Tyrannosaurus rex

Rex Fan 684

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-29-2013 10:40 AMBased on my research, T-rex is the largest terrestrial carnivore. Average adults are 43 to 46 feet long and 7 to 8 tons, Giganotosaurus rivals this, but large rexes are up to 50 feet and 9 or more tons. No other carnivor reaches this size. Spinosaurus was longer, 56 feet long, but only weighed 5 or 6 tons. Spino was also much weaker, relativly speaking. New discoveries are always being made, but for now, Tyrannosaurs is still the largest, based on my research.

Lord Vader

Tyrannosaurus RexMember6270 XPMar-29-2013 9:02 PMT.Rex was the largest carnivore based on physical strength alone. It's actual size however, was rivalled by Gigantosuarus (Giga) and Charcharatontosourus (car-car-a-don-to-saw-rus, Charchar). Spinosaurus (Spino) was longer and taller than all three, but lighter, and ate fish. Kind of sad when you think about, T.Rex, the king of dinosaurs, getting killed by fish eater. Giga and Charchar would be a great fight to see vs. a T.Rex. T.Rex had a 6 000 pound bite force, with banana size teeth, and weighed around 6-7 tons, so it was pretty big, and it was one of the last dinosaurs, so it was more advanced (intelligence, bone structure, bone density, etc.) than any of the other predators listed above.

x_paden_x

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-29-2013 9:30 PMid hate to tell you this but in a recent interview Robert bakker (who was the dinosaur producer) said that he only wanted the spino to win because he didn't like how the rex had been triumphing every movie his solution make the dynasty of the rex's by a spinosaurus... so technically the rex should've won but i can understand bakkers point rex winning was getting slightly old, dont get me wrong i love the rex it seems so life like in jp cant wait to see it return in jp 4

Dinosaur.Fanatic

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-30-2013 9:49 AMI hate all that speculation that T-Rex was actually a scavenger. Come on!! That massive skull and huge teeth had to be useful for something other than eating a three-day old rotten carcass (not to be gross, haha!).

Korpen

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-30-2013 11:08 AMThe only fossil ever of a spinosaurus was destroyed in the second world war. i think the fossil consisted of a jawbone, some of those long backbones from the sail, some ribs and a bit of a claw. Extremely rare. I wonder how hard it was to find a mosquito in a stone of amber, carrying spino dna. Dinosaur.Fanatic@ dont you think the trex could have been a little bit of both? Like a white shark.

x_paden_x

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-30-2013 12:20 PMt rex was a scavenger and a hunter it wouldn't pass up a free meal if it got one, it also hunted its prey but when game was low it would scavenge other dead dinos

Rex Fan 684

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-30-2013 6:49 PMI appreciate your replies and I respect your views. I still think T-rex was the largest, I base this off of a skeleton discovered near Fort Peck in Montana, but I agree with the fact that there were plenty of other massive killers. BTW, Gregory Erikson of Florida University concluded that T-rex has a maximum bite force of between 3 and 9 tons per square inch. Just sayin, haha

xxsaberblackcrow

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-30-2013 7:51 PMTyrannosaurus Rex was the biggest and baddest of the meat eaters he has a bone crushing bite and 5 feet 1.2 m long teeth and he could eat up to 500 pounds 230 kg of meat and bones in one single bite and he was roughly 7 to 10 tons and he has the largest bones of any meat eater he will all we,s be the king of the meat eaters

Dinosaur.Fanatic

CompsognathusMember0 XPMar-31-2013 2:28 PM@[b]Korpen[/b] definately. I just don't think Rex was primarily a scavenger. A bonus feature on the Jurassic Park III dvd shows a paleontologist consultant for the movie that was under the impression that t-rex was only a scavenger, which is why when Grant and the Kirby's stumble upon him in the forest, Rex is eating a carcass, and loses the fight to a spinosaurus, because they wanted to portray Spino as the hunter. That said, I definately don't think t-rex would pass up a free meal, but most evidence suggests he was a hunter.

Lord Vader

Tyrannosaurus RexMember6270 XPApr-03-2013 4:55 PMTo Korpen The bit about the amber blood sample, LOL. T.Rex, like most carnivores in the history of forever, would not give up a free meal, unless it looked absolutely disgusting, even for their tastes, unless it was desperately hungry and it was the only food for miles.

KingRex

CompsognathusMember0 XPApr-03-2013 10:59 PMCharcarodontosaurus was longer, taller and heavier, but they base it's size off just a skull that Paul Sereno found. The skull was larger than any tyrannosaur skull found so that's why they think it was bigger and it probably was.

Rex Fan 684

CompsognathusMember0 XPApr-04-2013 3:38 PMEven if it's skull was longer, that does not necessarily mean anything. They were proportioned differently, that's all. An anoconda can be longer than a crocodile, but a croc can be many times heavier.

Dinosaur.Fanatic

CompsognathusMember0 XPApr-04-2013 3:54 PM.......and anacondas have been known to kill and eat crocodiles. :)

KingRex

CompsognathusMember0 XPApr-06-2013 8:32 PMSnakes and crocodiles are 2 different things. U can't compare them. Trex was a dinosaur, Charcarodontosaurus was a dinosaur. Char had a bigger skull, and giganotosaurus had an even bigger skull nearly 6 1/2 feet. T-Rex wasn't the largest theropod.....sadly.

Rex Fan 684

CompsognathusMember0 XPApr-07-2013 7:09 PMOk, here's a dinosaur against dinosaur analogy. Diplodocus was up to 90 feet long, but only weighed 10-15 tons. Brachiosaurus was only 75 feet long, but weighed 50 tons. Brachio was bigger than Diplo because it was heavier. Diplo was longer, but not as heavy. Same as Rex and Char. They are just proportioned differently. Heavier means bigger, and I think Rex was heavier. It was just more massivly built than Char. Don't get me wrong, Char was still massive.