Q&A - How the Tyrannosaurs Ruled the World - with David Hone 

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

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.

Steady now...

@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.

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.

@@just-nala Wait till they discover drugs and alcohol :P

Those kids have better quest than I do.

Kids?

How lucky are those kids?

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.

@ 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 “

Well TRex is undoubtedly the winner with modern evidence and findings.

I did, didn't You? Still do. 🦕

what

@@rickjames5998 Trust me, where I live there are no lectures about dinosaurs or anything of the such.

Be happy that we have some platform now days to see those lectures. At least i know i am, and grateful.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

If you watch the video of the presentation (this part is just the Q&A at the end), he specifically talks about growth rate.

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.

because they are

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"

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'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.

Camcolito I’m surprised you didn’t get a Dr. Grant rant on that one.

@@robertgolden1080 :)

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

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. 🤔

It did live with some sort of Crocodylomorph but we don’t have a name for it yet.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

🤣