T-Rex Bigger and Hungrier Than Previously Thought 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."
T-Rex isn't fat (Score:3, Funny)
It's big-boned
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, we do know as a fact that it is naked and petrified.....
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, I'm frequently petrified even when I'm not naked, so I can forgive them for that shortcoming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just be glad it couldn't reach 88 miles per hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it still clocked at 42 miles per hour?
Which is the answer to everything you needed to know about the tea wreck.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps this also explains Marlin Brando.
And Salmon Rushdie.
And Chris Christie.
Disappointing (Score:1)
9 tons at the heavier, revised estimate? Elephants can weigh close to 7 tons. Thanks for ruining my childhood
Re:Disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Just to compare to modern carnivores, I think the biggest is the kodiak bear, and it's about ONE ton.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems unscientific (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
should mod up your post.
birds and crocs were used as reasoning how the muscles work and where they were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, T.Rex was a bit of a fatty. Thanks for the links.
Re: (Score:2)
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. ;-)
Re:Seems unscientific (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Could be they all T-Rex, raptors and birds, evolved from a common ancestor though.
Clay over skeletal models and magic theories (Score:1)
At best its a guess, at worse its a chunk of non fictional art. Take with your grain of salt
Makes the Asturias exhibit less hot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You owe me a new keyboard....
Re: (Score:2)
and a clean LCD screen. Perspective, an amazing thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 posi
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You are doing it wrong... well, you're partner is, anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Incorrect (Score:2)
They where put there by the Anti-Pasta to make us doubt the FSM.
T-Rex notification... (Score:1)
Hold on to your butts (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, what are you going on about?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess it depends on the t-rex's midi-chlorian count.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be harder then Luke...and certainly less whiny.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Plus velociraptor just sounds better anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
I don't care what the remake said. Rex shot first!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
When I first saw this, I thought you said "we're gonna need a bigger goat." Which at the time also made total sense!
About Time... (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yeah, I remember reading about that a while ago. I have no dinosaur heroes left. :(
I think not, sir (Score:2)
http://thefifthbranch.com/images/oldies/devildinosaur/devil6/devildinosaur6.jpg [thefifthbranch.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Yes and no. From the article:
Triceratops fans shouldn’t despair at the finding, though. Scientists will now reclassify all torosaurus as triceratops.
So, Triceratops is still with us (actually, according to the wikipedia entry for Torosaurus, Triceratops was found first, so that is the correct name).
Gods creation is present everywhere. (Score:2, Funny)
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 par
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
TROLLOLOLOLOLOL
Re: (Score:3)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Instant classic.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:3)
Comic, for the most part, are just trolls on a stage.
11 pounds in a single day (Score:1)
the adolescents could add 11 pounds in weight in a single day
So does my wife.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
think of the (dinosaur) children! (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
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
test of ... (Score:1)
Hungry hungry dino (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
Calvinosaurus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc [youtube.com]