Tyrannosaurus Rex- Hunter or Scavenger

Both. It had incredible smell to track down a carcass, vision and size of a killer, teeth and powerful jaws for killing, but small arms. The arms suggested that it couldn't give very long pursuits to prey, because it wouldn't have been built for running. It would have broke its ribs, arms, possibly jaw or hip(depends on how it fell) and damaged its spine if it tripped. If it was a hunter, it was an ambush predator. Probably an opportunistic hunter. If it had no choice, it would hunt, but scavenged when possible. That's why it was so successful.

Agree with him^

Well you guys are forgetting to look at the brain and bone structure if I may interfere for a moment. I don't disagree with what was said, but I don't entirely agree either

I more or less agree. T-rex probably preferred fresh meat, but, as with most carnivores, would not pass up a free meal. I think to make up for it's lack of running ability, relatively speaking, it was a pack hunter. Scenario- A herd of Edmontosaurus is feeding in a clearing in the woods. Suddenly a juvenile rex of about 20 feet long runs out at em. He can run nearly 30 miles per hour and hold that speed. He chases the Edmontosaurs and then a second juvenile runs out. They cut off one of the duck-bills. They then chase the hadrosaur a few hundred yards. Out of no where, a huge adult rex smashes it's teeth into the Edmontosaurus and kills it with a bone crushing bite. Dinner is served. Also, those people who think that T-rex's arms were a sign of a pure scavenger, then, I hate to put it this way, but you're almost certainly wrong. Many modern day carnivores like wolves and crocodiles are successful hunters and they don't use their front feet. I don't entirely agree with the thought that T-rex could not run fast because of it's arms. Roadrunners and ostriches don't have long arms and they can run quite fast over decent distances. Sure T-rex is much bigger and couldn't run that fast, but the principle still applies.

If it had the chance, it would eat carrion. It doesn't make a difference when you're a dinosaur. They weren't picky. The easier meal was preferable.

I think the best depiction of Tyrannosaurus hunting is seen in When Dinosaurs Roamed America.

Ostriches and roadrunners don't have the risk of killing themselves if they fall like a multi-ton Rex did.

That's why I said that rex was bigger. That's not my main point in this debate. Hunter- 70 percent of the time Scavenger- 25 percent of the time Cannibal- 5 percent of the time That's how I break it down at least

I love the way they depicted Rex in when dinosaurs roamed America! They also had a great Dilophosaur too!

Yeah, that was the mt accurate Dilo I ever saw and one of the best depictions of Tyrannosaurus.

T. Rex was built like an opportunistic carnivore. It had the size, sight, bite and relative brain size of a hunter. However, it had the smell of a scavenger. It also wouldn't have been a major runner. Juveniles had a good chance of forming packs, since they would have been too small to bring down larger animals alone. Full grown Rexes hunted in mated pairs at best, probably as ambush predators. Scavenging when possible.

It may also be dependent on the individuals. Some Rex's may have been "friendlier" than others and were willing to form packs. An individual adult rex could bring down whatever it wanted, except the titan Alamosaurus. The only way T-rex could bring him down, is in a pack. Much like Giganotosaurus and Argentinosaurus. I think adult rex's raised their young until adulthood. My theory is that female rex's could stay with the pack and make it bigger or leave. Males would be forced out. Kind of like lions today.

Hunter of wounded/small/juvenile/old dinosaurs- 30% of the time Hunter of healthy, large dinosaurs- 11% of the time Scavenger-58% of the time Canibal- 1% of time

Based off of some evidence that I've found, I would lean a little bit more twords Carnotitans eating anology, but Rex fan's scenario is increadibly accurate.

I like Rex fan's scenario too, but I think if they did hunt in packs they would be impromptu, since there was so little evidence.

T-Rex was probably opportunistic. If there was a carcass and a wounded dinosaur, it would probably go for what's closer. If there was a healthy dinosaur and a wounded dinosaur a ways away, it would likely go for the wounded dinosaur. If there was nothing but a healthy trike, it would leave it alone unless it was starving and had nothing to lose. T-Rex would likely go for the easiest meal every time.

Very accurate^ couldn't have put it better.

Nice debate guys! I definitely like what everyone has brought up so far, and let's keep it up!

I think we are more or less in agreement that T-rex was both. How much either way is debatable, but we seem to reach an agreement as far as the basic question goes.

Agreed Rex fan

Think about it, if T-rex was a pure scavenger, then there was nothing to keep the large plant-eaters in check. My analogy is what happened in Yellowstone with the wolves. When they were eliminated, the elk numbers skyrocketed. There was nothing to keep them in check. Same goes with Tyrannosaurus and say, Edmontosaurus. If T-rex did not hunt them and keep their numbers in check, who did? Nano T was too small and Dromaeosaurus to rare. Edmontosaurus and numerous other plant-eaters would have gone extinct due to overpopulation. Nature does not work that way. Things are balanced. T-rex was the only big carnivore in N. America at the time. Only T-rex could have kept the big plant-eaters in check and he could not have done that if he was just eating their dead bodies. Of course he would if he found one, but he also hunted.

Right, but utahraptors were a pretty populated species as well. And we've only discovered about 2% of dinosaur species. You make a valid point, And I agree with what was said, but as moderator, I need to bring up all the holes in an argument. There are some holes to that, so let's try to hash it out!

Utahraptor appeared in the early Cretaceous and died out about 90 million years ago give or take. Tyrannosaurus did not show up until 68-70 million years ago.

Utahraptor may have been big and common, but it was long gone by the time the first T-rex even showed up. Between Utahraptor's extinction and Tyrannosaurus' appearance, smaller tyrannosaurs ruled: Daspletosaurus, Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, etc.

Oh yeah! Sorry, I forgot Utahraptor was early Cretaceous

Me and my pre-teen head! I keep forgetting the most basic facts

Happens to the best of us. But you see my point right? Tyrannosaurus was the only really big carnivore at the time. There was a recurring theme in the dinosaur world. There were always 3 sizes of meat-eaters at one time. A lot of little ones, some medium sized ones, and one or two really big ones. That happened everywhere, every time, except late Cretaceous N. America. Then, there were only 2 sizes. Very small raptors, really big tyrannosaurs, and nothing in between. There were no more jobs for the medium sized meat-eaters, because, T-rex was basically eating everything. It shows why Nano T was so rare.

I see what u mean. Good point my friend. Although, there weren't really any medium sized carnivores in the Cretaceous, cause everything just got big.

Asia- Alectrosaurus, Auchilabator, etc Europe- Tarascosaurus, Neovenator, etc. Africa- Deltadromeus, Rugops, etc. S. America- Irrator, Aucosaurus, etc. Australia and Antarctica are excluded from this There seems to be a fair amount of medium sized carnivores during the Cretaceous. I consider medium to be 16-26 feet long and 1,000-5,000 lbs. The only medium sized carnivore from late Cretaceous N. America is Nano T and it was very rare. May even have been a young rex.

Ya, I was kinda vague there. I know there were a fair amount of mid sized dinosaurs, but there were plenty of large ones. And your right, that explains a lot with Nano T being so rare in North america