Came here after seeing David Hone in an Insider video rating the accuracy of 10 dinosaur movies/shows. Very knowledgeable and well spoken. A real treat to listen to.
Im hanging on every word with my face slackjawed like im a 5 year old kid again. This stuff is fascinating, and even though the kid's questions were elegantly simple, Hone made sure to give a really deep answer that covered new ground. Brilliant!
this guy is a brillant speaker and from my point of view bring back some respect to paleonthoogy. communication .. this guy simply dares to say he doesn't know, and explain why he thinks his hypothesis are plausible or not . this is scientific method .. humble and modest but very knowledgable. you can compare to communication of modern "science" communication would ,could, hypothesis presented like thruths.
@Jacques Lemiere It is easier when you've been immersed in the subject for decades. I'm interested in the Air War over Europe, academically, and I wouldn't have a problem speaking to a large audience about it at a moments notice.
I watch many talks, Hubble, Nasa, etc. and by far The Royal Insitution has the best questions afterwards. Everytime. To the point that it is suspisious.
@@bububububak your point being? you speak not only as if its an absolute, but also as if kids are incapable of asking these questions out of curiosity.
@ Livin'... T-Rex would get together once a year for family reunions and spread gossip and play horseshoes... with the whole horse of course... everyone would bring a dish... those who didn't had their kids eaten. Hope you learned something from all that.
Same here i listened to his other videos n he's a very educational speaker n dose well at presenting t rex. Almost makes it sound like he was there when t rex was alive. He that good.
My thought with the arms is that they got smaller but stayed functional as a way to pick their teeth. Studies have shown that T-rex's arms really only function in a limited range, to reach forward and possibly clean teeth when the skull is tucked down close to the body, and they were totally functional and still strong. The T-rex was a very picky eater it appears, and may have also liked to clean it's teeth.
Is the fact that T Rex was the ONLY big predator in it's territory further evidence that this was a highly successful animal that could out-compete or kill off any big rival species? Isn't it much more usual for several carnivores of similar size to co-exist, each with their own niche (e.g. lions, leopards, cheetahs)?
3:15 I had been thinking since crocodiles out lived the dinosaurs. Maybe the reason so many dinosaurs had shrunken arms is to defend against the crocodile attacks at the water source, I mean bigger arms means more blood lose and if you don't use the arms anyways just shrink them🤷♂️
Did they outlive them though? I would argue that birds as a whole are doing alot better than crocodilians. But the simple answer is that the arms became less important as dinosaurs with reduced arms got big heads to do the heavy lifting. Lots of other Theropods even in the late cretaceous that didnt reduce their arms, reduced arms is mostly a trend in a few large-bodied lineages who got real powerful heads.
Shape and stuff inside of it. Coprolites and modern feces don't just look like rocks, so with a trained eye you can spot the difference. Of course, if you want to know for sure, when they are cut apart, you can set bits of undigested food (which incidentally is how we know that Tyrannosaurs crunched up and swallowed a lot of bones whilst eating but did not actually digest them very well)
I wonder if T-rex used it's arms for some form or infant/egg care. Those arms are small but proven to be strong as hell. It would also give a good reason as to why tyrannosaurs were so dominant in almost every location they lived. If you can keep your progeny alive through it's weakest time.....that is a huge deal. Where on the planet at that time was a safer place for an egg to be then in the arms beneath a tyrannosaurs mouth. I know of no evidence for this thought. I still wonder though. (the dulling and loss of curve to the claws would be beneficial for this as well) This would make it more viable for tyrannosaurs only having a few (if that) eggs too. I am not proposing this possibility as fact. I have no idea how carnotaurus could have EVER used it's arms for anything. (maybe display)
I heard another specialist suggest the arms may have had a role in mating, both interms of signaling behaviour and in actual copulation. Ofcourse even that is speculation based upon observed behaviour in modern animals.
That is definitely an interesting theory though until we get a decent understanding of how many eggs Tyrannosaurus would typically laid we won't exactly know. If they laid many eggs its highly unlikely their arms were used for much. However if they laid a small number of eggs what you're suggesting could become very applicable.
I have been thinking about egg size, and duration of hatching. you see david, as the morphology of length of time increases, the size of the egg can increase. you would have a dormant phase, analogous to hibernation in bears. the egg is laid by the dino, in the fall, when food becomes less abundant, exactly the time not to lay. if you have an egg lay over, till spring, then hibernation during the lean months would be perfect. plus with lower metabolism, the egg shell could be thicker, slower metabolism, or buried deeper to keep scavenging down. would have to study turtle eggs and depth to see correlation, there is probably a study on that.
Paublus Americanus, why in the fall does food become less abundant? T-rex are not herbivores, they feed on herbivores. The worst that can happen is that their preys are leaner and so they need to kill more of them. If the herds of herbivores migrate to richer pastures, the T-rex simply follow them. Also, you assume they lived in a temperate climate with alternation of hot and cold seasons, are you sure that was the case? I was under the impression that the huge size dinosaurs reached was explained by the abundance of food produced by a climate generally wetter and warmer (year long growing season). If in Africa herds of elephants can cause deforestation, I should imagine that the plants of the time had to be extreeemely fast growing to sustain the food chain on top of which were such enormous carnivores.
Pat Pezzi Pat Pezzi While during the Cretaceous period the climate was much warmer and wetter than today, seasonal changes are a direct meteorological consequence of their location, living beyond the Tropic of Cancer. Maybe not with such a high impact as today, but definitely a significant temperature gradient over the course of a year. So I think it’s fairly safe to assume some sort of seasonal migration patterns of herbivores including an adaptation by their predators in one way or the other. That also correlates with these growth “rings” which you find in T-Rex’s bones. Without evidence in the form of eggs there’s no way of knowing, but saying that their way of laying eggs and hatching was adapted to seasons is a pretty good guess i.m.o.
Where did the surge in calcium in breeding mothers come from? A change in diet or a chemical change in biology? I can see that by eating smaller prey whole would provide more calcium that ripping at muscle tissue of larger prey, but a change in biology would be fascinating, and could we expect to see slower tooth development during breeding? Also, can we infer that breeding females would suffer from indigestion less frequently than non breeding females?
I don't know about dinosaur but for human increase in parathyroid hormone will increase calcium absorption and decrease its excretion by kidneys ... it could be the same.
Hats down, those kids have amazing questions... and I admire them and I am the person who is annoyed by stupid people, stupid questions and stupid toddlers but these kids are amazing
Given the fact that the Trex’s max age was about 25 years, the fact that the eggs were about 40 cm big and that they reached to their maturity more 13 m long, could we say that their rate of growth was about 50 cm a year or about 1cm/week ??? Wow, that’s really impressive !!!
Aparenttly an elephant has a 2 & half year pregnancy, & bull elephants can reach up to 11ft in height (only abput a foot less than t rex) so this could be a clue, despite them being such differant species
ive always wondered why there are so few skeletons of t rex & other carnivors ( only 12 the last i heard in he world) & why no complete skeletons have ever been found, obviously mud & rain sepurate bones but its still a mystery.
Not true, in his first lecture he explains that they have lots of T-Rex skeletons, at least 20 substantial ones, some of which are almost complete, and many smaller portions of others. And that’s just T-Rex alone, they have plenty of Albertosaurs and many other carnivores
The number of herbivores of a species is larger than the number of carnivores of a species. There are loads more zebras than lions. So that's most likely why.
It. Is. A. DINOSAUR. Neither a chicken nor a reptile. I thought this would be obvious considering they are referred to as DINOSAURS... Besides the classification of chicken or reptile or dinosaur are all human ideas serving to group things in a orderly way for our minds to comprehend. You might as well just call it an animal and that will do fine.
Fantastic videos both of them. There’s just something about T-Rex that everyone like. Maybe it’s Apex predator worshiping. But man what violent times that must have been, everywhere you turn everything is trying to kill you, even your cousin. Great video thanks for sharing. You keep the ten year old curiosity in me still alive, but with adult comprehension. These videos just might have recruited some young people to be paleontologists.
Those scrawny little arms could lift more individually than a champion weightlifter could bench with both arms, so yeah, they were probably still being used for something, just not hunting.
Have they ever found a dead dinosour with bite marks from 2 different tyrannosaurs (that were delivered at about the same time). That would be evidence for pack hunting.
The T-Rex could have lived for 100 million years. Why would this appendage exist for so long? It used its arms to directly feed itself. The evidence is hard to see but it is there. Scratch marks, stress fractures, and geometry. The shoulder blade is a rotating tusk.
If there is a lack of Trex eggs in the fossil record could this indicate that in fact that Trex gave live birth? And from what I understand some reptiles actually do this.
Some reptiles do, however, no birds do. Because dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than any reptiles, we can logically conclude that, even without direct evidence, T. rex did not give birth to live young.
ive also heard the "silly little arms" could easily lift 600 pounds in weight because of the density of the bones, it might be possible these creatures once walked on all fours like reptiles, but eventually lost them, just as ai this point in evolution they could not fly, unlike todays birds of prey,
Octopodes are awesome moms, they just die around the same time their eggs hatch-because they’re such hardcore moms they don’t even leave their nests while tending their eggs and literally starve to death.
Aspects of even as well-studied a species as T. rex still remain controversial: www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/19/tyrannosaurus-rex-couldnt-run-but-it-was-a-speedy-walker/?.90c6e32db24d Speed and degree of featheriness in question.
Also, it now appears that T. rex was not the only carnivore larger than a small "raptor" in at least part of its range. www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.17161/paleo.1808.18764 The giant raptor Dakotaraptor shared its Hell Creek environment.
+John Tillman This makes sense given that on the African savannah you have lions as the apex predator followed by 2 other, smaller, cat species (cheetahs and leopards), which is a close parallel to the Cretaceous with T-Rex (and other large tryanosaurs) occupying the apex predator slot and smaller tyranosaurs filling the cheetah and leopard roles. But in Africa, in addition to the big cats you have hyenas and the wild dog filling the bottom end of the large predator role and the Dakotahraptor would fill that role quite nicely.
It was really no different than say the African savanna today. Lions are by far the largest terrestrial predators on the continent. They evolved generally to be able to hunt larger herbivorous animals.. Predators like Leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs, and hyenas are better evolved to take down medium to small sized game, and things like foxes, birds of prey, and snakes are evolved to hunt small game like rodents. It’s natures way of keeping everything in balance. It’s a system that was probably the same 100 million years ago. The tyrannosaurus was the lion of its ecosystem. And as already mentioned the is usually only 1 large apex predator in any given ecosystem due to the inevitability that one would out-compete the other.
There is no direct proof that T-Rex has feathers as stated. However what is considered more or less proof is that other Tyrannosaurs, meaning not T-Rex but other in the same family, did have feathers. And what is more important is that these Tyrannosaurs were earlier in the evolution of the species. This is also stated in the talk. In other words there is a strong probability that all tyrannosaurs did indeed have feathers to some regard as comparable features in today's animals do not devolve but rather are more or less emphisized. The amount of feathers and their characteristics probably depended on two things, one the environment you would find the animal, two the size of the animal. Take woolly mammoths and elephants as an example, the mammoth is woolly but is bigger than an elephant and this can be explained by the environment they lived in, being a very cold world compared to the elephants habitat. An elephant on the other hand is still a huge animal and it does indeed have hair too yet nothing compared to its dead cousin. However compared to other animals in the elephants habitat the elephant is among the minority since most animals still have fur/hair. This because of the elephants size since size equals more heat equals more need to cool off and the habitat of the elephant is very warm compared to that of the bigger yet more hairy mammoth.
Great questions, especially from the kids. And he is amazing at explaining things in layman’s terms without watering it down so that you don’t learn anything
None. A different bird evolved into a chicken, and that bird evolved from another bird. Then go far enough back in that chain and you get to a dinosaur.
As far as I've read,believe it or not,closest living relative to T-Rex is common chicken.It's somewhat sad that greatest predator that ever lived is now evolved in animal that everyone's eat everyday.
@@chrisredfield8590 Not just "the common chicken", but all birds in general. And it didn't evolve into birds, other dinosaurs of the same dino family did.
@@Agarwaen I know.Dinosaurs evolved into all birds.Birds are direct descendants from dinosaurs,or to be precise from Theropods,which I suppose you know what are.12 years ago I read that they found some collagen that relates T-Rex to common chicken.That was big news back then and it was in Daily Mail.I haven't heard anything since then about that,but that's what I remember.
@@chrisredfield8590 That would merely mean they share some commonality inherited from the same forefather, much like other similarities you find across species with common ancestors but that still aren't directly evolved from eachother. However (sadly) that supposed protein (or protein part) discovery seems to have been a case of lab contamination, and not actually from the dino examined.
I disagree about the number of eggs t-rex laid. The evidence shows that at least 50% of baby t-rexes survived. That heavily implies a high level of parental care. Plus, t-rex was one of the most advanced dinosaurs, far more bird like than reptile like. Considering almost all modern birds don't lay more than 2 or 3 eggs at a time and go to great lengths to care for the young, I would say that t-rex probably laid 5 or fewer eggs at a time and cared for the young extremely well.
How can you know what percentage of babies survived if you don't know the number of eggs? Even if you have hundreds of specimens, the fossil record is just not complete enough for that kind of statistical analysis to be valid.
@@ariochiv I didn't say that 50% of the eggs hatched and survived. I said that 50% of the babies survived. They know this by looking at how many baby and juvenile fossils have been found. If t-rex relied on producing huge numbers of offspring, you would expect to find a lot of infants and babies in the fossil record. But you don't. You most find adults.
Fossilization is incredibly random... you can't make a statistically meaningful determination of relative population sizes from the number of fossils found, even when you have dozens or hundreds of examples. There are all kinds of reasons that juvenile remains might not fossilize... not least of which is them being eaten whole, digested beyond recognition, and pooped out heaven knows where. I think you're probably right that such a large predator would probably lay fewer eggs and look after them, but we can't make that determination based on the relative numbers of fossils. We'd need to see a nest. And, unfortunately, if they did lay few eggs and care for them, a nest may be something we'll never find.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Came here after seeing David Hone in an Insider video rating the accuracy of 10 dinosaur movies/shows. Very knowledgeable and well spoken. A real treat to listen to.
You would absolutely love Terrible Lizards, a dinosaur podcast . Insanely in-depth conversations.
@@white-Beard-Michaelbut dinosaurs aren’t terrible, or lizards, they are just terible at being lizards
Im hanging on every word with my face slackjawed like im a 5 year old kid again. This stuff is fascinating, and even though the kid's questions were elegantly simple, Hone made sure to give a really deep answer that covered new ground. Brilliant!
David is such an awesome lecturer to listen to.
Remember guys, he has a podcast 😊
Although I don't condone the use of the word 'awesome', I agree with the point.
very interesting lecture. can't believe the audience were only half full.
yeah they should've gotten loaded
People didn't know in advance that this would be one of the best lectures on Tyrannosaurs in existence.
Terran Republic - Questions seem to be kids, so maybe a school field trip for several schools?
The audience were filled during lecture but most left after it ended, the questioning session was like people who stay for post credits scene.
@@coachhannah2403 If that true then what a fantastic school field trip.
These kids have really good question, I enjoyed every single one of them.
so good to watch something on RUclips that is both current and authoritative, as well as well delivered. Bravo.
Dave Hone is the COOLEST. The man needs his own channel! 🦖
this guy is a brillant speaker and from my point of view bring back some respect to paleonthoogy. communication .. this guy simply dares to say he doesn't know, and explain why he thinks his hypothesis are plausible or not . this is scientific method .. humble and modest but very knowledgable. you can compare to communication of modern "science" communication would ,could, hypothesis presented like thruths.
@Jacques Lemiere It is easier when you've been immersed in the subject for decades. I'm interested in the Air War over Europe, academically, and I wouldn't have a problem speaking to a large audience about it at a moments notice.
I watch many talks, Hubble, Nasa, etc. and by far The Royal Insitution has the best questions afterwards. Everytime. To the point that it is suspisious.
You can tell he is very encouraging to younger audience members asking questions, which I think is really great
Children's questions are always the most interesting.
as if they hadn't asked their parents beforehand....
@@bububububak your point being? you speak not only as if its an absolute, but also as if kids are incapable of asking these questions out of curiosity.
Fascinating lecture and follow-up Q&A. Those kids asked some great questions.
This guy is fantastic I could listen to him talk about T-Rex and dinosaurs all day. And those little kid's had some great questions!
This was an amazing lecture, wish I could have seen it in person!
These are fantastic questions. David Hone is awesome!
How awesome are those kids in the audience???
How lucky are those kids?
I would have asked if Tyrannosaurus had lips that covered its teeth, or did its teeth always protrude as is common in modern media depictions.
Woah!! The last question was awesome!
@ Livin'... T-Rex would get together once a year for family reunions and spread gossip and play horseshoes... with the whole horse of course... everyone would bring a dish... those who didn't had their kids eaten.
Hope you learned something from all that.
Livin' to Learn “
"I could go on about this for days" I could listen to this for even longer ;)
Same here i listened to his other videos n he's a very educational speaker n dose well at presenting t rex. Almost makes it sound like he was there when t rex was alive. He that good.
those kid have better question than me....
@@just-nala Wait till they discover drugs and alcohol :P
Those kids have better quest than I do.
Kids?
My thought with the arms is that they got smaller but stayed functional as a way to pick their teeth. Studies have shown that T-rex's arms really only function in a limited range, to reach forward and possibly clean teeth when the skull is tucked down close to the body, and they were totally functional and still strong. The T-rex was a very picky eater it appears, and may have also liked to clean it's teeth.
I don't know why, but I always enjoy learning from David Hone. I hope he comes to the USA and does a show near me.
Is the fact that T Rex was the ONLY big predator in it's territory further evidence that this was a highly successful animal that could out-compete or kill off any big rival species? Isn't it much more usual for several carnivores of similar size to co-exist, each with their own niche (e.g. lions, leopards, cheetahs)?
Man, the kid's questions were friggin adorable. I love it.
Excellent answers to some deep questions.
If any of you enjoyed this, check out the podcasts that he does with Iszi Lawrence on the Terrible Lizards channel on youtube.
This guy is absolutely brilliant
3:15 I had been thinking since crocodiles out lived the dinosaurs. Maybe the reason so many dinosaurs had shrunken arms is to defend against the crocodile attacks at the water source, I mean bigger arms means more blood lose and if you don't use the arms anyways just shrink them🤷♂️
Did they outlive them though? I would argue that birds as a whole are doing alot better than crocodilians. But the simple answer is that the arms became less important as dinosaurs with reduced arms got big heads to do the heavy lifting. Lots of other Theropods even in the late cretaceous that didnt reduce their arms, reduced arms is mostly a trend in a few large-bodied lineages who got real powerful heads.
That was fascinating
Great answers and great lecture,but I wanted to ask,how do you know whether its a dino poop or not????
Shape and stuff inside of it. Coprolites and modern feces don't just look like rocks, so with a trained eye you can spot the difference. Of course, if you want to know for sure, when they are cut apart, you can set bits of undigested food (which incidentally is how we know that Tyrannosaurs crunched up and swallowed a lot of bones whilst eating but did not actually digest them very well)
@@DuizhangLu But how do we know which animal it might have been? Or do we just guess based on what was around?
This is RUclips at its best 👌
I wonder if T-rex used it's arms for some form or infant/egg care. Those arms are small but proven to be strong as hell. It would also give a good reason as to why tyrannosaurs were so dominant in almost every location they lived. If you can keep your progeny alive through it's weakest time.....that is a huge deal. Where on the planet at that time was a safer place for an egg to be then in the arms beneath a tyrannosaurs mouth. I know of no evidence for this thought. I still wonder though. (the dulling and loss of curve to the claws would be beneficial for this as well) This would make it more viable for tyrannosaurs only having a few (if that) eggs too.
I am not proposing this possibility as fact. I have no idea how carnotaurus could have EVER used it's arms for anything. (maybe display)
I heard another specialist suggest the arms may have had a role in mating, both interms of signaling behaviour and in actual copulation. Ofcourse even that is speculation based upon observed behaviour in modern animals.
That is definitely an interesting theory though until we get a decent understanding of how many eggs Tyrannosaurus would typically laid we won't exactly know. If they laid many eggs its highly unlikely their arms were used for much. However if they laid a small number of eggs what you're suggesting could become very applicable.
Unlikely. If they were used to protect the eggs or young then why did they become ever smaller and weaker?
I have been thinking about egg size, and duration of hatching. you see david, as the morphology of length of time increases, the size of the egg can increase. you would have a dormant phase, analogous to hibernation in bears. the egg is laid by the dino, in the fall, when food becomes less abundant, exactly the time not to lay. if you have an egg lay over, till spring, then hibernation during the lean months would be perfect. plus with lower metabolism, the egg shell could be thicker, slower metabolism, or buried deeper to keep scavenging down. would have to study turtle eggs and depth to see correlation, there is probably a study on that.
Paublus Americanus, why in the fall does food become less abundant? T-rex are not herbivores, they feed on herbivores. The worst that can happen is that their preys are leaner and so they need to kill more of them. If the herds of herbivores migrate to richer pastures, the T-rex simply follow them.
Also, you assume they lived in a temperate climate with alternation of hot and cold seasons, are you sure that was the case? I was under the impression that the huge size dinosaurs reached was explained by the abundance of food produced by a climate generally wetter and warmer (year long growing season). If in Africa herds of elephants can cause deforestation, I should imagine that the plants of the time had to be extreeemely fast growing to sustain the food chain on top of which were such enormous carnivores.
Pat Pezzi Pat Pezzi While during the Cretaceous period the climate was much warmer and wetter than today, seasonal changes are a direct meteorological consequence of their location, living beyond the Tropic of Cancer. Maybe not with such a high impact as today, but definitely a significant temperature gradient over the course of a year. So I think it’s fairly safe to assume some sort of seasonal migration patterns of herbivores including an adaptation by their predators in one way or the other. That also correlates with these growth “rings” which you find in T-Rex’s bones. Without evidence in the form of eggs there’s no way of knowing, but saying that their way of laying eggs and hatching was adapted to seasons is a pretty good guess i.m.o.
These 12 year-olds really love their dinosaurs, don't they?
I did, didn't You? Still do. 🦕
Where did the surge in calcium in breeding mothers come from? A change in diet or a chemical change in biology? I can see that by eating smaller prey whole would provide more calcium that ripping at muscle tissue of larger prey, but a change in biology would be fascinating, and could we expect to see slower tooth development during breeding? Also, can we infer that breeding females would suffer from indigestion less frequently than non breeding females?
I don't know about dinosaur but for human increase in parathyroid hormone will increase calcium absorption and decrease its excretion by kidneys ... it could be the same.
was expecting a trex vs spinosaurus question hahaha
Well TRex is undoubtedly the winner with modern evidence and findings.
"Hello, mister dinosaur scientist. Who would win in a fight? Indominus Rex or Truck-a-saurus?"
Everyone knows the answer is Mecha-Godzilla, which has been definitely proven by this 4 hour presentation that I'm going to start now. Settle in.
very interesting he came across very well ,i like things in simple terms
Hats down, those kids have amazing questions... and I admire them and I am the person who is annoyed by stupid people, stupid questions and stupid toddlers but these kids are amazing
So the small arms are becoming vestigial like the wings on ostriches and emus.
how long is an ostrich pregnancy can anyone tell me?
Given the fact that the Trex’s max age was about 25 years, the fact that the eggs were about 40 cm big and that they reached to their maturity more 13 m long, could we say that their rate of growth was about 50 cm a year or about 1cm/week ??? Wow, that’s really impressive !!!
If you watch the video of the presentation (this part is just the Q&A at the end), he specifically talks about growth rate.
Aparenttly an elephant has a 2 & half year pregnancy, & bull elephants can reach up to 11ft in height (only abput a foot less than t rex) so this could be a clue, despite them being such differant species
The Q&A sounds like Peppa Pig characters.
because they are
ive always wondered why there are so few skeletons of t rex & other carnivors ( only 12 the last i heard in he world) & why no complete skeletons have ever been found, obviously mud & rain sepurate bones but its still a mystery.
Not true, in his first lecture he explains that they have lots of T-Rex skeletons, at least 20 substantial ones, some of which are almost complete, and many smaller portions of others. And that’s just T-Rex alone, they have plenty of Albertosaurs and many other carnivores
The number of herbivores of a species is larger than the number of carnivores of a species. There are loads more zebras than lions.
So that's most likely why.
Bravo! 👏
The ocean couldve had big predators that caused big bite marks. Not just the t rex that was around.
So again, how know male or female? Since not mammals, female did not have more curved hips?
So is T rex a chicken or a Reptile? What caused them to split into 2 groups?
It. Is. A. DINOSAUR. Neither a chicken nor a reptile. I thought this would be obvious considering they are referred to as DINOSAURS... Besides the classification of chicken or reptile or dinosaur are all human ideas serving to group things in a orderly way for our minds to comprehend. You might as well just call it an animal and that will do fine.
"Half Lycan.......Half Vampire.........but stronger than both"
Fantastic videos both of them. There’s just something about T-Rex that everyone like. Maybe it’s Apex predator worshiping. But man what violent times that must have been, everywhere you turn everything is trying to kill you, even your cousin. Great video thanks for sharing. You keep the ten year old curiosity in me still alive, but with adult comprehension. These videos just might have recruited some young people to be paleontologists.
Ovoviviparous?
Those scrawny little arms could lift more individually than a champion weightlifter could bench with both arms, so yeah, they were probably still being used for something, just not hunting.
Have they ever found a dead dinosour with bite marks from 2 different tyrannosaurs (that were delivered at about the same time). That would be evidence for pack hunting.
Could tyranosaurs have been live bearers and not egg layers?
It's possible, but I think it's unlikely, given that there aren't any birds that give live birth.
No, definitely egg layers. He says so and provides evidence in the video.
I was hoping some asked him. What he thought the t rex sounded like.
The T-Rex could have lived for 100 million years. Why would this appendage exist for so long? It used its arms to directly feed itself. The evidence is hard to see but it is there. Scratch marks, stress fractures, and geometry. The shoulder blade is a rotating tusk.
If there is a lack of Trex eggs in the fossil record could this indicate that in fact that Trex gave live birth? And from what I understand some reptiles actually do this.
Some reptiles do, however, no birds do. Because dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than any reptiles, we can logically conclude that, even without direct evidence, T. rex did not give birth to live young.
He refers to a special type of bone that stores calcium to make eggshells that has been found in T Rex
okay...when i watched the lecture, the view counter was up to exactly 100... when im watching this, its up to 111
Nice coincidences...consecutively!
Doesn't look so scary to me. More like a 16-foot turkey.
Camcolito I’m surprised you didn’t get a Dr. Grant rant on that one.
@@robertgolden1080 :)
3:30 that question bruh😒
ive also heard the "silly little arms" could easily lift 600 pounds in weight because of the density of the bones, it might be possible these creatures once walked on all fours like reptiles, but eventually lost them, just as ai this point in evolution they could not fly, unlike todays birds of prey,
Tyrannosaurs Ruled the World & females were bigger (180m-60m)
Octopodes are awesome moms, they just die around the same time their eggs hatch-because they’re such hardcore moms they don’t even leave their nests while tending their eggs and literally starve to death.
Did t rex live with 🐊?
It did live with some sort of Crocodylomorph but we don’t have a name for it yet.
The problem with ALL dinosaurs?
None of them could drive a tractor.
Aspects of even as well-studied a species as T. rex still remain controversial:
www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/19/tyrannosaurus-rex-couldnt-run-but-it-was-a-speedy-walker/?.90c6e32db24d
Speed and degree of featheriness in question.
Also, it now appears that T. rex was not the only carnivore larger than a small "raptor" in at least part of its range.
www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.17161/paleo.1808.18764
The giant raptor Dakotaraptor shared its Hell Creek environment.
+John Tillman This makes sense given that on the African savannah you have lions as the apex predator followed by 2 other, smaller, cat species (cheetahs and leopards), which is a close parallel to the Cretaceous with T-Rex (and other large tryanosaurs) occupying the apex predator slot and smaller tyranosaurs filling the cheetah and leopard roles. But in Africa, in addition to the big cats you have hyenas and the wild dog filling the bottom end of the large predator role and the Dakotahraptor would fill that role quite nicely.
So rex was by far the biggest predator of its time? If so then why the huge difference?
There's not a lot of room in most ecosystems for such large apex predators. One tends to out-compete the other.
It was really no different than say the African savanna today. Lions are by far the largest terrestrial predators on the continent. They evolved generally to be able to hunt larger herbivorous animals.. Predators like Leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs, and hyenas are better evolved to take down medium to small sized game, and things like foxes, birds of prey, and snakes are evolved to hunt small game like rodents. It’s natures way of keeping everything in balance. It’s a system that was probably the same 100 million years ago. The tyrannosaurus was the lion of its ecosystem. And as already mentioned the is usually only 1 large apex predator in any given ecosystem due to the inevitability that one would out-compete the other.
yes, there were several species of man once...not any more though !
How old were his audience members? They had great questions, but sounded like pre-teens.
combat evidence might be over territory 🤔
I believe he clearly stated "feeding evidence" which i take as there is proof that they actually ate each other.
@@Vezerai I think you're referring to something different from what I was referring to. 🤔
Where is there proof showing T-Rex had feathers?
There is no direct proof that T-Rex has feathers as stated. However what is considered more or less proof is that other Tyrannosaurs, meaning not T-Rex but other in the same family, did have feathers. And what is more important is that these Tyrannosaurs were earlier in the evolution of the species. This is also stated in the talk. In other words there is a strong probability that all tyrannosaurs did indeed have feathers to some regard as comparable features in today's animals do not devolve but rather are more or less emphisized. The amount of feathers and their characteristics probably depended on two things, one the environment you would find the animal, two the size of the animal. Take woolly mammoths and elephants as an example, the mammoth is woolly but is bigger than an elephant and this can be explained by the environment they lived in, being a very cold world compared to the elephants habitat. An elephant on the other hand is still a huge animal and it does indeed have hair too yet nothing compared to its dead cousin. However compared to other animals in the elephants habitat the elephant is among the minority since most animals still have fur/hair. This because of the elephants size since size equals more heat equals more need to cool off and the habitat of the elephant is very warm compared to that of the bigger yet more hairy mammoth.
Dude.... Dude..... They eating each other.
THEY EATING EACH OTHER!!!
I wonder if fall was mating season and females were just gravid through winter?
Great questions, especially from the kids. And he is amazing at explaining things in layman’s terms without watering it down so that you don’t learn anything
I've got a question: Which dinosaur evolved into a chicken?
None. A different bird evolved into a chicken, and that bird evolved from another bird. Then go far enough back in that chain and you get to a dinosaur.
As far as I've read,believe it or not,closest living relative to T-Rex is common chicken.It's somewhat sad that greatest predator that ever lived is now evolved in animal that everyone's eat everyday.
@@chrisredfield8590 Not just "the common chicken", but all birds in general. And it didn't evolve into birds, other dinosaurs of the same dino family did.
@@Agarwaen I know.Dinosaurs evolved into all birds.Birds are direct descendants from dinosaurs,or to be precise from Theropods,which I suppose you know what are.12 years ago I read that they found some collagen that relates T-Rex to common chicken.That was big news back then and it was in Daily Mail.I haven't heard anything since then about that,but that's what I remember.
@@chrisredfield8590 That would merely mean they share some commonality inherited from the same forefather, much like other similarities you find across species with common ancestors but that still aren't directly evolved from eachother. However (sadly) that supposed protein (or protein part) discovery seems to have been a case of lab contamination, and not actually from the dino examined.
I disagree about the number of eggs t-rex laid. The evidence shows that at least 50% of baby t-rexes survived. That heavily implies a high level of parental care.
Plus, t-rex was one of the most advanced dinosaurs, far more bird like than reptile like. Considering almost all modern birds don't lay more than 2 or 3 eggs at a time and go to great lengths to care for the young, I would say that t-rex probably laid 5 or fewer eggs at a time and cared for the young extremely well.
How can you know what percentage of babies survived if you don't know the number of eggs? Even if you have hundreds of specimens, the fossil record is just not complete enough for that kind of statistical analysis to be valid.
@@ariochiv I didn't say that 50% of the eggs hatched and survived. I said that 50% of the babies survived.
They know this by looking at how many baby and juvenile fossils have been found. If t-rex relied on producing huge numbers of offspring, you would expect to find a lot of infants and babies in the fossil record. But you don't. You most find adults.
Fossilization is incredibly random... you can't make a statistically meaningful determination of relative population sizes from the number of fossils found, even when you have dozens or hundreds of examples. There are all kinds of reasons that juvenile remains might not fossilize... not least of which is them being eaten whole, digested beyond recognition, and pooped out heaven knows where. I think you're probably right that such a large predator would probably lay fewer eggs and look after them, but we can't make that determination based on the relative numbers of fossils. We'd need to see a nest. And, unfortunately, if they did lay few eggs and care for them, a nest may be something we'll never find.
@@KurNorock Thats right, but the Babys may have been all eaten by predators
@@svonasek read my last comment again.
What a waste of a Q&A, are there no adults in the audience?
Way too much detail in the drinking sound.
🤣
Silly little arms watch wrong with u women