I think wants really humbling is the incredible long time dinosaurs walked our earth. I think about 170 million years. In this time an incredible amount of diversity and amazing creatures came to being and went lost. Like the Stegosaurus lived 84 million years before the T-Rex. Thats more time than between us and the extinction of the TRex (66 million years). Our human history is a joke against that. 55 Mio ago : First primates. About 3 mio years ago our ancestors started walking bipedal. Homo sapiens exist only for about 300.000 years. Thats only 0.17% of the time dinousaurs walked over this planet. Even our whole species exists only for a tiny fraction of time.
@@nostalji93 Dinosaurs should be compared to primates in general, not just one type of primate. And scorpions and horseshoe crabs laugh at how short a time dinosaurs lived even when including birds.
Fascinating. Excellent. Ben really excels in providing relevant information, that is delivered in a buoyant form; his enthusiasm is genuine, and, for me, infectious. The further Ben goes in his talk, the better it gets. There is no 'tail-off', not descent into boredom. I wish that my school teachers possessed Ben's skills. Thank you so much.
I'm flattered by the views and comments that this video has been getting. If you liked this, you will probably enjoy my Human Evolution talk as well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ss0UGEGP1E0.html I loved giving these types of talks at the Field Museum. Not long after this video, the Field Museum renovated Sue, fixed some of the errors that I discussed, and built a new display for her. I've also moved, not long after this video. I now live in DC, where I manage a foreign assistance program that counters the proliferation of WMD's. I still hit my colleagues with interesting stories about dinosaurs, though, whenever possible.
Very nice talk, Ben. Wish I was there to discuss things about t-rex myself. Maybe one I'll have to drop by. As someone who also has a big focus on educating the general public (in my case, crocodiles) I can recognise sincere passion when I see it, and it always has the same captivating effect. I clicked on this expecting to skim through it, instead you had my attention for the entire 27 minutes. Keep doing what you're doing!
I heard him say that Sue's skull-the actual skull-is stored somewhere else at that museum. But I believe that he said that 90% of the rest of the skeleton is actual bone ( petrified of course-i.e. mineral ) and not replica. What a difference in the world that that animal knew compared to our world. Its great to live in a time when all these amazing discoveries have been made available to the rest of us, to marvel at!
I’ve read some accounts of paleontologists that believe they may very well have been able to exceed 50 feet in length, not in most instances but that could be their maximum size
Current estimates dictate that over the course of the species existence (a few million years at the very end of the Cretaceous), there would have been billions of T Rex individuals that roamed the earth. For comparison, that's roughly the human population of the planet today. And we've only found 20 or so of them, to date. One day, it is very likely it will happen.
Learned so much about T Rex from one skeleton their behavior their age their trauma their intelligence. so much information about the animal that's not living
Love this guy’s enthusiasm. I don’t know what he gets paid, but hell, he deserves a raise. I saw Sue at the Field Museum in 2000. I was six or seven years old, and I vowed I’d see her again one day. I’m 28 now and I still haven’t gone back, but I’m working on it! I’m writing a kids dinosaur novel for my nephews, who love dinosaurs, and I named a character Susie, after Sue Hendricks. On a side note, I actually wrote an international crime thriller for adults some years ago and a climatic confrontation happens in the Field Museum, and it hurt me to do it, but I felt that Sue’s skeleton had to be destroyed in that novel in order for the characters to escape. Point is, my trip to the Field Museum as a child had a major impact on me 😂
it's more like a different body posture, rather than bigger size actually. In JP they gave the T. Rex a more upright posture in most of the scenes. Check the videos of making the T. Rex robot and you'll see that it's size was not exaggerated.
If it’s true that T-rexes ate their siblings, could that possibly be the reason why so many of them are found with bite marks from other Rexes on their jaws? I imagine that the ones that were eaten didn’t go down without a fight so the ones that survived must have gotten wounded often?
Saw a copy of Sue about 20 years ago & I still remember my feeling of awe & how big she really is. She's so long, the tip of her tail was through the ceiling where an opening had been created.
Good question - there are good reasons to think that there were both non-overlapping scales (like crocs), and at least some feathers. Color can only be speculated, but if she was an ambush predator, some kind of camouflage is likely, as is countershading.
This video is fascinating, but it has to be pretty old. Sue is now believed to have weighed approximately 9.5 tons and an even larger T. Rex, Scotty, has been discovered and it's weight has been estimated to have been 10 tons or more.
Great talk. One question I haven't seen discussed. How did T-Rex & similar sleep? Just standing up all the time? If so, does that mean her legs never got a rest?
A "smidgen" bigger, as Scotty's researchers called it is hardly "hold-my-beer territory". At 65% complete vs Sue's 90%, I'd still take Sue over Scotty any day. Plus, how is a T Rex going to hold, drink, or pass a beer anyway?!! 🙃
Apparently, due to the marketing of dinosaurs (the bigger; the better), the scientists are relying on margins of errors larger than the ones for Sue. Scott might be bigger, but very possibly not.
THAT is a cool hypothesis. 👏 of course, science doesn't *prove* anything, only disproves. However, confidence builds when explaining the data requires increasingly unlikely alternative hypotheses. Failed hunts are pretty common for all predators, so we can be pretty confident in that explanation.
Adult male African elephants are massive. They weigh between 6 and 7 tons each, not sure why this guy would use two sub adult elehants at 3 and a half tons as a fair comparison.
Jurassic Park's T.Rex was not bigger than Sue actually. They created their T.Rex based on specimen Stan, which was smaller than Sue. The difference in size I believe is an optical illusion due to the different posture - a more "upright" posture of the JP's Rexy at some scenes.
Please also add this cool facts: It was robbed by the FBI, and latter delivered to the ranch owner, even do he already was paid for his bones and... an stupid jury decided his bones were not bones... just land...
I have a question, do paleontologists ever consider that predators from different species hunted together? Trex, doesn't move fast. Considering the amount of carnivores found in the "hells creek" area, could there be cooperation between predators? Imagine your faster predators chasing and exhausting prey, then you have the trex comes and finished the job.
I've always wondered if T Rex never stopped growing just like crocodiles and alligators. If this is the biggest one we found so far there's probably even larger ones still in the ground. I wouldn't be surprised if a old T Rex could get to be 50 feet long and 20 feet tall.
I did not know that baby rexes had adult-sized arms. Thanks! Great orator. I wonder if they hunted like Komodo dragons and took a bite out of prey then tracked it over miles while it’s dying.
Maybe! Ambush predation might be more likely. If you had to describe her most extraordinary asset, it would be her crushing bite. Komodo dragons can use that tracking strategy because of their toxic bite. Once T Rex bites you, you ain’t leaving in one piece!
Love this question. It seems too easy to say "chicken", but that's a pretty good guess. Birds are their closest relatives today. However, since flight muscles aren't on the menu, I might go with a big, flightless bird like an ostrich, which has been described as more like lean, mild beef than poultry. Others have guessed that it's more like a reptile, like a croc, which tastes a bit like pork. The other thing you have to consider is that their diet would have played a role. T-Rex was probably feeding on reptilian browsers that fed on gymnosperms or early flowering plants, an unusual diet for today. Who knows what sort of flavors those might imbue into T-Rex meat? Perhaps birds of prey are a closer analogue.
Interesting talk although I think thre Trex pose will need to be re assessed soon. I believe the myth of making the animal walk horizontally, since the 70's is not holding up. For example the heavy head (at least a ton in weight) must have hung down, with the eyes looking straight ahead- just like a shoebill stork- rather than horizontally. The energy required and the load bearing forces upon the neck vertebrae would have been unatural to sustain this position, surely? Yes, the neck has different functions, including vertical and horizontal positions for food intake etc but to pose straight ahead as it's ONP? The head and neck must have been 'S' shaped for support and spring loading rather than horizontally. The backbone must have been curved (rather than horizontally straight) to give support load bearing - and evidence it's forerunners were quadrupled- but the overhaul stance must have been a 45 degree angle to naturally find it's center of balance. A horizontal pose would have put incredible strain on the whole posture although clearly the animal was designed to function dynamically and therefore had a purpose to both hunt and scavange, functioning on two huge, powerful, super charged sprung legs! The posture therefore must have found it's natural or neutral 'geared' center of gravity, as there is no fulcrum point on a horizontal pose. The varying postures and positions the animal could adopt, were in effect, going into different 'gear' settings although you cannot make the tail the same weight as the torso and head, as this surely, is evolutionary impossible -or unnecessary? The animal could balance more upright, as the tail did not act as a "tripod support" but was clearly off the ground, with the first, third tail caudata section curved upwards. This section must have weighed over a ton to help act as a counter weight balance for the head and neck. The rest of the tail must have been relatively light but all designed to help fine tune it's balance, as it walked. However a horizontal Tyrannosaur must have turned around very slowly (and more prone to attack) as apposed to a more upright animal with a curved tail. The huge, powerful legs must have also played a role in it's determining it's pose as they controlled it's mobility. The animal was not conditioned to walk on the flat ground all it's life as horizontally posed but must have experienced all types of reasonable terrain, as it sought food etc. The femurs are curved slightly indicating tension and load bearing under an angle (not columnar) whilst the rest of the lower legs were also curved, acting like powerful springs. The legs could not have been columnar, to suit the horizontal pose, as the animal, although heavy (7-9 tons) was not super heavy, such as a sauropod. Also note, there does not seem to be any natural bone webbing (for strength/load bearing) around and above the acetabulum areas (for a horizontally posed animal) of the hip bone. This surely would be essential? However, there is, when the torso angle is tilted upwards and the femurs are also angled upwards slightly for the femur heads to follow the webbing on either side of the hip joint. It seems the horizontal pose is for the columnar legs theory, as raising the pose more upright would cause dislocation and imobility. Therefore both the torso and legs should come up slightly in it's posture angle? The animal did not run, but rather ran- trotted, fast - possibly up to 30 mph? Please feel free to publicly debate or respond. I am open for friendly criticism! :) Thank you.
So, you believe that T.Rex's body posture was not the horizontal seen in the museums the last two decades, or the "kangaroo" of the early 1900s, but something closer to a 45 deegre angle, right? I totally agree.
@@81StrangeFruit The thing is, the "kangeroo pose" or "tripod" posture, with a straight 45 degree back bone, with the tail dragging on the ground, as support is wrong -everyone knows this.. but so is also the horizontal pose. Tyrannosaurus Rex ONP was ultimately conditioned by gravity and there is no mathematical fulcrum point on a horizontal pose -but there is, when the posture is balanced at a 45 degree angle. The only way to achieve this, is to allow the femurs to be at a 45 degree angle to the posture. The back bone although flexible was still naturally curved toward the horizon-like a bridge shape- with the tail likely curved off the ground. Tyrannosaurus could adopt various positions and was a dynamic, energised animal but to walk around and run-trot must have been more upright toward 45 degrees. Also at that angle would allow it to travel around quicker- 25-30 mph + may seem more possible!
The serrations to identify the teeth?? No.. it’s down to the specific cross sectional d shaped teeth of Tyrannosaurus rex.... the serrations come into play but aren’t the primary factor at all
While it was a well done presentation, the "falling and dying" thing needs to die. It's beyond ridiculous. You can look up giraffes jumping off of RAMPS, falling, popping back up and running away. The idea, that this animal would die if it tripped while running say 30-35 mph (50-55 kph), is super far fetched and unrealistic.
Interesting right? Never heard of ostriches dying if they fall from running but honestly even that wouldn’t surprise me. The amount of people who die from tripping and slipping is more than I expected. It’s all going to come down to the health of the individual person or animal, as well as the conditions of the fall. If a person or rex falls forward or sideways on a flat dirt surface, they should be okay. If a person or rex falls and tumbles, landing on their neck after tumbling ...yeah, both are dead. I think the main difference is the momentum behind the fall...as well as the fact we have medical care to heal from what would be fatal falls and animals don’t.
Keep in mind that kinetic energy is mass*(velocity^2). The speed is key, and T Rex's danger would be trying to take down prey while running at full speed. Ostriches aren't trying to take down an animal while running, a falling giraffe isn't moving very fast, and neither are nearly as big as Sue. It's all speculative, of course, but that's all part of imagining her most and least likely lifestyles.
you dont knowe how old he is by counting the rings in the bone how you even knowe 1 ring wil represend 1 year it is not a tree so if i cut a human bone i can count the rings ? or any other animal
I recommend that you dig into the peer-reviewed literature on this to find precise methods. However, rings aren't random. They're a result of constant growth throughout one's lifetime and different growth rates in summer and winter.
I hope I'll be alive for the first successful dinosaur cloning. I also hope they off that thing the second is starts going on a rampage instead of trying to take control like they tried to do in Jurassic Park.
T-Rex and similar types are the origin of dragons. In ancient times before modern science imagine finding and seeing this skull. Your mind would wonder if they still exist and imagination goes rampant especially in a world where it wasn't connected as deeply as today and you have no idea how big earth is or what even goes on in other parts of the world and so forth :). T-rex is the origin of dragons and so many don't even truly realize it. Other creatures definitely also influenced culture but this is the BIG ONE.
all of them and none of them they all came from the same dinosaur but they are all just casts of the actual bones if it was the actual bones it would be too dangerous to keep around people because some people are kinda dumb and would break something.
@@supercat82b20 By volume of bone, it's >90% real/original fossil with a few "fake" pieces added to complete the skeleton. The skull is a modified (unwarped) cast on the floor model. The real skull is shown in a glass case over to the side.
this is because they tend to mount those skeletons in a horizontal posture, so it looks more active and cool, and guess what! it's easier for them to keep it clean! The truth is that those animals stood in a more upright and flexible posture, their head was a least 4 - 4,5 meters above the ground and that they didn't keep their knees bent like this mount.
one thing i've always been curious about is why use modern animals to try and figure out how dinosaurs might have behaved/acted. They aren't direct descendants or even of the same species...unless you have a time machine anything people can suppose about behavior/look/hunting etc is just best guess. I mean just take the whole feather debacle :/
It's a great question. There are tradeoffs in that studying fossils is more direct, but studying modern animals is more wholistic. You have to take it all together. Direct descendance isn't as valuable as it might seem. Closely related animals can have very different lifestyles. Non-avian dinos aren't around anymore, but their ecological niches are. We can study how big animals deal with being big by studying elephants. We can study dino-like respiratory systems and how they affect lifestyle by studying birds. What's amazing is how often animals from completely different lineages solve similar problems in much the same way. Consider cases of convergent evolution like how almost every animal has countershading. Studying modern animals is a great way to generate hypotheses and evaluate which of them may be more plausible. For example, if you want to posit that T-Rex was a pure scavenger, it helps to have examples of similar scavengers alive today. If few exist, you'll need a pretty high bar to demonstrate that T-Rex was a pure scavenger. Nature is better at telling us what's plausible than our imagination. On the other hand, you can also draw too many conclusions from modern animals. Early paleontologists assumed they were giant lizards. Perhaps some are guilty of a bit of over-fitting them to birds, today.
@@benjaminzalisko3807 thanks for the great answer :D I personally believe t rex was both a scavenger and active hunter as it's most common for all predators to be both :D I was going to ask about the knee cap thing too lol
