i have seen several documentaries debating this issue from both sides, and to be honest after seen both theories i think that T-rex was a scavenger. what do u think?
2007-01-02 15:43:50 · 7 answers · asked by zcience77 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
yeah but size will help him take over a cacass from smaller predators right?
and the brain portion responsable for smell is huge comparing it to vultures it will be verry similar proportionate to his size.
they also did an experiment to see how fast he was and they found out that he couldnt run faster than 20 mph they estimate that t-rex needed to run atleast 25 mph to cutch prey, the only way he will reach 25 mph will be with considering that he had hollow bones but think about it will he be tackling big prey with hollow bones?
2007-01-02 17:07:19 · update #1
I think it's both. T-Rex might have had small "arms" but the size alone would cause a major advantage in hunting live prey of smaller sizes. But scavenging would be consistent with most predators as well. An Eagle will prey on small animals, and scavenge from larger ones.
Does it have to be either or? In general, I would think that there wouldn't be enough carcases to scavenge from to sustain T-Rex's large size.
2007-01-02 15:53:10 · answer #1 · answered by wanderingphotographer 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think T'rex was a hunter... It doesn't make sense, if you ask me, to have a scavanger that's that big... It's just... strange. Imagine the amount of corpses it would have had to find to feed itself, especially if you consider that it was a warm blooded animal (as dinosaurs most likely were). I don't even like the ideea that Tyranosaurus Rex was a scavanger... It's just to much for me, I like the way it's represented hunting sauropods and all... So... neah, it couldn't have been a scavanger if you ask me /:) what, the red neck an head, the slow motion runing, guided just by smell and hearing? Don't think so... why the big muscles, why the size? A scavanger doesn't need to be 13 meters long and 6 meters high, nor does it need to weigh 7 tones or have 23 centimeters long teeth... There must be something they'll discover that will proove it was a raptor, not a scavanger... At least that's my opinion...
2007-01-02 16:00:55 · answer #2 · answered by Andy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would have taken a hell of a lot of flesh to feed a T Rex. Assuming that our food chains mimic (energy wise) what was going on in ancient times, then it would be rare to find that the largest meat eating thing would be some type of scavenger.
Scavengers (in Africa, anyway) seem to be small, crafty little dogs or flying ugly birds....able to dart in and grab leftovers from a kill.
I guess the main thing that makes me know that T-Rex was a killer was the fact that T-Rex teeth marks have been found on other animal bones. Some of these bones show healing from the wounds which indicates that a T-Rex bit a living thing and it escaped.
T-Rex were probably killers, but like lions today -might have occasionally swiped another animal's kill.
2007-01-02 15:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by Bernard B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
T Rex Scavenger
2016-09-29 08:50:19 · answer #4 · answered by geftos 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The tiny "arms" would be consistent with scavenging.
Larger arms would have been more useful for a predator, for holding and subduing prey that was still alive.
2007-01-02 15:47:43 · answer #5 · answered by The answer guy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you its a scavenger
2007-01-02 16:43:34 · answer #6 · answered by mystryguy_18 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think predator... looking at scavengers these days...
2007-01-02 16:51:42 · answer #7 · answered by yaz20100 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋