What the T-Rex Scavenger Theory really meant

No offense, but What is your point?

Very well stated, I hate it whenever people hate Jack Horner because of things like this.

Some really hardcore Rex Fans get so out of line when it comes to these type of things.

That's why for every dinosaur I try not get too out of line in imagining how it was. People need to realize that big doesn't equal killing machine, especially when it comes to dinosaurs.

My point is that paleontologists make to many assumptions based on there imaginations and a little bit of evidence. It just takes a little bit of evidence suggesting something for your brain to fire up and make something seem like a fact.

A good example is the venom theory in Sinornithosaurus, its probably not true. 

I don't understand why people hate jack, he was after all the guy who came up with the theory of dinosaurus evolving into birds. And that is widely excepted. Just cause he said one thing disagreeable disent mean people have to hate on him.

Yeah, the only theory of his I don't believe is of course the T-Rex scavenger theory, which I don't even know if Jack still believes that theory.

Yes, it's a very good point. The only reasont hey theorize it had a poisonous bite is because there's enough space for it. And because a poison sac would work well, etc.

Granted I do think dinosaurs could possibly deliver "poisonous" bites but only for one reason- bacteria. Bacteria could have grown on the teeth of carnivores causing infections for some prey.

I'm pretty sure he himself doesn't buy the threory- he probably wanted to mainly prove a point. I also heard that he supposedly hates Tyrannosaurs, but don't know whether or not that's legit.

Remember once so many said hsi theories were questionable, but the only ones the person found questionable were solely the ones that "downgraded" Rex.

Yes, that is possible, though don't let your imagination guide you all the way.

And I personally think Jack Horner is one of the smartest and most famous Paleontologists out there, I betcha that the T-Rex in Jurassic Park would be upright if it weren't for him.

Jack still believes in that theory? it is possible that sinornithosaurus was venomus. It was small and had large teeth with grooves in them. I don't blame the scientist for thinking it venomous.

p.s, it's venomous not poisonous.

venom is injected while poison is injested.

it is a pet peeve of mine when people get them messed up.

A lot of people seem to forgot that haha.

Well grooves like that are in a lot of Theropod teeth.

It happens:)

No terrestrial large bodied predator, to ever walk this earth, has been a  100% scavenger. No offense to horner, but his hypothesis(he called it that, not me) was full of holes. Any respectable paleontological enthusiast would note this.

I for one did, and Tyrannosaurus isn't even my favorite theropod. Alot of his theories he put forward had no scientific backing, and yes he wanted people to think outside the box, he lost alot of credibility in doing so.

I don't think you get the point of the T-Rex scavenger theory.

Also his theories like Triceratops and Torosaurus have A LOT of evidence to back it up. 

Don't just hate somebody for one thing.

BTW the 100% scavenger thing was probably just an exaggeration.

I don't think you get the point of the T-Rex scavenger theory.

Nah, i think i do.

Also his theories like Triceratops and Torosaurus have A LOT of evidence to back it up. 

Depends on your definition of "evidence".

Don't just hate somebody for one thing.

Hate? nope. There's a pretty vast difference between hating someone for their ideas, and not taking them seriously because of said ideas. Me? i'm the latter.

I looked around and that was the most recent thing I could find on the subject. It's from last year, so pretty recent.  Imo it probably ate a bit of both, like wolves do. They hunt and scavange when they can. I think sharks also do this.

T. Rex Was Ferocious Predator, Not Scavenger

"It's the Holy Grail for a paleontologist," said study co-author David Burnham, a paleontologist at the University of Kansas. "Not only was the tooth broken off, but the tail had healed around it. That means that T Rex attacked that other dinosaur."

'Beyond a reasonable doubt'

Burnham's graduate student, Robert DePalma, uncovered two fused vertebrae from the tail of a hadrosaur, likely Edmontosaurus annectens,a plant eater that munched on pine needles using scissorlike teeth.

Lodged inside the vertebrae was part of a tooth, and the area around it showed signs of healing. When the team analyzed the serrations on the tooth, they confirmed it belonged to a T. rex.

"We were able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that that is aT.rex tooth," Burnham told LiveScience.

The T. rex likely attacked the hadrosaur, but the herbivore was able to escape, Burnham said. The healing over the tooth indicates that the hadrosaur lived awhile after the attack.

The new findings prove that the iconic dinosaur preyed on hadrosaurs.

"This is the first time we have physical evidence, and without physical evidence for predation, people always said, 'Oh yeah, T.rex could have been a scavenger,'" Burnham said.

***************

Well you said that his theory had a lot of holes in it, of course it does, but what he was trying to say is that you should not let your imagination guide you in science.

I personally think Rex was oppurtunistic. It's hungry and finds an Edmontosaurus herd? It would attack. It's hungry and finds a Triceratops carcass? It would eat it.

Guys, Horner was not trying to say T-Rex was a scavenger, thats not the moral of the story I guess you could say, he is trying to say that you should not let your imagination guide you in Science.