|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
 means the user is online now!
They have found remnants of other dinosaurs in the stomach area of Baryonyx. Spinosaurus, since closely related to Baryonyx, probably ate other dinosaurs also. Same with Suchomimus.
BTW, Spinosauridae is a genus (or a family? forget the techical name) to which Spinosaurus, Baryonyx, and Suchomimus all belong to. They do have specimens of these creatures (baryonyx and suchomimus).
Scientists know more than you might actually think.
At 11:53:51 PM on 8/23/2000, indianajones said:
I think the biggest mistake that most people make when they ragard T-Rex is they think of him as a blood thirsty monster. To truly believe this is to take away what he really is; an animal. T-Rex probaly did not mind scavenging when it could get away with it. Its a whole lot easier eating something thats already dead than having to kill it. I do believe though when it had to a T-Rex would attack and kill its prey. Would you care if T-rex was a predator or a scavenger though if you walked up on one? I can tell you the only thing I would worry about would be not getting steped on.
At 8:37:09 PM on 8/23/2000, TS146 said:
Jack Horner is a great man but to think Tyrannosaurus was onley a hunter or scavenger is not a very smart thing to do. I mean just look at any big carnivore it will take a dead animal or hunt. As I said before it makes perfect sense Tyrannosaurus was a hunter and a scavenger.
At 7:23:51 PM on 8/23/2000, PaLeoFrEak said:
Well you have to remember, even though a T-rex is pretty well equiped to take down a hadrosaur, most could easily break his neck with one swipe of they're tail. As for Horner, I don't think he has ever had enough proof to back up his claims.
At 10:57:02 AM on 8/23/2000, Cyberraptor said:
First of all, for baleen whales, it isn't that hard to catch krill and other zooplankton. A fish is probably much harder to catch for a dinosaur because (a) fish move a lot faster than krill and (b) dinosaurs don't live in the water and probably aren't as agile in the water as, say, a shark. They probably also have a harder time catching fish there too.
As for the lion comment, yes female lions do the huning most of the time, but male lions are still bigger. Doing the hunting doesn't mean you get bigger, although i do think the female rex is bigger anyway.
At 7:39:48 AM on 8/23/2000, Ed Regis said:
That's right. Some of the largest predetors can survive on fish. And there aren't any specimens of Spinosauridae anywhere-the only specimens were destroyed during an air raid on Munic. Anyway-just from Viewer speculation-unless someone in production has said it will be-I don't think the logo dinosaur will play a HUGE role-but....I could be wrong.
At 3:18:40 AM on 8/23/2000, Utahraptor said:
Whales survive on krill, thetiniest of fish. So, fish coudl easily fill something the size of a T-rex.
At 12:43:03 AM on 8/23/2000, Rexoraptor said:
I think the reason a female T-Rex was bigger becuse it did all the hunting like the female lion does today
At 10:41:49 AM on 8/22/2000, Varan101 said:
You guys should do your research more often. Baryonyx, Suchomimus, and Spinosaurus were all just as ferocious as Trex.
And another thing. They didnt eat just fish. Remnants of other dinosaurs have been found in the stomach area of Spinosauridae.
Also, their jaws are more like that of crocodiles. And crocodiles are not exactly fish eaters.
Thirdly, those are large animals. Fish are obviously not going to hold them over.
And lastly, any pissed off dinosaur is dangerous :)
I agree with Ed Regis that they won't use the JP3 logo anywhere in the movie, unless a new park is made, but then they still wouldnt have the three slash marks. But the dinosaur on the logo will play a huge role in the movie. Also, Johnston confirmed that the Pteranodons will play a major role.
At 7:32:59 AM on 8/22/2000, Ed Regis said:
I never said anything except for some of you guys to quit ripping at each other, and to not say "I hate Horner" just because you don't agree with everything he says. Never said I agree with everything he (Horner) says. I already said I think it hunted and scavenged. As for my maturity-fine-judge by your own actions then. Now will you guys quit taking everything I say so seriously!
They're my OPPINIONS on a MOVIE. sheesh.
Now-I wonder how old Horner is right now. I haven't seen him him for a while, but the last time I did he was going gray. Does anyone know? Not really relavent but...curious. Guess he's gotta be getting up there. Like I said before-hey-the logo dinosaur COULD be in the movie-but I don't want to assume that.
At 3:39:59 AM on 8/22/2000, Utahraptor said:
Just because no sail back was a ferocious predator IRL doesn't mean it won't be in JP3.
I think Horner just likes to create new theories just to see how much his name carries. There's plenty of evidence to support T-rex hutned, and pleny to say he scavanged. I support both. Then again, one paleontologists ays that with the K-T exticntion, the Trutles should have dies first. They survived. Another says they would have to survive, there's no waa they could have died. Too much conflciitng data.
At 9:45:49 PM on 8/21/2000, Cyberraptor said:
Oh, and I know Horner is a genius, but that doesn't mean we have to accept every one of his theories. Not everybody is right all the time. Horner said that rex was to slow to catch its prey. Well, maybe it was an ambush predator who hid in forests and waited for unsuspecting dinosaurs to pass by it and then it would strike.
At 9:37:10 PM on 8/21/2000, Cyberraptor said:
You know, proclaiming your maturity is a sign of immaturity...
At 9:34:12 PM on 8/21/2000, Oviraptor said:
Ed Regis whatever you say... immature brat.
At 9:01:38 PM on 8/21/2000, Ed Regis said:
Wouldn't have had to hunt unless it had to- makes no sense-I meant unless there was no carion tobe found. I Gotta start proof reading!
At 8:59:14 PM on 8/21/2000, Ed Regis said:
I agree. Besides-The real thing is-with the rex's large-intimidating size-it could most likely EASILY frighten away any smaller predators that had claimed a carcas or killed it's prey and taken it's fill of the kill-sorry didn't mean for that to rhyme. So it seems to me-T-rex probably wouldn't have even HAD TO hunt unless it had to. Bit of deductive logic. And Oviraptor--grow up. I tell ya-I'm 16 years old and I can tell I'm already more mature than many of you guys who swear and bicker when they hear an opposing oppinion. What are most of you guys? Adults-18 and over-something like that? I come to this site because it's interesting and I like to express my oppinion. There's a difference in liking to express oppinion and being oppinionated. Not trying to offend anybody, but just saying-they're oppinions-don't freak if you don't agree with them. Rock on Ian. Horner was my idol until I got into music (Jazz)rather than paleontology. Rock on TS146. Now will everyone just keep to the topic please. Horner's had years of research to back him up. I agree that he probably did both even if hunting might not have been nescessary all the time.
At 8:38:41 PM on 8/21/2000, TS146 said:
I think the Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger and a hunter like lions. If you think about it it makes perfect sense any carivore would take a dead animal that was just lying there going to wast. Tyrannosaurs was most likly a hunter and a scavenger. Dose anybody agree with me.
At 8:18:10 PM on 8/21/2000, MegaRaptor500 said:
Dan, Please Get a New Pole!!!!!
At 8:06:22 PM on 8/21/2000, MegaRaptor500 said:
Dan,Please Get a New Pole!!!!!
At 8:04:49 PM on 8/21/2000, Oviraptor said:
If anyone is a child it's you.. smartass..
At 8:03:39 PM on 8/21/2000, Oviraptor said:
IAN SHUT THE HELL UP!
At 7:52:54 PM on 8/21/2000, Ian said:
;) Children Children, None of yall have enough data to back up much of what yall say about the movie, yall are usign very poorly suported inductive reasioning ;). I don't like to Judge people (Jack Horner). Hes dont alot of good in his career yall know. _T. rex_ a Scavenger? Here read some of this stuff ;).
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/trex/scavenge.htm
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/trex/hunting.htm
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/trex/gracile.htm
and search stuff here http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/
I readlly recomend the first link to yall ;).
At 7:50:27 PM on 8/21/2000, Ed Regis said:
I never said it WOULDN'T-I just said it's a little premature to just up an ASSUME it will be just because the dumb (which I do think it looks lacking creativity) logo shows a different dinosaur. Would it help to say the T-rex on the first logo wasn't really even a dinosaur if you want to get technical? Both the naris and the antorbita fanaestra are missing. And I highly doubt it'll have a big role. No "sail-backed" dinosaur known has enough fearsomeness-mostly fish eaters and bland predators-to spark up enough interests as a BIG part of the film. Personally I think it's boring having a BIG role for a dinosaur. They're dinosaurs-they should all show up sparking equal interests. Otherwise-just give me a Carnotaurus Sastrae and I'll be happy.
At 7:20:02 PM on 8/21/2000, Oviraptor said:
THE DINOSAUR ON THE LOGO WILL BE IN THE MOVIE WOULD YOU SHUT THAT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you sound stupid saying it won't be in the movie.. and yes it'll have a big role.
At 5:19:35 PM on 8/21/2000, Ed Regis said:
I meant to say logo after "there's a new dinosaur on the-"
At 5:15:04 PM on 8/21/2000, Ed Regis said:
I STILL think it's a little naive to think just because there's a new dinosaur on the-that dinosaur will play a big role. I mean-the first logo was the PARK logo. Did John Hammond or one of his employees make it saying "ok-the Rex is going to brake out and kill people and make a big scene so I'll put it on our park logo to show it" ? No. And the second logo had no relavence to the film other than to say-this is part of the Jurassic Park Saga-but it was never actually used in the film. They need something new for this next logo so they used a different dinosaur. It doesn't mean it'll be in the film. In fact-I would consider it extremely redundant and unsurprising to see it in the film. That's like saying-In the second "Ghostbusters" movie-the logo was a ghost making a piece sign (also signifying to the AUDIENCE that it was the second movie)so if they make a third ghostbuster movie-the logo (even IN the film) will be holding up three fingers. A new idea used more than once (like a new logo dinosaur also being the big new dino in the film) becomes repeditive and doesn't hold it's significance. Now I'm not saying I KNOW it won't be in the movie, but I think Spielburg is smarter than that.
At 4:16:23 PM on 8/21/2000, Oviraptor said:
yeah Varan101 I can't wait to see the Logosaurus in action.. and the Peteradons are gonna rule.. it's so cool that they are on the logo also.. it was cool to seem them at the end of TLW.. they seemed so majestic and beauitful... I can't wait... and I'll say the T-Rex will at least make a cameo.. but please no more T-Rex pushing something over a cliff...
At 12:37:43 PM on 8/21/2000, Cyberraptor said:
T. rex: Loathsome scavenger or awesome predator?
An argument that has been going on for some time. The truth is is that no animal is really totally one or the other. Lions, the great predators of the African savanna, will eat anything already dead if they find it. Jackals, scavengers of the savanna, have been known to work in packs and bring down African Buffalo. There is almost no animal that is one way or the other. Besides, rex does seem equipped to take out a good sized hadrosaur. Why have all that muscle and power and not use it?
At 10:26:15 AM on 8/21/2000, Varan101 said:
Dont make your judgements just yet. The new dinosaur just might astound and amaze you. And obviously the dinosaur that replaces Trex on the logo will play a major role in the film.
Also playing a major role in the film are the Pteranodons, which no one has really talked about. Im a little surprised.
Oh there is no doubt in my mind that the Trex will return.
At 4:28:13 AM on 8/21/2000, Troödon Fan said:
OK, I'll put in my vote for Troödon :) ... with the raptors a close second. BTW, I believe myself that Horner made an excellent case for Tyrannosaurus being a scavenger. My own reservation about that is; nobody is likely to ever know for certain.
At 1:51:01 AM on 8/21/2000, Oviraptor said:
I don't like T-Rex honestly :) my favorite dinosaur is Brachiosaurus :)
At 11:52:21 PM on 8/20/2000, Cyberraptor said:
It would seem weird to not have ANY rexes in the movie. I mean, come on it IS the king, after all. You gotta have the king in it somewhere. Who can honestly say that they DON'T LIKE T. REX?
At 8:13:26 PM on 8/20/2000, Oviraptor said:
uh the logo dinosaur will be in the film and the T-Rex is getting old.. like John Hammond.. kill it off already!!!
At 7:47:37 PM on 8/20/2000, Ed Regis said:
Sorry-I meant DILOPHOSAURUS. Didn't check my spelling.
At 7:45:20 PM on 8/20/2000, Ed Regis said:
Dilophosauruses? Na. They were just to spark interest in the first movie. I think it would be redundant to even SEE them in the next movie. I personally don't think ANY dinosaur should be a MAIN dinosaur. They should all be equal in my oppinion. In the last one, it was the beginning scenes with all the dinosaurs, a compy scene, and then---just the T-rex until the raptors-then T-rex again. But I think it would be cheap to just flat out REPLACE the rex with some "NEW" predator that somehow was overlooked and not recognized in the other movies. And as for the new "logo" dinosaur-I don't even think it'll be in the film-at least not as a center of attention. Anyway-wouldn't it be somewhat corney to but the featured dinosaur in a film on the logo?
At 6:12:38 PM on 8/20/2000, Creed said:
The damn spiters should be the main dino!
At 5:03:24 PM on 8/20/2000, Oviraptor said:
T-Rex wasn't a scavenger.. enough said.. thats your proof..
At 5:01:46 PM on 8/20/2000, Oviraptor said:
JPAC stop asking Dan when the message board will be back up.. it'll be up when it's up.. that's not what this comments section is for.. if you wanna ask Dan something e-mail him and ask him.
At 4:53:29 PM on 8/20/2000, JP Animal Control said:
Dan, when will the message board be back up and running? JP Animal Control over and out!
At 4:51:34 PM on 8/20/2000, Ed Regis said:
Is there anyone here who can prove T-rex WASN'T a scavenger. Actually I think it makes perfect sense, yes, listen to Bakker and Curry, and others and they'll say there weren't any true scavengers. Anyway "I [just]don't like Horner" seems kinda Childish. Sorry.
At 4:28:48 PM on 8/20/2000, Oviraptor said:
looks like it crashed..
At 4:00:01 PM on 8/20/2000, JP Animal Control said:
Dan! what happened to the mesage board?
At 3:41:48 PM on 8/20/2000, Oviraptor said:
lol
At 3:28:13 PM on 8/20/2000, Glen said:
"detective of the week award":-))) I like that:0)
At 2:44:26 PM on 8/20/2000, Oviraptor said:
I don't like Horner.. he actually thinks T-Rex was a scavenger.. LOL he should have a cameo in JP3 and them have the T-Rex eat him.. LOL actually there are no true scavengers or Hunter's.. they both will kill and both will eat dead animals.
Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment
|
|
Add DJP3P to your newsreader!
|
