boot. He probably didn't need stealth.

All he would need to do is watch and wait for a straggler or an old or weakened one to become slightly seperated from the heard wait till its back is turned and rush in for one devastating bite, the rush itself very likely spooking the heard causing futher disorientation and confusion in the poor would-be meal.

I also believe they were solo hunters, maybe cared for their offspring for a time, but I don't believe they were ever a pack animal as it would just be too much competition for food to have that many predators of that size in a small area. Plus each rex would only get a fraction of the meal meaning they would have to hunt more often for less food. It doesn't seem biologically efficient to me at that size. Killer whales are a notable exception to this but their bonds are more familial than just banding together for the sake of food and they are one of the most intelligent creatures on earth.

Once again this is all just my opinion obviously but it seems like a logical conclusion to me.

 

[satch]

yeah hard for me to understand how the scavenger theory holds any weight. I mean, really any carnivore will scavenge if they can as it is the best option. minimal energy used/danger to themselves, free meal basically.

All the animals known as scavengers are smaller and weaker, basically delegated to picking off leftovers of the big guys. The spotted hyena is definitely a predator. And vultures are probably the most evolved animal to specifically eat dead things. I imagine it would be impossible to ever know for sure, but I guess maybe there could have been an animal that basically scavenged everything because it was bigger and badder and scared other carnivores away, it just goes against everything we know how nature works currently.

 

[MarcWP]

I agree with y'all... I think the scavenger theory started, because of the small arms. A Rex would probably be badly injured, if it fell over. Especially during running. So they could pretty much just turn up and take any meal they wanted from smaller predators. But the bigger herbivores probably wasn't light on the feet either, so I actually doubt the Rex did much running... If they even could because of the immense weight. At least I doubt they would do it much, because of the risk of being badly injured.

Like you stated, they probably needed more food, than they could get from scavaging though... I think it was a mix of both.

 

[Phantomreaver85]

I agree with y'all... I think the scavenger theory started, because of the small arms. A Rex would probably be badly injured, if it fell over. Especially during running. So they could pretty much just turn up and take any meal they wanted from smaller predators. But the bigger herbivores probably wasn't light on the feet either, so I actually doubt the Rex did much running... If they even could because of the immense weight. At least I doubt they would do it much, because of the risk of being badly injured.

Like you stated, they probably needed more food, than they could get from scavaging though... I think it was a mix of both.

Actually im fairly confident t-rex could run just not for extended periods. I mean birds don't have arms like we do and when they run the are almost always tucked in so they may as well have t rex arms (funny thing is in some chicken embryos I have seen before the wing starts fully forming it appears to have arms of t-rex including two digits).

Now you wouldn't think a chicken would actually be all that quick but have you ever tried to chase one down?

They are actually very quick and much more agile at cornering than you would think from stocky little bodies. As long as the body is well balanced he wouldn't need arms for anything to do with running and weight wouldn't be much of a hinderence for a well balanced bipedal creature with long muscular legs. But at the end of the day there will always be conflicting theorys.

A similar thing is how everyone thinks a turkey lacks the ability to fly....turkeys actually roost in trees high up, they have no way to climb. Do they magic themselves up a tree? Nope they fly up to it now granted they can't fly for any extended period of time but they can fly at least enough to do what they need to even though most people swear up and down that they don't and can't. T-rex obviously had big muscular legs and theres no reason to believe he couldn't use them.