Why T-Rex is better

T-rex did have binocular vision. There is a site either in Montana or S. Dakota that had a family of T-rex's which shows they were probably pack hunters. Tyrannosaurus was the most heavily muscled of the large theropods. It also had a septic bite like a komodo dragon. Finally, it was built for the kill. These dinosaurs would have been hunting giant hadrosaurs, deadly ceratopcians, armored ankylosaurs, and titanic Alamosaurus.

They probably hunted in mated pairs with their young and the juveniles probably hunted in small packs. Doubt they would have hunted Ankylosaurs unless they were starving, rarely ceratopsians, and very very rarely, if ever, Alamosaurus. Not saying they weren't capable of killing large and dangerous prey, but their teeth were meant for tearing off big chunks of meat without falling out, contrary to belief that they were for crushing bone. While they were very smart by dinosaur standards, their intellectual equivalent today is a newborn kitten.

If they were not designed for crushing bone, then why are there so many Tyrannosaurus bite marks on bones? Also, numerous Triceratops bones have been found with healed injuries from Tyrannosaurus showing they fought somewhat frequently. Alamosaurus and Ankylosaurus were probably off the menu except once and a while. T-rex was about as smart as a house cat which does make it extremely smart for a dinosaur. Far smarter than many reptiles for sure.

It wasthe hadrosaurs that were the most populated though. So it wouldn't have to face the dangerous prey often. I get what you mean with tearing large chunks of meat, but the teeth were strong, thick and blunt, not serrated and thin like other predators, so they would still do a better job at crushing than other carnivores.

Granted, the hadrosaurs were the most populated. T-rex probably hunted herbivores in this order- Hadrosaurs Ceratopcians Sauropods Ankylosaurs I have Sauropods ahead of Ankylosaurs because, while much larger, they don't have that armor. Not to mention, if T-rex was a group hunter, they would have been able to bring down an Alamosaurus somewhat easily. Sustaining injury sure, but it's pretty much an accepted fact that Giganotosaurus hunted Argentinosaurus which was even larger than Alamosaurus. Why couldn't T-rex do the same with Argentinosaurus? Just sayin ;)

I meant Alamosaurus when I put Argentinosaurus, my bad

Giganotosaurus would have hunted in massive packs and lost many members in the process, considering how stupid they were, about as smart as a special goldfish. I wouldn't say Rex was house cat smart. House cats are very intelligent, even by today's standards. Bites on bones are thought to be accidental now, suggesting that dinosaurs were careful not to eat the bones because they might not have been able to digest them right or they were too hard to chew. Even though fights with triceratops did happen, they happened rarely compared to others, like hadrosaurs.

They did find a lot of T-rex coprolites with Triceratops bone fragments in them. Besides, like I have said before in other discussions, if T-rex did not keep those large and dangerous prey items in check, who did? Nano T and Dromaeosaurus were too small and rare. The only predator who could was T-rex. If the fights were that rare, then the numbers of dangerous herbivores would skyrocket. Nature does not work that way. It's balanced.

Haven't there been T-Rex coprolites found with crushed Triceratops bone in it?

I started before Rex Fan posted, so I asked the question before I knew someone else had.

That's cool. At least that shows you know what I mean and at least, somewhat agree, lol

The sauropods and ankylosaurs were hunted most often when they were juveniles. The largest T-Rexes could hunt ceratopsians, as fossil records suggest.

That's probably how it went down. I still feel that the most accurate depiction of Tyrannosaurus hunting is in When Dinosaurs Roamed America. A good fight scene between Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops is in Clash of the Dinosaurs. When it shows 2 adults attacking it.

I agree.

Agree with what exactly? Sorry if that sounds rude, but I said a few things there. Not sure if you meant the whole thing, or a certain part.

There was that episode of Dinosaur Revolution that showed a mating pair of Rexs attacking a Trike. The one got behind it and bit it's back leg, and when it looked to see what bit it, the other one bit it's neck and the fight (if you could call it that) was over in less than 30 seconds.

Of course it doesn't. I agree with you that the When Dinosaurs Roamed America depiction was probably the most accurate and that Clash of the Dinosaurs had a good fight scene. I also liked the Dinosaur Revolution attack.

The Dinosaur Revolution and Clash of the Dinosaurs fights were almost identical when you think about it.

Pretty much.

Still a good depiction. I think When Dinosaurs Roamed America may be one of my all time favorite dinosaur documentary's.

Eh. Tyrannosaurus was big and powerful. Doesn't really make him better. That, and the skin probably couldn't protect a bite very well. I also believe that Tyrannosaurus Rexes weren't very good hunters. The leg had a bigger femur than the tibia, the exact opposite of what we see in fast dinosaurs like Dromeasauridae. Also, look at the olbary lobe in the brain. What hunter needs smell like that? Terrible eyesight and great smell. That doesn't make a hunter. Plus, if the thing tripped, it could kill itself. The bones aren't adding up, and neither is the brain. I think it may be big, nasty and a great fighter, but neither Rex or spino was better

I guess what I meant was that this is what T-Rex had over Spino. T-Rex was probably and ambush hunter, and what do you mean poor eyesight? It had binocular vision, so it could judge distance. What scavenger needs to judge distance?the skin could probably gave a little protection (maybe not much, but some).

CAT Scans of the brain and the position of the eyes in the skull all support binocular vision. Besides, a good sense of smell can be useful in hunting. It helps the predator track prey that's out of earshot or too far to see. Also helps in times when the lighting is poor.

It's just so hard to tell which dinosaur is actually BETTER. Both predators were on such different turfs and lived such different lifestyles. I have to disagree (respectfully) with several of you on several different points: @futurepaleantologist - Since T-rex most likely did most of his hunting in open Cretaceous plains, he would not have needed acute eyesight to spot prey such as Anatotitan or Edmontosaurus, both hadrosaurs from the late Cretaceous. Rex might have made ambush attacks from the cover of a thicket, but his size and stature would make it unlikely that he would be hunting in dense jungles and therefore need more acute eyesight like that of a dromeosaur. The large olbary lobes would simply be a useful tool for sensing prey nearby or perhaps detecting an opposing predator like another rex. @MrHappy - You can't just look at Rex's advantages. You also have to look at Spino's. If we are weighing the two dinosaurs on the same scale, putting them against each other in a fight, I agree that rex has the clear advantage and, environmental forces excluded, would most likely beat Spino. However, I do not believe this makes rex the "better" predator. Like I said before, both dinos had skills to dominate their own turfs. Rex's nasty bite force, Spino's long arms and claws. Maybe T-rex is more powerful, but at least give Spino the due respect of a ferocious and awesome dinosaur.

I know Dinosaur.Fanatic. Did you read the first bit of the description? I said I would do a why Spinosaurus is better in a few days. I was focusing more on the advantages that Rex had over Spino. Hope this clears thing up.

I get it. I just wanted to voice that I am generally against the "Which Dinosaur is Better" discussions in the first place. I'm glad you are going to do one about Spino as well. Hopefully nothing I said offended you or anything.

That's fine. If I do one for Rex, odds are I will do a follow up on Spino. I like both just fine (just Rex more), and I don't really like which one is better discussions either. If I do comment on those, I put advantages for both.

Àh, but @Dinosaur.Fanatic, just because an animal has binocular vision doesn't mean it can see well. Take Allosaurus for example

Spino is bigger and more impressive... but they would both die if a Predator X caught them on the beach. Going off on a tangent, but there's plenty of fan-written JP4 scripts that make the rex the villain again. Rex is in his grave. Spino's sun is setting. It's time for the marine reptiles to make it to the big screen.

I personally am against marine animals just because I don't see how they could fit the overall plot. I think that they are cool, but I just don't see anyway to have them in the story (except maybe sinking a ship or two. Nice plot idea though.

@futurepaleantologist I said nothing about binocular vision. As I stated, Rex wouldn't have required acute eyesight because he would be out in the open.

Oh, sorry. :(. Who was that then?... But, if I may follow up on your open plains thing: Tyrannosaurus still would need to look out for obstacles like large rocks, fallen trees etc. It didn't require great eyesight, but T. Rexes may not have been good enough. Btw I am NOT a spino fan. I don't think either Rex or Spino was better, I'm just bringing some stuff up.

That's fine. It's eyesight may not have been that good, but most likely it was. Notice that most animal's senses are usually attuned not only to get food, but also to their surroundings. I strongly believe that T-rex's eyesight would have been strong enough for it's surroundings. And again, large rocks and fallen trees would most likely not be found in the middle of plains. Well...maybe rocks, but you get the idea. Yes, I know you are neither Team Rex or Spino - you are Team Carchar. Don't let me get in the way of your opinion. :)

Tyrannosaurus almost certainly had good binocular vision. Futurepaleontologist1, you said earlier that Allosaurus' eyes were similar to Tyrannosaurus' and it had bad vision. Allo had eyes placed more to the side while Rex had forward facing eyes like a wolf or lion.

I thought Allo's were slightly closer. I didn't really say they were the same as Rexes eyes, they were just binocular.

Well, they did not have binocular vision. Their vision was similar to some tyrannosaurs like Albertosaurus, but not as good as T-rex's. The eyes faced forward and were closer than many herbivores, but were pretty standard when it came to the predators. Tyrannosaurus had unusually good vision for a big carnivore.

Tyrannosaurus Rex would win because of superior bite force. T. Rex's bite force was the largest in the animal kingdom (over 5000lbs, 2x more than a saltwater crocodile) and its teeth were specifically designed to crush through Triceratops horn and Ankylosaur armour. By comparison, the teeth of Spinosaurus and other large theropods like Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were like giant meat hooks, great for holding the prey with its jaw, but the larger claws did most of the work. In addition, T. Rex possesed a mouthfull of bacteria which would infect bitemarks. So even if the bite from T. Rex didn't kill the prey, the biological weaponry would...

I don't think even the largest of T-Rex could bite through an Ankylosaurus's armour. A Trike's horn would be a battle, but it is possible. More than anything, the teeth could crush bone if it got a good bite in. What is going to help T-Rex against Ankylosaurus is intelligence. T-Rex would probably leave Ankylosaurus alone unless it was desperate.

Probably. If it was hungry enough, it would be smart enough to realize that if it flipped the ankylosaur, it would be an easy meal. That's where Tyrannosaurus' intelligence comes into play.