All thanks to somebody called "Madhatter", really, he's probally somewhere else dissing people off. That person really has a social relation problem, he must be number one, or he'll kill (or belittle you) to do so.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 26, 2001

I must say, this page is a little underused.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 26, 2001

Can anybody tell me what we are talking about?
from J.S., age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 21, 2001

Rodolfo Coria, another expert that has me all boggled.

Well, I was looking up a few old articles in a magazine when I read a statement by this guy that has me all boggled. He says that the eyes of Giganotosaurus were "looking at you like an eagle" while that of T.Rex was on the side. Erm, why hasn't anybody corrected him yet? It's supposed to be the other way round.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 17, 2001

Hmm, are you refering to the "imperator" sized specimens? Well, unfortunately, it is going to take some time before the critter is out of the matrix, not to mention some idiots, not experts dug it up with a backhoe.

Also, I am not sure it's a good idea to name it a totally new animal based on its size, as of yet, there has been nothing to suggest that Rigby's tyrannosaur is more than a normal, if somewhat large T.Rex.

I heard news about Rigby's rex having bigger forelimbs, but that has been dismissed.

Also, there is at yet no evidence put forth to suggest this is anything
other than Tyrannosaurus rex. Please refrain from spreading the rumor this
is a new species.

(I warned people this would happen, didn't I...)
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 17, 2001

This just came in, latest estimates of Tyrannosaurus Rex biting abitlites just rose another notch higher. Instead of the previous 12,000 newtons in an attack bite, the best estimates now put it at 15,000 newtons in the bigger specimens. Thank you.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 16, 2001

Gee honkietong, just stop trying to belittle me and tell me where you got your info from. Not Levine or anyone else, just you. Where did you get yours?
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

I'm not saying we should calculate the intelligence of the dinosaurs to an exact figure, but we can cross out possibilities to get a rough picture. And so far, it dosen't point towards them being very smart.
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

Natural selection is not the only process in evolution, evolution is anything but a ramdom process. If you ask me, evolution seems controled in the submodular level, but apparently ramdom in the general sense, I wonder what's the reason behind it? Hox control genes
? They only affect a segment of your body.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

I agree, unfortunately, we try to make too many assumptions from the bones, which are only snapshots in time.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

I think I am being misunderstood. I never said dinosaurs were super intelligent or something, I just said WE can't ever know for sure. What is intelligence anyways? Nothing can really measure it properly, for some brains are suited for some things more than others. Basically I'm saying that 'intelligence' really means nothing.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

Natural selection can't be the only aspect of evolution, it doesn't make sense.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

Why does brain power increase with time? I find this puzzling. Mesozoic animals had more developed brains than Palaeozoic animals, Cenozoic creatures had more developed brains than Mesozoic animals, etc,etc. Is this natural selection at work? We know that there are major problems with natural selection. Or is there something else at work? Something we do not completely understand. If so, What?
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 15, 2001

Actually Honkie got me bang on the nail. I'm saying if you have a dino brain the same size as that of a compairable mammalian brain, the dino would be less intelligent. If anything, dinosaurs seem to have "less" efficent brains. I don't really expect a Stegosaurus with the intelligence of a cow, really, more likely a turtle or a tortise.

How large does a brain have to be? Although we usually feel that as a body gets larger the brain must also expand, we really have no definite basis for that assumption. A brain has a lot of functions, but many of them involve automatic behavior. An order to breathe or a signal to release a hormone can be performed by a small number of nerve cells and yet have a major effect on a distant organ as a large muscle unit reacts or a distant gland releases large supply of an active substance. An order for a leg to walk can require the same number of brain cells in a large animal as in a small one, it's just that larger muscles are following the orders. Delicacy of movement and fine motor coordination certainly benefit from more neurons, but when the beast being controlled weighs forty tons or more, does delicacy really matter? At that size, an animal makes its own path rather than worrying about staying on a trail. Many functions, such as finding food and mates can be hard-wired into fairly small units of nerve tissue and still leave some room for variability in their expression. Tiny lizards and fish, and even insects, can show relatively complex behavior with brains the size of a pinhead. Great intellectual function was almost certainly lacking in Dinosaurs as it is in practically every creature known, but that is not really a disadvantage for survival in most cases. But the bottom line is, the Dinosaurs were quite intelligent for their size, but not as intelligent as you make them out to be.
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

I don't see the fuss being put into the conversation of animal species. I mean, extinction dealt by another better, more advanced design is common throughout history, why should we do any different? In fact, it seems when we conserve certain species, we are harming others. We are literally slowing down natural selection, and doing what we see fit instead of allowing "natural" laws to work. Kill all the animals! Only those that survive deserve to survive. Greenpeace? Bah! If they knew what was good and natural for the earth, they would allow us to exploit and damage it.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

It dosen't really matter if the birds were direct decendents of the dinosaurs. If you ask me, they're probally very similar, so similar that even if they are not cadustically linked, we can call them the "new dinosaurs."
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

That picture at http://dinosauricon.com/images/tyrannosaurus_chase-jc2.html, is a great insult to a great predator. It looked like the artist made a serioous mistake and decided to cover it up with a turf of four feet tall graphite fuzz.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

I hardly think rexy was "fluffy" Skin impressions seem to point in the other way. Besides, given rexy's impressive size causing heat dissapation to be more of a problem than retention, and the idea that he may be warm blooded, and the idea that his climate was warmer than ours, I get the impresion that the paleoartist didn't put too much thought into the whole picture. Prehaps I tend to agree with Bill's idea, that T.Rex was downy of feathery when young, but lost it's insulation as it grew up.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Actually, the structure of the brain affects the intelligence of the animal largely. Simple brains tend to show lower intelligence than complex brains. What we do see from dinosaur brains is that they do have relatively uncomplex neurostructures as when compaired to modern birds and mammals. My guess is, most of their behaviour was wired in and instinctive and in short, they didn't think that much.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Hmm... I was thinking if some of the dinosaurs were warm blooded, and if they were above a certain size, they didn't really need the insulation to keep them alive on a cold night.
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Jon, you are saying that if dinosaurs were 'feathered' then they would have feathers similar to birds'? That wouldn't be correct; in fact most impressions show otherwise, even to dinosaurs very close to birds in lineage. Their feathers were similar to fur, and used only for insulation. Most people think 'feathered' means like present day flying birds. Just look at flightless birds, their feathers are returning into a more fur-like state than feathers that are used for flight and insulation: they don't need the complex flight feathers anymore, and dinosaurs had even more fur-like feathers.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Honkie, where are you getting your information that "most soft tissue fossils show that dinosaurs tended to be unfeathered"? Actually, almost all of the small dinosaurian soft tissue samples show that they did have some sort of feathers (it was actually more like finely branched, very soft fuzz). Basically, if any small dinosaurs are known to have soft tissue impressions, they usually had feathery integument (fur/feathers). _Pelecanimimus_ is the only exception that comes to mind, but it doesn't mean much since only the throat region of skin impressions were discovered and the rest of its body likely was covered in "dino-fuzz."
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Reuben, _Protoavis_ is not a bird or proto-bird or anything closely related to birds. Paul (I think) says that it is a chimaera (mix of remains) between some sort of pterosaur and a herrerasaurian. Given, even in the Triassic herrerasaurians were quite bird-like, but still, not in the immediate vicinity of bird ancestry. I think it was Chatterjee that used _Protoavis_ as an argument that dinosaurs were not evolutionary precursors to birds, but he was wrong I guess, and made too many assumptions.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Jon, you can't use EQ to determine intelligence, really. Even if you did dinosaurs would be smarter than reptiles anyways, most had EQs the same as large ground birds like emus and ostriches. But EQ is just silly, it doesn't work. If that was the one determining factor for intelligence, then squirrels and elephant-nosed fish would be smarter than people (they have higher EQs).
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Dinosaurs with Feathers-

Basal Deinonychosauria (Archaeopteryx,Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus)
Basal Maniraptora (Protachaeopteryx)
Basal Ornithoraptosauria (Caudipteryx)
Basal Therizinosauria (Beipiaosaurus)
Compsognathidae (Sinosauropteryx)

We don't see many highly derived animals here. It's possible that Deinonychus was secondarily featherless (it was secondarily flightless, if Archaeopteryx was its ancestor), but there are no non-feathered skin fossils for any of these groups. Are you referring to Scipionyx when you say "fossils showing soft tissue seem to suggest that dinosaurs tend towards being unfeathered"? Well, that one is a problem.

There are no ornithomimosaur, troodontid, or tyrannosaur (the Arctometatarsalia to some, an artificial group to others) feathers-- so feathering these groups is currently just speculation. Just for fun, here's a link to a very fluffy rex (or is that grass?):

http://dinosauricon.com/images/tyrannosaurus_chase-jc2.html
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; January 14, 2001

Say Chandeler, I have been doing some study into non-avain dinosaurian neurology and I'm afraid that I have concluded that Stegosaurus was probally not as smart as a cow. Or at the very least, the dinosaurs did not have small brains beause os balance. Besides, adding a kilo to the brain is a big difference, why not do that? It won't cause you to tip over. But whatever it is, the dinosaurs were probally as smart as the reptiles today.
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

Downy Dinosaurs?? They may have been fairly closely related to birds and a lot of experts now say they were birds. Even if that is true, by the mid-Jurassic they were probably 50,000,000 years apart. That's enough time to develop some pretty prominent differences in covering. Some feather-like structures have been found on some small theropods, but a lot of them are more fibrous than feathery and actually subcutaneous in location. So, were Dinosaurs totally covered with feathers? There is no real evidence in the fossil record for this, so why the rush to feather covered pictures and sculptures in the name of scientific accuracy? Birds need aerodynamic feathers for flight and fluffy feathers for heat retention. Dinosaurs were too big to fly and at their size heat dissipation would have been a greater concern. Looking at recent sculptures and paintings I have seen raptors with punk crests and a lot of Dromaeosaurs with fully feathered "wings "; for what purpose? It takes a lot of energy to make feathers. These animals were not structurally adapted for flight, so why waste hard-to-get protein on frivolous plumage? I see others covered with the hairy feathers typical of modern ratites. If they had to have feathers, I suppose that is how they would have looked, being ground dwellers. They didn't have featherless bird beaks, but all the feathered depictions I have seen look like bald-faced vultures. Why doesn't the face ever get feathered? Why is it that most of these look as if they were conceived by Dr. Suess?
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

I'm not sure if we should make a big fuss of it, the line between birds and dinosaurs is a blurred one. Archaeopteryx may have been a dinosaurian dromie, or it may have been a bird with dromie charaterstics.

I wouldn't put feathers to coelurosaurs as quickly as you do Brad, I prefer to wait for solid evidence first. My feeling is, feathers might not have mattered a lot to the coelurosaurs. Besides, fossils showing soft tissue seem to suggest that dinosaurs tend towards being unfeathered.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 14, 2001

I'm not sure that birds were around before dinosaurs, Reuben. Your first point was that Archaeopteryx is older than the most bird-like dinosaurs. This stems from a century and a half of calling Archaeopteryx the first bird. Archaeopteryx is essentially a small dromaeosaur- here's a link to the article:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dromey.htm

Dromaeosaurs and Aves may both have their origin near Archaeoptryx, the more familiar dromaeosaurs being secornadrily flightless. All coelurosaurs in the Jurassic were probably feathery. As for Protoavis, I don't know what it is, but its a bit younger than the first dinosaurs (its about as old as Coelophysis, I think).
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; January 13, 2001

JC, you do have a point. But at least real science is better than some debates in the history of dino talk (and defanatly the "my dinosaur is better than your's" debate). Some of them might have seen the original idea was "dinosaur debate". For the kids, I've discovered that birds are older than dinosaurs! All the dinosaurs Archiopterix probaly evolved from apeared after it did. So it probaly evolved from some protoavian form. Then maby Protoavis was a bird. So where did it come from? Most likely the ancestoral reptile. So birds would be older than dinosaurs. The explanation of the dinosaurs it probaly evolved from is they are not dinpsaurs but birds.
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; January 13, 2001

I really wasn't saying that it was a T. rex v raptors debate, I was saying its really dumb and pointless to check this board every time I come online to find it riddled with the same exact arguments by whoever and whoever else over and over and over. I agree with JC that if it doesn't improve the section should be cancelled, there's no point anymore if there isn't any new discussion! Move on, people!
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 12, 2001

MadHatter, I must start out with an apology, a piece of information I posted about a topic you brought up is wrong. I regret this wrong piece of information I gave you...

You said:
"May I also add, the whole theory about T.Rex and his "nasty bite" is all in speculation too, so you cant rear that one up about how deadly T.rex is anymore. "
"Haha. Honkie, when you dont wanna answer something, boy do you change the subject, Im talking about the speculative "yuck mouth", or septic bite if you will. notice the words "nasty"."

And I answered:

"Oh, that's what you mean. Yes, there's no way to really prove it yet. So any theory on the septic bite remains as speculation, and I accept it as such. But recently, Larson is studying some Edmontosaurus headled Tyrannosaur bites and has said he has noticed some bone deformation, which may indicate a massive infection resulting from the bite. This is good, but this is still equivocal evidence. I'll look for better ones."

It turns out I was dead wrong...THERE IS ACTUALLY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR T.REX HAVING A SEPTIC BITE! IT'S NOT SPECULATION! HAHAHAHHA!

I just found this...

Many attempts have been made to answer the question of whether tyrannosaurs were active predators -- seeking out and killing their prey or were scavengers, waiting for the opportune moment to step in and satisfy their hunger. Joining this debate, researcher William Abler and his colleagues have literally looked inside this amazing dinosaur's mouth for clues and come up with some surprising results.

The enormous teeth of the tyrannosaur would seem like the perfect killing tool with sharp points and serrations on both the front and back edges. But when put to an actual test of bone crushing and flesh tearing, would they live up to this perfect image?

Abler and his associates wondered about the serrations seen on the teeth, and whether they would serve the same purpose as those on common kitchen knives. Since no studies had been done regarding knife edges, Abler set up an experiment with serrated blades and tyrannosaur tooth edges.

By creating a series of standardized knife edges, including a serrated edge, the scientists were able to study cuts or tears on actual pieces of meat and simulate biting experiences similar to those that might have been demonstrated by the dinosaur.

The blades were "mounted on a butcher's saw operated by cords and pulleys" that created a sawing action on several same-sized pieces of meat. While the straight edge split the meat, a serrated knife edge "gripped and ripped" it.

A serrated fossil tooth of the ancient shark Carcharodon megalodon produced similar results. When a tyrannosaur tooth was placed in the mechanism, it produced cuts similar to those made by a smooth knife blade that was in need of sharpening. Questioning these results, Abler wondered: if the menacing tooth edges were not sharp, what were they for?

When comparing the serrations of the tyrannosaur tooth with those of the ancient shark, Abler saw major differences in the shape of the points and in the spaces between the points, or cella. The shark's tooth had pyramidal-shaped points. while those of tyrannosaurs were cube-like.

Putting the teeth of Albertosaurus to the meat test, the scientists discovered food particles and grease trapped in the cella. According to Abler, when such particles remain in the mouth they become the sites for septic bacteria which can result in fatal bites to victims.
This indicated that tyrannosaurs might have been able to merely bite their victims and sit back and wait for them to succumb to the fatal infection.

A "puncture and pull" method of biting seemed most apparent to Abler, where the dinosaur's teeth acted as pegs that more or less held the victim. Also, due to the non-articulating surface of the teeth, he hypothesized that tyrannosaurs did not chew their food but swallowed it whole.

Abler cites a study of the Indonesian Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), whose teeth are similar in shape to those of tyrannosaurs. Ciofi's study has led the paleontologist James O. Farlow to suggest a positive comparison between the two animals. Since the Komodo dragon sometimes hunts by biting its prey and then waiting for it to die through an infection of the wound, why wouldn't this be possible in tyrannosaurs?

[People bitten by a Komodo dragon more frequently die from sepsis than from the damage inflicted by the wound itself. -- Ed]

Abler adds that with tightly closed lips, tyrannosaur teeth may have pierced their own gums, which would then have bled and nourished the septic dental bacteria. This would have provided perfect conditions for poisoning future prey.

It looks like I was wrong when I said that the theory was based on speculation, there are studies and conclusive real-time evidence coming out too. But wait a minute, didn't you say at first...

"May I also add, the whole theory about T.Rex and his "nasty bite" is all in speculation too, so you cant rear that one up about how deadly T.rex is anymore. "

Woops, did I just prove you wrong? I didn't mean it, honest! But wouldn't it mean you were WRONGER than me for suggesting it's ALL in speculation and that we can rear it up? Hmm ...... ................... ............ .................... ............................... .................. ................... .............................. ................
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 12, 2001

Open your eyes and see! Let me qoute some biologists I mentioned.

Tale offical statement:

"The interpretive conclusions presented in these Technical Reports are based only on the results of these popular paleontological rationalization. Extrapolation of these results to other species and quantitative risk analyses for dromaeosaurids behaviour require wider analyses beyond the purview of these studies. As of now, a quantity of popular speculations about dromaeosaurid behaviour remainly wrongly accepted as fact." (He was refering to somebody who answered the raptors MUST have taken on big prey)

Matt Wedel says this:

"Indisputable evidence does not exist for big prey or pack hunting in dromaeosaurids. It is highly unlikely that the dromaeosaurids commonly took on large animals. Morphological and postural evidence, bone histology, ecological information, and brain/body size relationships indicate that we cannot make sweeping generalizations about dromaeosaurid behaviour. Most likely it varied between groups, but big animals were probally a rare, if energy-abundant source of food in a dromaeosaurid's diet."

Frank Galef says this:

"To be honest, I like the way the way most paleontologists today envision the past. Most of the popular ideas of raptors showcase a set of banana sized slicers and dicers which they "MUST" have used on big prey. I am just calling for caution in trying to keep up with the latest speculation in the field. In another fifty years we may look back on this era of raptordom with the same bemused countenance we now apply to the creatures of Hawkins' Crystal Palace."

He also goes on to say:

"Based the conclusions I draw from the raptors via the application of my knowledge of biology and zoology, I start to wonder if the experts who stated that the raptors were "obviously" big prey killers have really put much research into the raptors at all. I'm not sure whether they are saying this because it makes their favorite Dinosaurs look fiercer or if they really have any scientific basis for their claims. It's unlikely that a lot of fossilized trace fossils will ever be found to prove this contention one way or the other, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint or even from the fossil evidence that does exist."

I like this one. I've been looking around in my older sister's textbooks and found what that seems to be in direct attack towards the expert MadHatter quoted:

" As for the prey size in relation to the predator, this probally vaired with the different species of predator. However, a limit to this variation can be observed."

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr, a paleontologist:

"forget ever reference you've seen to Velociraptor and Deinonychus as being "swift" or "deadily" as dinosaurs go. Even Tyrannosaurus rex has proportionately longer lower legs and feet than do these smaller forms"

I also like this one:

"Most large theropods (allosauroids, megalosauroids, Dryptosaurus, etc.), match some variation on the grapple-and-bite theme. The hand claws of these animals closely match the proportions and angles of predatory birds, and are at the end of short but powerful arms. Like predatory birds, these claws were probably not the primary weapons of killing, but were used to seize and hold the prey while the jaws did the work. Note that it is these animals, and NOT dromaeosaurids, which match modern "raptors" the best."

Forster, C, paleontologist:

"Based on careful scientific study, I feel that any assumptions that the dromaeosaurids hunted in packs is premature and shaky. It's unikely for dromaeosaurids to attack big animals, maybe it's time to look at alternative arguments?"

MadHatter (edited, just had to do it:-):

"you scientists assuming big prey hunting are not real scientists and all you wanna do is fight because your shallow and a snively, nerdy little worm without a life. Get outta here. Ive seen what youve said, about the raptor fan withwhoever and in science, there is not a place for people who lie, falsify and tell what is popular just cause its the popular vote. Most of what you say is your opinion and thats ALL it is. HAhaha."

Duncan Watt:

"The latest estimates now put Tyrannosaurids on same level with the intelligence of predatory birds like the eagles or falcons while the Dromaeosaurids have been put at the same level as that of mean poultry. But one should know that while all this seems contray to what we have know about, one must know that methods of determining intelligence remained simplistic and inaccucrate for a long time until now. "

>From the WWD Bloopers:

"Like in Jurassic Park, Walking With Dinosaurs envisioned a bunch of mean lean Utahraptors. But does this make sense? Having Utahraptors taking on Iguanadon is a exciting idea, but seriously, no animals, save for humans and social insects would have put their lives in extreme peril to seucre a meal. The makers of WWD put this down as a "speculative portrayal of raptor life" and that's what the big prey theory is, speculation."

A few other small quotes from the experts:

" I think a lot of our ideas on the raptors are ludicrous"

" For the dromaeosaurids to take down animals many times their size, they will have to defy logic."

" I for one think we have made too many assumptions about the raptors."

" Hunting in packs and bringing down large animals is an exciting idea, but it's a weak one. I have thought up of amny other more likely seneriaos to paint..."

" It's sad that once a myth is planted, it's hard to up uproot."

" Assumption is not fact."

" A sore loser tries to play and put down the winner, a gentleman keeps his silence."

" If you don't admit your mistakes, you'll never learn."

" Woe to those who don't know the past, for they are condemmed to repeat it."

" As of yet, there is no good evidence to suggest complex carnivory behaviour in the dromaeosaurids."

" Having the "raptors" to pack hunt is absurd from basic principles of evolutionary biology. The only animals which attack much larger prey like ants regardless of losses sustained are eusocial insects like ants. They do it because the colony, not the sterile worker individual, is the passer on of genes and the unit on which natural selection acts. If the colony loses 0.2 grams of worker to get 20 grams of prey it may make a net gain in colony fitness justifying that (and ants, such as army ants, that do regularly swarm over much larger prey tend to have queens that produce vast numbers of eggs to replace squashed workers quickly!) But a non-social vertebrate that regularly gets itself killed so that even related individuals will get more food will kill off the genes for such suicidal altruism with itself. Only if the rest of the pack are very closely related would such behaviour occur. That would only happen if coelurosaurs, like naked mole-rats, were as eusocial as ants, com! plete with queen and sterile workers. Mole rats evolved this because of their very odd lifestyle (in fact evolutionary biologists predicted the naked mole-rat's social structure form its life-style before either was discovered in the field!). Coelurosaurs almost certainly were not eusocial and therefore could not in principle have evolved the behaviour many excited experts depicts.Our visions of superkiller raptors are as ridiculous as depicting flocks of homicidal hens rampaging the modern Bucks countryside, swarming over hapless sheep and pecking them to death!" (An expert calling himself by the net name of "Magpie")
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 12, 2001

Darn, I kinda hope at least my last few posts got through, I have to defend myself you know. But what the heck.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 11, 2001

Chandeler, this is not a T.Rex vs raptor debate, we're simply trying to prove the raptors were not as deadily as before.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 11, 2001

Hi guys, I'm back! What's going on here? If you want to fight, you can take it to Dino Talk, not Dino Science. We talk science here, not how pathetic or goofy somebody is here. Come on guys, you're in violation of good scientific behaviour here.... Can we get back to the science?

One more thing, science is about discovery, not quoting experts, doctors or paleontologists, stop using them as a weapon to degrade your opponent's points.
from Joseph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 11, 2001

Hmm, I donno Brad. My father, a Zoologist tells me that the science of wounding required more than bite force, it also requires an admirable array of oral hardware followed up by the locomotive systems that is supposed to deliver all this to the target. But taking your human question into question, I think that's a as you said, silly acessment of human abilities. Given our lously incisors and the fact that we, attacking as a pack would be spreading the damage all over his body, would stand hardly a chance of bringing him down in short order, let alone penetrate his hide. Not to mention T.Rex could run three times faster than the adverage human. Not that I say we can chase him away, but he'll make short work of us.
from Josh, age 12, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Well, I don't think you should lamblast Josh for that. He does have a point you know. As for Honkie...well, he's your opponent right?

Anyway, since there has been some confusion over what "evidence" means, I'll classifiy them into three main groups. There are also many other forms of evidence, but the misidentification of these three are mainly responsible for most of our dinosaur misconceptions.

1. Equivocal evidence

Well, most of the evidence in paleontology comes in this form, mainly because we try to deduce behaviour from them. Equivocal evidence can help give you vauge headings on how to form your hypotheses, but never supports it nor rejects it. An example is trying to use unhealed bite marks on fossils to determine if the animal who made these marks was a predator or a scavenger. Sadly, some hypotheses drawn from equivocal evidence is treated as fact, which is not the way its supposed to be done.

2. Good Evidence

Good evidence helps to point you in one direction, or helps build up your case, but is not good enough to conclude your case by. An example is by finding a skull of an animal with extremely sharp, serrated teeth. Now, that animal could BE a herbivore, but good evidence points strongly towards it being a carnivore.

3. Conclusive evidence

Truly rare if you don't know where to look. Conclusive evidence can make, or break your case. The entire fate of certain theories can simply rest on one piece of conclusive evidence. For example, we are now conclusively sure T.Rex was at least predator for we have found evidence of healed over attacks on herbivores indicating failed attacks. Coupled with finds of acid-etched herbivore bones in the T.Rex fossils, all this is conclusive evidence that T.Rex was at the very least, a predator.

Now MadHatter, from a non-moral, scientific point of view, your opponents seem to be aware of the trap of overquoting equivocal evidence and have decided to use good and conclusive evidence to blast you instead. Though I wince at their ruthlessness, I am impressed by their handeling of the slippery tool in paleontology we call evidence. In a court of law, their case would be ruled a better one, just to tell you. Instead of screaming at them, which I doubt will work as they're used to it from months of Mr.Rogers and BBD, try fighting fire with fire. I'll help tell you if that piece of evidence you presented was equivocal, good or conclusive. Nobody is going to take pity on you, even though you are being pack-hunted if you have a weak case. Quick, do it!
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

You astound me with your calculations. Are you joking?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Oh, that's what you mean. Yes, there's no way to really prove it yet. So any theory on the septic bite remains as speculation, and I accept it as such. But recently, Larson is studying some Edmontosaurus headled Tyrannosaur bites and has said he has noticed some bone deformation, which may indicate a massive infection resulting from the bite. This is good, but this is still equivocal evidence. I'll look for better ones.

But anyway, with 12,000 newtons os bite, T.Rex still would have the nastiest bite in the animal kingdom.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

To tell the truth, its more of trying to insult than dispatch. I ask a question, and all this blows up in aggression and bitterness. The thing is, people who spend almost all their time on the computer or up in rooms cuz they dont or cant do anything else tend to want to pick on or fight over the computer. Notice the pettiness, chandler, like of Josh. Trying to quote a whole dictionary to me. I dont think well in a fight, and I dont know every scientific word, but why should I feel bad that a couple hackers "dispatch" what I say, Ive always succeeded in science so far and I still will, maybe I dont have the advantage of being on a computer all the time, but thats ok. They never answer me when I ask where they found this information so I can see it for myself and get caught up, Chandler, I dont even take them that seriously, Levine is a cool sport, but people like HonkieTOng and Josh, have nothing better than to sit and try and make others feel stupi! d on a dinosaur site for curious fans and children. If you ask me, its pathetic. And I doubt honkietong will ever tell me where he found all his information...I wish he would stop trying to get me upset, it dont work and it gets annoying when your trying to relax and someone is trying to tease, really sad, and the whole "type me aussie accent on dis ting when me be tokin" please stop it. Its goofy man, just goofy.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Haha. Honkie, when you dont wanna answer something, boy do you change the subject, Im talking about the speculative "yuck mouth", or septic bite if you will. notice the words "nasty".
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

If humans can bite with up to 175 pounds, and tyrannosaurs can bite with up to 3011 pounds, then the bite of the human is stronger pound per pound. My weight is 1% that of a T. rex, or about 120 pounds. Let's assume that my biting force is also around 120 pounds. (or perhaps 175 pounds is a really spectacular world record, and the average person falls much lower than that-- help?) A pack of one hundred people my size, with no weapons, would have equal weight but four times the biting power of a T. rex, and therefore could kill it easily. And you though the raptor-rex battles were silly. By the way, does anyone know if raptors had powerful bites?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; January 10, 2001

Not that I want to kill you, Madhatter off or anything, but I've noticed that you have stated that the idea behind T.Rex having a nasty bite is all speculation. Here, to avoid putting words into your mouth, let me quote you:

"May I also add, the whole theory about T.Rex and his "nasty bite" is all in speculation too, so you cant rear that one up about how deadly T.rex is anymore..."

Alright, you should have made that statement about 5 years ago, and it would be valid, for till then, no really in-dept studies into T.Rex biting abilities have been made, so any statements about his bite till then was well, at best, quite speculative.

Of course, speculation can be proven right if it was tested, and I'm afraid that was what people did in 1996. To prove speculation correct, as Levine would say, "good old fashioned taphomony can't be beat!" I agree, well, this's what happned:

One would think that a creature as dentally well endowed as Tyrannosaurus rex--sporting the largest teeth of any dinosaur--makes a pretty strong case for being a predator of reckoning, even if it does have puny forearms. Yet a minority of paleontologists maintained that T. rex teeth and jaws couldn't stand up to the wear and tear of being an aggressive predator. The case to the contrary just got literally and figuratively stronger.

In the first experimental attempt to measure the jaw- clamping capacity of any dinosaur, a Berkeley biologist and a team of Stanford biomechanical engineers have determined that T. rex wielded a bite force exceeding that of any living animal. Its teeth could exert a crushing force of more than 3,000 pounds. According to biologist and lead author Gregory Erickson, a former student of Horner's, "This is like the weight of a pickup truck behind each tooth."

The new evidence comes from a 70-million-year-old fossilized Triceratops pelvis found five years ago in Montana's fossil-rich Hell Creek Formation by amateur dinosaur hunter Kenneth Olson. The four-and-a-half-foot-long bone contains 58 definite bite marks and another two dozen possible dental impressions from teeth that could only have belonged to a tyrannosaur. Many of the marks display distinctive furrows as though the biter had struggled to deflesh its prey. Repeated biting removed a sizable chunk from the front of the largest pelvic bone.

For his study that appeared in the August 22 issue of Nature, Erickson, a graduate student in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, collaborated with Stanford University engineer Dennis Carter, an expert on the mechanics of bone, graduate students Samuel Van Kirk and Jinntung Su, and two other Stanford colleagues to calculate how much force the T. rex teeth endured while biting Triceratops. They installed a cast of a real T. rex tooth made of aluminum and bronze (which mimics the rigidity of enamel) into a hydraulic mechanical loading machine--a substitute for jaws that looks and acts a bit like a guillotine. A piston-powered bar holding the tooth made punctures in a cow pelvis that mirrored those in the Triceratops bone, and the team measured the amount of force needed to recreate those wounds. Erickson chose cow bone for the surrogate victim because it has a microscopic structure similar to bone from Triceratops, also a large herb! ivore.

One of the two tooth casts got dented when the scientists underestimated their machine's power and the tooth penetrated the bone completely, striking the steel table beneath it. Real-life rexs, Erickson says, would have broken teeth occasionally after violently impacting bone, and they regularly replaced each tooth every few years.

To leave a half-inch deep mark in a bone, a T. rex canine would have absorbed 1,440 pounds of force. By being closer to the jaw joint, the rear teeth were even more powerful, and the team estimated a force there of 3,011 pounds. (For the record, the most force that the rear teeth of a human can generate is 175 pounds--suitable for cracking Corn Nuts, but little use on pelvic blades.)

The results suggest that T. rex's dental arsenal is consistent with the idea that they hunted live prey. A scavenger wouldn't need as much bite to deflesh an animal that couldn't escape, and the strong teeth of tyrannosaurs could presumably handle the torquing and compressing that would be part of a day's work capturing and subduing gargantuan prey.

The teeth of T. rex also closely resemble those of two renowned modern-day hunters: American alligators, the dinosaur's closest living relatives, and great white sharks. Like the alligator, T. rex has stout, rounded canine-like teeth embedded and cemented in sockets which can withstand large forces. Skulls of both species often display bite marks from teeth used in intraspecific sparring. Alligators can exert a bite force of just under 3,000 pounds when rapidly snapping their jaws, but T. rex bites exceed this force with minimal effort.

Like the white shark, T. rex teeth exceed those of all their relatives in size and bear serrated edges that can cut through bone. Serrations run along the front and back of tyrannosaur teeth, as on a steak knife, which suggests to Erickson that the dinosaur used "puncture and pull" biting to inflict big cuts on the head, neck, or spine and then perhaps let their prey bleed to death. Komodo dragons, though they have relatively weak teeth, employ a similar biting and slicing strategy on prey. But, says Erickson, "There is no great analogy [among living animals] for T. rex. If there were we'd have a scary world."

Thanks Erickson.

Anyway, given my new understanding between " equivocal" and "conclusive" evidence, I must say that this shows rather conslusively that the idea that T.Rex had a very nasty bite is more fact than speculation.

(Ps. Even the greatest speculations about the maximum biting force of T.Rex were exceeded by the researched figures. So the speculations were technically wrong after all! But I guess this proves rather well that T.Rex was nastier than we thought!)
from Josh, age 12, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Hmm, "equivocal". People around here seem to be using that word a lot, being only twelve, I can't say I am as skilled in english as them, so the frequent use of that word has constantly confused me, does it really mean so much? How come the simple word "equivocal" has been used so much in the brinning down of most of MadHatter's views? I didn't quite understand it until I looked it up in the online dictionary, I'll put it up here for your benifit:

Main Entry: equiv.o.cal
Pronunciation: i-'kwi-v&-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin aequivocus, from aequi- equi- + voc-, vox voice -- more at VOICE
Date: 1599
1 a : subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse b : uncertain as an indication or sign
2 a : of uncertain nature or classification b : of uncertain disposition toward a person or thing : UNDECIDED c : of doubtful advantage, genuineness, or moral rectitude
synonym see OBSCURE
- equiv.o.cal.i.ty /-"kwi-v&-'ka-l&-tE/ noun
- equiv.o.cal.ly /-'kwi-v&-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- equiv.o.cal.ness /-k&l-n&s/ noun

The thesaurus says this:

Entry Word: equivocal
Function: adj
Synonyms: DOUBTFUL 1, ambiguous, borderline, clouded, dubious, fishy, indecisive, open, problematic, suspect
Related Word: disreputable open to question
Text: 1
Contrasted Words clear, distinct, understandable; categorical, explicit, unambiguous, univocal; certain, conclusive
Antonyms unequivocal
2 characterized by a mixture of opposing feelings
Contrasted Words assured, certain, decided, sure
3 3
Contrasted Words credible

So now I understand the meaning of "equivocal". It was a fashionable word started by Levine. I must say, now armed with the knowledge of the meaning of "equivocal", I must say, yes MadHatter, you are basing a lot of your points on EQUIVOCAL evidence. I'm afraid they don't carry much weight, in that case. Try something as Honkie would say "solid".

Main Entry: 1sol.id
Pronunciation: 'sä-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English solide, from Middle French, from Latin solidus; akin to Greek holos whole -- more at SAFE
Date: 14th century
1 a : being without an internal cavity b (1) : printed with minimum space between lines (2) : joined without a hyphen c : not interrupted by a break or opening
2 : having, involving, or dealing with three dimensions or with solids
3 a : of uniformly close and coherent texture : not loose or spongy : COMPACT b : possessing or characterized by the properties of a solid : neither gaseous nor liquid
4 : of good substantial quality or kind : as a : SOUND b : made firmly and well
5 a : having no break or interruption b : UNANIMOUS c : intimately friendly or associated
6 a : PRUDENT; also : well-established financially b : serious in purpose or character
7 : of one substance or character: as a : entirely of one metal or containing the minimum of alloy necessary to impart hardness b : of a single color
- sol.id.ly adverb
- sol.id.ness noun

Or you could try finding something "conclusive"

Main Entry: con.clu.sive
Pronunciation: -'klü-siv, -ziv
Function: adjective
Date: 1536
1 : of, relating to, or being a conclusion
2 : putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability
- con.clu.sive.ly adverb
- con.clu.sive.ness noun
synonyms CONCLUSIVE, DECISIVE, DETERMINATIVE, DEFINITIVE mean bringing to an end. CONCLUSIVE applies to reasoning or logical proof that puts an end to debate or questioning . DECISIVE may apply to something that ends a controversy, a contest, or any uncertainty . DETERMINATIVE adds an implication of giving a fixed character or direction . DEFINITIVE applies to what is put forth as final and permanent .

Hmm, it looks like I went overboard with the online dictionaries, but they're cool anyway.

Have a great week.
from Josh, age 12, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

It looks like I'll have to play your game to make you happy and quit whining about the lack of our expertal support.

Frank Galef, a extremely acomplished zoologist and doctor, pointed out that there are many more senarios that are more likely for the behaviour of the raptors. He also did many leg-proportion experiments to determine the nature of avian locomotion, and concluded that the raptors are not as fast as previously thought, and also lacked in jumping capacity. He also exaimined the sickle-claws of the raptors and decided that they probally had a minimal role in killing.

Matthew Bonnan, theropod expert, fossil hunter, residential theropod advisor at DINOSAUR. Studied sauropods for years before switching to theropods. Experience with sauropod fossils convinced him that the most obvious solution is not always right and applied that belief to the raptors. He concluded there is no strong case for pack/big prey hunting and stated that alternative ideas are more accucrate. Took part in a few dinosaur digs before.

Forster, C., paleontologist. Wrote an article in "The Mosasaur" called "The paleoecology of the ornithopod dinosaur Tenontosaurus tilletti from the Cloverly Formation, Big Horn Basin of Wyoming and Montana." Where he suggests alternative ways of approaching the Deinonychus remains found nearby. Concurrs there is no solid link between the suggested pack/big prey hunting theory and the Deinonychus-gawned Tenontosaurus fossil.

Maxwell, W. D., and J. H. Ostrom. Both wrote a article "Taphonomy and paleobiological implications of Tenontosaurs-Deinonychus associations" in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 15(4): 707-712. Ostrom was the very paleontologist who named Deinonychus. Despite suggesting the pack hunting/ big prey hunting theory, Ostrom admits that there are also other equally plausable theories that can be drawn from the same evidence. Admits it's not INEVITABLE for Deinonychus to hunt in packs.

Matt Wedel, qualified biologist, reached the same conclusions on raptor jump capacity and speeds as Galef. Proposes the dromaeosaurs may be quite big time scavengers too.

Russell Hawley, education director of Tate, a question and answer organization. Competent in zoology. Suggested raptors may not be as smart, social or as mean as previously thought, basing his statements on raptor braincasts and caompairative anatomy.

Mark Norell, paleontologist. Studied dromaeosaur skulls and suggested that the raptors may not have been likely to hunt in packs, observes some antisocial behaviour in dromaeosaurs.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr, paleontologist. Also independently reached the conclusion that the raptors were not as swift as commonly thought and were "grapple and slash" hunters, limiting their usefulness in big prey hunting.

Thank you
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Eh, brudder, wat tok u? All your professor said was "prey size varies with predator" wat. I don see how it says raptr must have huntared big prey. Also, i dink the professor also noe that there is a limit to the prey size variation and the predator. So weather he say matter more or not don matter for it kan be used agenst you.

happy hour, brudder.
from Short F., age 14, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

To date, there is no satisfactory conclusion as to if the dire wolves or smilodon did hunt in packs or not. And it's it's amazing you can draw such a secure conclusion from another species that died much longer ago...hmm.

Anyway, there is hard evidence for T.Rex having a nasty bite. Many fossils have been found with T.Rex bite holes on them. Note the word is not marks, but holes. That is very soild and concrete evidence that T.Rex did have a very soild and nasty bite, scavenger or predator. I'm sorry? Did I shoot donw another one of your points? Don't blame me! You're the one putting up the targets! Give us tougher ones please.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Hmm, I prefer to abstain from this, but the others here seem to attack in a pack MadHatter, and they are dispaching your points with ruthless efficiency. Well, the reason I hold such views on the raptors is because my lecturer though me to do exactly that. Disregard the "experts" and take a look yourself, you might pick out something they've missed. I'm not kidding, even the greatest expert in paleontology is not too far above the beginner, that's because paleontology is like no other science, the tables are pretty fair and nobody really has a lead on everybody.

I've noticed that you have based your arguments mainly on the construction of the raptors, but I'm afraid as far as scientific methods go, they can only be classified as speculation. What that can break or make your case is hard evidence. Want to prove big prey hunting? Find a fossil of a big animal with a raptor tooth stuck in it or something, something that shows that it had survived an attack. Want to prove pack hunting? Find a trackway that shows a group of raptors attacking an animal. Get what I'm driving at? Even the word of the best expert in the world remains as good as a guess by a beginner if there is no hard evidence.

The reason prehaps the rest seem to be so devastatingly effective on your points and your ego is that they did exactly that. Instead of trying to draw untestable and therefore uncertain information from a fossil, they've based their arguments on hard, solid ground. Quoting an expert is good, but standing on hard evidence is even better, no matter what an expert insists is not going to make a grey elephant white.

I'm afraid that your attackers have decided to stand on hard ground, by questioning the big prey and pack hunting theory via statically based lack of evidence, common physiology, and common sense. These things are hardly deniable by no matter how strong the word of a expert. Even my lecturer would have been proud of the case they constructed, had he read all this. (but I think he'll disapprove of them swarming you)

And not only that, they've attacked your main line of defense, which is via what the fossils of the raptors themselves tell us, by proposing alternative ideas and finding flaws in yours. I suggest you stop scolding them and engage them at the same game, finding non-equivocal evidence to support your case. Look, take a look at what the raptor skeleton can tell us and you'll notice that most of the evidence on their bodies is equivocal, non supporting or denying your idea. That's good, but to build a case, you must find evidence that utterly screams your case, not one that agrees one moment with you, and later to an alternative idea.

I'm not trying to condone what the rest did to you, trying to oppress you or what, but I'll be telling a lie if I said that because of that, you argued a better case. They did, and I cannot deny that.
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Another idea for the fanfic section. Could you put up a header telling us what was the most recent addition?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001
Good idea. It's up. JC

May I also add, the whole theory about T.Rex and his "nasty bite" is all in speculation too, so you cant rear that one up about how deadly T.rex is anymore. Not to mention it is now fact smilodon bit through the throat of prey to severe blood vessels and windpipe, and with teeth like that, he could have taken prey bigger than himself, even compared to lions, not to mention smilodon has been found in large numbers, ahhh but before you say anything, dont forget the dire wolf. Were they both loners? Packers? And you do not need to use overly sophisticated words to win your argument, that just shows ignorance man.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

HonkieTong, you do not have to talk down to others and finish it off with a thanks. Speaking of unscientific, thats just ignorant. What bothers me about you is you never tell me where you get this information, Im not doubting you, just curious.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Chandler, thats what Ive been trying to say about "raptors" for a long time, and people try to shoot down eveyrthing I say, but not what you say. Is it how you say it, or is it your just known better on this thing??? I guess you dont have a "pack" forming around you, huh?
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Also, Levine's and Honkie Tong's ideas DO weigh less than a actual pro, WHY???, he has been in it longer, got his degree, wiser, longer time in the study, more experience, been through and graduated college with this as his major under his belt, wrote books on facts, etc. SOmethings they do say is wrong, but the things they say has a greater degree of truth to it rather than an amateur. I know you just going to disagree with some long speech, but its true no matter what. I guess I may have been wrong about the raptors, but thats ok, Im still an amateur in highschool, busy with much more than paleontology on my time. Lilian T. needs to stop trying to correct me, becuase she never thinks for herself, just agrees with what the majority says in here. Then all the people who keep commenting under constantly changin names, get some guts and post 1 name on here! About the raptors, as far as I know, the foot and hand were more advanced than amost other theropod's for cutting with force, but thats from the foot and metatarsals and forelimbs and manus. Lilian if you want defense, look at something like theriznosaurus, apatosaurus and prosauropod claws...I dont even wanna waste my time talkin to you, what am I doin. Haha.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

Your correct, but notice this is coming from someone who is new to this and is constantly ridiculed when the ridculers dont question each other. It may not be fully scientific, but its a smart thing to do, to accept advice from a amateur rather than a pro is a intelligent thing to do, nonetheless. . Anyway, where did you get the new raptor info and where did you get all this information. Please answer.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 10, 2001

I prefer to avoid even slight rationalization unless I have really solid evidence staring me down the face. Drawing the rationalization that raptors hunted in packs from a few fossils is not a good thing to do. This was the folly of many paleontologists, who presented their "rationalizations" to the media who accepted it as fact!
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 9, 2001

Actually, I don't enjoy shooting down popular ideas. I used to think that it was for sure that the raptors hunted in packs and took on big prey, as we are told. But what I was not aware of until recently was that that idea has not been proven nor is it FACT! It was just somethign that was so exciting that it got repeated so many times by the misguided media and paleontologists that it becomes gosple and accepted as such. As of now, almost anybody you try to convince that there are alternative ideas seem to take it offensively, despite having so little evidence to support their claim. I still think deducing pack behaviour is a little too far to go from a few associated fossils. At the very best, we can assume social behaviour, but never pack behaviour. It's a classic case of over-assumption. Offically, it means pack hunting is not a valid or conclusive theory to draw from these fossils.

Also another thing, and if that's the case, why do people take it that it's CONFIRMED that the raptors went around slaying herbivores in packs?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 9, 2001

I think you got it Chandeler, my objective here is to prove that the idea of pack-hunting, big-prey killing raptors is not any more likely to be correct than other ideas just because its more exciting or popular. But what I learned from the others so far seems to prtove that it's ACTUALLY less likely for the raptors to hunt in packs and take on big prey!

Thus, the debate drags on...
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 9, 2001

I wasn't saying that all deinonychosaurs hunted in packs, and I also wasn't "unitarianizing" or whatever all dinosaurs from one bird-like behavior. That's just one rationalization for the discovery of deinonychosaur skeletons together (as if in a pack, graveyard, disaster, etc.). There's really no point in dragging this any further...we aren't getting anywhere. Honkie, you sure like shooting down popular ideas just because they are "popular" though:) Usually this is a good tactic (hehe) but not always.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 9, 2001

I've noticed that MadHatter has a habit of defining how much "value" a person's words carry based on his position in soceity. That's an unscientific way of doing things. Honkie can be correct and he still will be, no matter how good your "professor" is. If anything, MadHatter, your words probally don't mean as much around here, given they way you do your research. Quit quoting people that agree with you as they migh also be wrong, open your eyes and look at the evidence yourself instead of hiding behind Bakker, Horner, Larson or Cope or Dong Zhiming, they may be wrong.
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Arguments for and against raptors hunting in packs and taking on big prey:

For

. Pack hunting was the only way for the raptors to bring down large prey, thus they must have employed it.

. The raptors all have a very high EQ, making them intelligent, giving them the capacity to work in organized packs.

. The raptors were armed to the teeth in a series of blades and claws, and that would have made them extremely deadly indeed.

. Using comparative anatomy, one can link up the saber tooth cats which brought down large prey, to the raptors, thus, the raptors were capable of killing animals many times their size.

. Fossils of raptors have been associated with fossils of sizable herbivorous dinosaurs, meaning they must have hunted in packs and brought down big prey.

. Bigger raptors like Utahraptor were even deadlier than ever, meaning they could take on even larger prey in a pack.

. The raptors were agile and fast, and were also good jumpers, enabling them to jump onto their prey.

. It is obvious that raptors did hunt in a pack.

Against

. Who says the raptors must have brought down large prey? They could have been content with smaller animals, eliminating the need for a organized pack, a social group maybe.

. EQ is not a conclusive way to determine intelligence. Besides, EQ alone cannot determine behavior, which has to be investigated via hard evidence, not EQ.

. Granted, the raptors do own a impressive set of blade and claws, but were they good for hunting big herbivores? In terms of hunting, no modern day big prey hunter is know to effectively use slashing as a primary way of killing, but rather, going for the neck of the prey with a killing bite. Given their size, it means that even a raptor like Utahraptor would have to clamber up a large animal to go for the neck. One must remember these animals were not static targets, but would certainly rear and buckle and run when attacked. It's safer and equally plausible to assume that the raptors would have used that set of claws against smaller animals.

. One CANNOT link saber tooth cats up with raptors via comparative anatomy for the reason they were different. Saber tooths kill by stabbing and bleeding their prey with their specialized canines, something the raptors do not have. The raptors were slashers and biters, not stabbers. To do a valid comparative anatomy, one has to look at other slasher/biters.

. Finding fossils of dead animals show that they are indeed, very dead. Finding associated fossils do not implicate social behavior anymore than finding a collection of dead flies around a dead rat. Also, that piece of fossil evidence is equivocal, it doesn't tell us convulsively if the raptors were scavenging from an-already-dead animal or killing it. It's another case of drawing the wrong "facts" from too little evidence.

. Certain factors will come into play more when size increases, its simplistic to say that if a Deinonychus
could leap up a meter, then a Utahraptor, being three times the size, would have been able to leap up three meters. This is certainly not true. Big raptors suffer from a much reduced leap capacity due to their weight, which would make us question what its "deadly" foot claws were for if it could not bring them into play as effectively as its smaller counterparts. If anything, Utahraptor if not as deadly as it seems. A Tyrannosaurid design of the same size would have hunted more effectively. Also, there has been absolutely NO evidence to show that Utahraptor did hunt in a pack.

. Widely accepted statements about the agility and the speed of the raptors have been derived from over simplistic study of the raptors. The latest studies seem to indicate that the raptors may not have been as fast as they were though to be nor jump as high. If anything, the raptors seem to have the most limited maximum speed for their weight class of any carnivorous dinosaur. New estimates of their jump capacity are also much reduced from the original estimates.

. Once again, there has been no solid evidence indicating pack behavior. Pack behavior is truly complex and cannot be simply equated with raptors based on scant study. The raptors probably had some sort of social life, but the question remains if they did hunt in organized packs. If they did, the evidence should smack us across the face, instead of us poring over every single bit of bone to find anything even vaguely supporting the notion. It's time to let the evidence speak out for themselves.
from F Denota, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

In his book _Dinosaurs - the Textbook_, Spencer G. Lucas argues
violently that dromaeosaurids lived in "packs", but that there is no
evidence that they lived in "herds". He must know something about the
deeper meanings of these words that we don't.

The jury is still out on the question of the advantages of pack
hunting insects. Smaller dromaeosaurids, feeding on lizards and
insects, might still have stuck together in groups because they
couldn't think of anything smarter to do. Fish do it.

There is this theory stating that the extinction of the dinosaurs
was due to murderous packs of giant raptors becoming so effective
that they ate just about everyone else before disappearing out in
space. It's still under some debate what propulsion system they used
for their rocket ships. I love it when dromaeosaurid fans take their theories to the extreme;-)

Anyway, I guess its hard to prove either way, because big prey hunting and pack hunting is behaviour that is impossible to tell for certain just from the fossils. Finding trackways of a group of dromaeosaurids still dosen't prove pack hunting, just that they were social.

Of course, the changing face of paleontology has quite changed our view of the raptors, they were not as fast or as smart as previously thought, they were no longer the king predators (before Horner, some people suggested that they might have stolen kills from Tyrannosaurids by chasing them away...of course, everybody assumed at that time that Tyrannosaurids were mainly solitary). One thing I can be sure of is that the dromaeosaurids did hang around one another in some species, but stayed alone in others. The sickle claw could have more likely served some kind of a defensive function instead of a hunting one.

But one must know and accept that any theories for pack hunting is based on at best, equivocal, no matter how popular these theories may be. You can argue as violently as you want, but your argument is only as good as your evidence. There is also a serious lack of evidence showing unsucessful big prey hunting that could finally put this to rest.

As much as you would like to argue Madhatter, there simply just is a lack of evidence showing big prey hunting. What makes so so certain that Velociraptor hunted Protoceratops? Why haven't we found evidence of that?
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Eagles do not hunt anything that they can't carry off, making them small prey hunters. Thanks.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

What I'm trying to do here is not to absolutely prove that the raptors were big prey hunters, but that it was not necessary true that they hunted big prey or that they hunted in packs.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Well, if you assume the raptors were big prey hunters, than the early Tyrannosaurids must have done better as they overrode the raptors and forced them to the sidelines by the late cretacous.
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

A serious lack of scientific courtesy over here, if I wanted to debunk Einstein when he suggested that it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, would I say "Newton was a bigger guy than you, and he said that speed can increase with no limit. What he says carries more weight than you, so what you say is not as important."

YOU DO NOT QUOTE PALEONTOLOGIST PROFESSORS AND USE THEM TO DISCREDIT PEOPLE NOT AGREEING WITH YOU. STOP PICK AND MIXING YOUR VIEWS! THAT'S UNSCIENTIFIC!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Well, I for my part do not assmume that they did not hunt in packs, but I figured its not any less likely than them hunting in packs. The problem arises when there is a serious dirth of good evidence supporting the pack hunting theory. Most of the good evidence we've found so far seem to support solitary behaviour in the animals, while that supporting pack hunting is yet to come up with anything good.

I don't think pack hunting was necessary to raptor behaviour had they went around alone, terrorising smaller animals, which they would have done well. I find it odd that people assume that they must have hunted in packs when it's not necessary so! Not to mention we have so little evidence to support pack hunting! How did you draw up that idea at all? Do your points lack null intergity?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

I'll do it this time Levine,

Well Chandeler, I don't think its too good to describe raptor behaviour via modern birds. Because...

What you are doing here is actually using the well known
Principle of Uniformitarianism. This means what is happening now happened way back when too. Since taking in flocks happens now in birds, it seems relatively safe to assume that it occurred back in the Mesozoic via the raptors as well...

Yikes!!! No! Once again, flag called on account of misue of the Principle of Uniformitarianism! (That principle is normally used in conjunction with geologic processes, and not biological ones, anyway).

It is NOT safe to assume that all behaviors found in the modern world were present in earlier times. Heck, you could then argue "domestication occurs in the Holocene, therefore early primates (non Homo sapien) domesticated animals too!".

For complex behaviors, or behaviors currently restricted to a single clade like hunting big prey,you cannot just assume they were present at any earlier time. If you are proposing unusual (derived or complex) behaviors for some fossil form, you should back it up with some sort of testable or supporting evidence (morphological structures which correlate with that behavoir; phylogenetic bracketing; good old fashioned taphomony (can't be beat!); etc.).

Thank you.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Those leg claws? Well, they remind me of defensive structures. They were mounted on the end of a mispropotioned leg to facilate their use. Not to mention that Trodoon, (a non big prey hunter) had them too. They probally used them for defence, like that fossil shows. The Velociraptor was defending itself. Those claws were good for defence, not offence.
from Lilian T., age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

You still don't get it do you? Anything said in paleontology by no matter how experienced a proffessor is fair game as paleontology is not fixed. Nothing that professor said will carry more weight than what Honkie or Levine said for the simple reason that there are no rules in paleontology. You can be the best paleontologist in the world but still be beat by a nine year old on a certain subject. So did I immediately assume that T.Rex was a scavenger the moment Horner said so just because waht he says matters more than others? Seesh, this is science, not politics. I don't care what Horner or Bakker says, as long as its not fact but specualtion or ideas, its open to attack.

Yes, I do think that the size of prey varies with the predator, but ah, that's a equivocal statement your proffesor made. If you ask me, it carries no weight as it does not support nor deny the big prey theory at all. Do you mind, stop using these equivocals to confuse people?

We're looking at very varied weight difference here you know, from 12 times your weight to 300 times. Even the most the saber-tooths managed was prey 10 times their size, and they were using all their specialized stabbing equipment. Heck, if what you say is true, I'd expect to see crows killing an elephant. Size does matter, there is a pratical limit to the difference in size between the predator and prey.

Anyway, Megaraptor is NOT a RAPTOR AT ALL! Raptors do not include species like Troodon or Unenlagia! As desperately as you would like to enlist Megaraptor into the "raptors", modern paleontology refuses that. Anyway, I can't figure why Megaraptor should be a raptor at all,metatarsals all wrong, pubis too ventral, ischium lacking a proper obturator, and long bones much too light. And the skull's palatal was too thick, antorbital fenestrae too rostral, distal carina too small, not to mention the trenchant ungual was hardly present…oh, the list goes on. I didn't know what you are thinking, but Megaraptor is certainly not a raptor.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

I suppose you should be careful in using the term "raptor". Megaraptor was not really closely related to the dromaeosaurids at all. From what I study, the term "raptor" refers to the dromaeosaurids, not inclusive of protot-ungulates, troodonts or anything else. Heck, if you really wanted to do your classification this way, all of Tyrannosauria would be included under "raptor" too. Now, the term "raptor" describes a group in Coelurosauria called Dromaeosauridae of which Utahraptor was the largest. That's as offical a defination I can give you for the term "raptor", use your cladistics and you'll see your error in your eariler post describing "raptor"

And yes, if you ask me, I do think that any compairism with Tyrannosaurus, though in the sprit of competion, does hold some water. If you ask me, I personally feel more effort has been put into to make sure no stone has been left unturned to get a clear picture of Tyrannosaurus. When we look at the raptors, there is a serious dirth of real research into looking into the equally pausable ideas that they may have been small-prey hunters.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say less well rounded, but my suspision is, the raptors did not have to use their arsenal of claws on anything larger than a small, two-meter dinosaur. All they would have done is to hould onto the prey with their forelimbs and bite it with their jaws, finishing it in very short order. You can't expect to do this to larger prey though.

Surprisingly, the utility of the sickle claws are diminished as size increases. A Utahraptor can barely leap due to its weight, to bring its leg claws into use. (Not that I think Megaraaptor is a raptor, but he would have been even less capable of doing so) So these claws, if present in the larger species, seem not to have a killing role.
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

For the last time, GOODNESS GRACIOUS,MEGARAPTOR IS NOT A dromaeosaur. "Raptor" refers to members of the dromaeosaur family, don't make up your own definations. The offical defination for the term "raptor" in paleontology refers either to modern day birds or prey or the members of the True dromaeosaur family. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. Troodon was not a "raptor", niether was Megaraptor.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Yes there are huge raptors. A raptor is a dromaeosaur or something related, like Troodon or Unenlagia. Ive noticed some obessiveness about how much better T.Rex is when Im not even talking about him. This shows me that its more about, who "we think is cooler" type stuff and a put down of who we dont like. Raptors werent like they were portrayed in the media, no, but they were just as capable as any other theropod. Eagles arent the most buff animals, yet they are deadly enough, and this is with land animals and even animals larger than themselves. Raptors were ambushers and grapple/slashers. THey had a good reach, large claws, and in the early cretaceous, raptors were large predators. Those claws were used, and it is shown that in the mongolian fossils, the raptor was kicking with its feet and clawing the face. They were less powerful and kickboxer like than I thought, but they were still very capable predators, not another meal on the food chain.Now on to my "educated guesses." First, it's difficult to imagine that dromaeosaur ("raptor") dinosaurs did not slash with their claws. Of course, many dinosaurs used their claws for stability and traction (think of golf shoe cleats). Certainly raptor claws served this purpose to some extent. However, and especially in the case of raptors, their specialized, retractable "killing" claw must surely have been used as its name implies. What else would a 14" Megaraptor claw (held above the ground while the dinosaur walked) be used for?

The questions about jumping ability and and strength are a bit trickier to answer with authority. Knowledge of either attribute must be based on a surprisingly detailed knowledge of the animal's skeletal and muscle engineering. Of course, this isn't always clear from poorly are partially preserved skeletons and these are the sorts of issues that could only truly be enlightened by observing the living dinosaur. That said, we can see many similarities in skeletons of modern day predators. And the best analogy to raptor dinosaurs is probably the "raptor" birds like hawks and eagles. If these comparisons tell us anything, then we may deduce that while dromaeosaurs, like eagles, were not strong compared to T. rex or Brachiosaurus or Blue Whales, they no doubt possessed profound agility for capturing prey.

As to size of prey, this probably varied with the predator. .
This has been answered by a paleontologist, professor, which means, what he says is more than anything honkietong and levine say... "not to diss you levine, your the man"
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

There are no "huge" "raptors." _Utahraptor_ is the largest known, like it or not, at 20 feet. _Megaraptor_ probably is not even deinonychosaurian at all, but some deinonychosaurs like _Achillobator_ may have been larger than _Utahraptor_. But no "raptor" exceeded 25 feet and/or could compete with larger predators for larger prey. I do believe that some deinonychosaurs did hunt in packs though, but they certainly didn't hunt extremely large prey. But some of the assumptions about deinonychosaurs not being able to hunt in groups and attack _Iguanodon_-sized animals are just strange. Raptors were built solidly for their size with a well-reinforced ribcage and I don't think that a fall from an iguanodont would really be a problem in all honesty. It's the iguanodont trampling the predators that would be the most dangerous part about hunting. And as for pack hunting, it is usually associated with advanced intelligence but as Gregory Paul says, the connection between brain size and predation is not clear, and therefore the connection between brain size and hunting behavior is not clear. Raptors could have very well developed advanced hunting techniques. Birds gather in flocks (not to hunt however) so dinosaurs probably exhibited similar behavior for hunting. Maybe the tribe, pack, pride, or whatever you want to call it in dinosaurs is ancestral to the condition in birds.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

I dont think you guys know how hard Ive tried to find recent information on the raptors, and for me its really really hard. The newest stuff I can find is from 1999 about Megaraptor. Then you guys have more time than I do to find stuff, I dont have that much time, but I try. Thats about it. If raptors used grapple and slash, why were theyre claws less rounded??? Easier slashing? Please answer Levine/
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT LATE CRETACEOUS RAPTORS! Damn. You keep insisting the ones around with T.rex. Stop being so damn obsessed with T.rex alright. It gets old quick. Im saying, what about the raptors in the early cretaceous??? The huge ones who could compete with larger predators who werent much larger, like the acrocanthosaurus? The allosaurs of Gondwana? How did raptors do then? Not late cretaceous.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Erratom notice:

I typed:
"Anyway, comapirative anatomy helps us to derive function, not behaviour. Most of your "compairative anatomy" arguments seem to describe FUNCTION. That's not a good or correct way to use compairative anatomy."

It should have been
"Anyway, comapirative anatomy helps us to derive function, not behaviour. Most of your "compairative anatomy" arguments seem to describe BEHAVIOUR. That's not a good or correct way to use compairative anatomy."

Thank you.

(Don't get my post mixed up with Honkie's, where's the line?"
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001
I fixed the line and changed the text. JC

Mad Hatter, don't you think Levine and Billy Macdraw have made a compelling case AGAINST the raptors being pack-hunting, big prey hunters? They seem to have done an in-dept restudy of the raptors, more than any raptor fan I have seen to do.

Don't you think you shoud revise the way you think about the raptors too? Do your ideas hold water? Are they based on conclusive or equivocal evidence? Are they testable? Are they repeatable by other researchers? Are they falsifiable and do they have predictive power? Most of our old ideas on raptordom fail all these tests miserably, hence the current revision undergoing raptors now. The new crop of budding paleontologists now question, instead of accept many ideas about the raptors for the simple fact they were not fact! It's NOT a fact that the raptors were hard hitters, it's NOT a fact they hunted in packs, it's NOT a fact they must have been big prey hunters. Now, the reason being that these ideas remain as ideas and should not be mixed up as fact. Because to be fact, your ideas have to pass the forementioned tests, something they have yet to do. If anything, it seems that the contray ideas about the raptors are gaining ground.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Mad Hatter, it dosen't matter if the raptors were hard hitters or not, they simply lacked the right methods and weapons to bring down large prey. Raptors seem to employ a grapple and slash method, much like modern day eagles, which kill their prey by grappeling them and then tearning them apart with their talons. Modern big cats employ a different method with different tools, of of which a raptor could not have done.

Besides, the grapple and slash method is useful for disabling animals about your size rapidly, but is virtually useless against bigger animals capable of absorbing more damage. So I don't see any reason why the raptors would have been best suited to hunt big prey. If they did, it would not have been their usual mode, not even for Utahraptor.
from Lillian T., age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 8, 2001

Well, Madhatter, you have sadi that "many" paleontologists have used "compairative anatomy" to link raptors and cats, once again, this is not true. From what I know, only Bakker is known to do that, and he names it an "antology" not conclusive "compairative anatomy".

Anyway, comapirative anatomy helps us to derive function, not behaviour. Most of your "compairative anatomy" arguments seem to describe behavior. That's not a good or correct way to use compairative anatomy.

What you are doing here is actually using the well known
Principle of Uniformitarianism. This means what is happening now happened way back when too. Since hunting big prey goes on now in big cats, it seems relatively safe to assume that it occurred back in the Mesozoic via the raptors as well...

Yikes!!! No! Once again, flag called on account of misue of the Principle of Uniformitarianism! (That principle is normally used in conjunction with geologic processes, and not biological ones, anyway).

It is NOT safe to assume that all behaviors found in the modern world were present in earlier times. Heck, you could then argue "domestication occurs in the Holocene, therefor Late Cretaceous coelurosaurs domesticated Late K Asian protot-ungulates".

For complex behaviors, or behaviors currently restricted to a single clade like hunting big prey,you cannot just assume they were present at any earlier time. If you are proposing unusual (derived or complex) behaviors for some fossil form, you should back it up with some sort of testable or supporting evidence (morphological structures which correlate with that behavoir; phylogenetic bracketing; good old fashioned taphomony (can't be beat!); etc.).

Anyway, there is no strong similarity between the raptors and the big cats, so no, campairative anatomy and the Principle of Uniformitarianism cannot be used to support your claims. The raptors were no hard hitters, and no, I don't think they could be alikened to arboreal carnivores too.

But then again, I have no idea why you keep insisting a raptor HAS to take on big prey. There were a lot of other genera of dinosauria that were smaller, safer, and easier to catch than the big herbivores, not to mention exploting these food sources, the raptors worry little about direct competition from the big carnivores (aka.T.Rex). If you ask me, the raptor design seems to exploit this, their design is not really what you'll expect for a big prey hunter. Poor jumpers with great acceleration but a moderate speed. Not to mention an inability to inflict a magitude of damage on the target. These animals took mostly prey their size or smaller, not bigger.
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ? January 8, 2001

I, too, have never ceased to be amazed by the incredulus claims made by certain paleontologists on the raptors.

I must admit that some of these claims are so convincing, that faced with a constant barage of them, one becomes more and more inclined to believe them.

Also, one is tempted to believe them precisely becasue they tell us what we want to believe- that the raptors were the deadilest, pack hunting, fast and clean killers of big animals.

Restraint and rational rethinking of the evidence are the bane of any urban lifestyle, Hence, these paleontologists either avoid mentioning these essentials, or present them reluctantly in fine print, often without emphasis.

Advising overzealous individuals on thinking about the raptors sensibly has thus become a gargantuan task.

Often, they seek a incredible and incredulous word from paleontologists to rid themselves of any doubts, failing to be convinced that their original ideas need to be thought through slowly and nonommiting contradictory evidence that may help them to achive a accucrate picture.

I'm also troubled by people who scream: "Come on, its obvious raptors were big prey hunters, just look at the claws, they were hard hitters!"

It's ridiculous to exhort a statement like this for such superfical reasons.

Our society must not adopt the compulsion to accept ideas about dinosaurs based on how cosmetic, romantic or exciting they may be, ommiting the fact that these ideas may have been based on sketchy or fragmentory or equivocal evidence.

Rather, the priority should be to achive a rational, detailed and nonommiting approach to dinosaurs and attain an accucrate view of them by questioning, not accepting exciting ideas.

Sad to say, there is no shortcut to effectively obtaining even a vaguely correct view of the raptors.

Looking at Tyrannosaurus, much ink had been spilled and many a fossil have been studied and debated into finally putting him up as a powerful predator with keen senses with some form of social behaviour decended from the Coelurosaurs, as opposed the simple and widely-accepted old theory of it being a slow, solitary scavenger with poor eyesight decended from the Carnosaurs. One can just see the great difference that can be put up once ideas are put aside and the evidence restudied in even greater detail. Needless to say, the new ideas about T.Rex were not popular at first, but have now emerged as the shining glory of detailed paleontological work.

Looking at the raptors, one cannot but must notice the great difference in the amount of work done restudying the evidence. We seem to have gone so far on vague and sketchy evidence that we have forgotten to restudy the evidence at hand and draw new and more accucrate evidence from it. Granted, if we did so, the new, and more accucrate image of the raptors will be extemely different indeed.

But do people want it that way? Maybe we don't, maybe we prefer to think of the raptors as the superefficent movie-monsters they so vividly represent in our minds. Any other idea or approach may be considered heretical or offensive. We don't want to change our way, we don't want to look at things from a clearer point of view, we hate and detest the paradigm shift.

But that we cannot avoid, it will happen, even as we contuine to support our cherished ideas about the raptors, the true fossils sit in the musuem and scream out for somebody to take another look at them, a closer look.

And like T.Rex, our old ideas about the raptors will be forcefully, painfully changed, just like the changes, Newton, Einstein and Lorenz have bestowed upond us. The paradigm will shift.

It's almost paradigm and our old ideas about the raptors will not matter, for everything looks different, on the other side.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

My, you seemed to have convinced yourself that it is unavoidable to classify raptors as hunters of big prey, have you not?

Well, tell me why you think so and I'll give you alternative or contradictary theories based on fact, are you game?
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Arboreal, are you suggesting raptors could climb trees? Unlikely man, they'll kill themselves. And yes, Megaraptor is not a raptor.

Anyway, I don't think Utahraptor was a big prey hunter, it looks the sort to take on Hypsilophodon, not a Iguanadon. And yes, Levine is correct, the raptors lack the porper equipment to take on large prey. And no, it's not obvious from the bodies of the raptors that they were large prey hunters, it seems to point in the opposite direction, given that they most likely did not hunt in packs.
from Lillian Tay, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Gee, I don't see baboons taking on wildebeast. What makes you so sure they hunted in packs anyway? Based on evidence that points both ways? Tsk tsk tsk.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Well, I got the info from my local musuem paleontologist. Levin also helps, he studies paleontology and zoology if I'm not wrong. Soem of my deductions were also based on my basic understanding of biology.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Quite accucrate. A machine gun stands a marginal chance of destroying a jeep, even if you have a number of them. What you need is something that deals a lot of damage to a single location, like an anti-tank rocket.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Well, for one thing, Megaraptor was not a raptor.

Well, hunting big prey needs a lot of specialization, and its those adaptions I fail to see in the raptors. It had no stabbing equipment it could use to disable big prey rapidly or bleed it to death. As for Utahraptor, I do know that its unlikely for one to sucessfully bring down a Iguanadon by itself...not to mention they did not hunt in packs.

Another thing, what is seemingly obvious in paleontology is usually not correct. We used to think that the dome-headed dinosaurs directly butted heads, but that idea is wrong of course. Now, revising what we do know about the raptors seem to tell us that the raptors do not and cannot kick well, run extremely fast, hunted in packs, nor jump really high.
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Billy Macdraw, I happened to see that you said something like: "Raptors attacking an iguanadon would be like someone using naplam on a tank." I think that it would be more like using machine guns on a jeep. Also, I think that raptors COULD twist and swerve in mid air. Don't think that I thought that you were referring to me in the post, but I think that you have no idea what raptors were really like.
from JOE BOB B., age 10, Menlo Park, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Josh, a 5 foot tall raptor can not compete to a tyrannosaurus Rex, but compare them of the same size. Of course, T.rex is more deadly, but try albertosaurus, or something like alioramus, with slender knife teeth. Cut down on the hostility son. If raptors werent kickers, than they may have been something like baboons(highly carnivorous kind) or arboreal carnivores. But then comes things like Megaraptor and Utahraptor. What were they then. Just giant snacks? I doubt that. Too heavy to be arboreal also. Billy, waht you say about raptors, where did you get the info?
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Hmm...I'm not sure if the raptor were heavy hitters, they lack a serious amount of oral firepower. What a raptor would have done at best would be to give an animal a lot of shallow but wide lacerations, certainly not as "heavy" as a 3 foot wide, 4 foot long and 1.5 foot deep Tyrannosaurus bite.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Well, I do think that the raptors would have been extremely nasty to small prey like a bipedial primate like me, but they have the wrong type of tools for bringing down large animals! You can't just look at a raptor and see how much firepower it has and assume it could kill Iguanadon. It had all the wrong equipment! It had a serious lack of penetrating surgical equipment.

You knwo what, I think most people have an unrealistic view of the raptors, they think it to be too nasty.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

What do you mean by "clean"? Do you mean efficent or what? I donno, if the raptors did attack a Iguanadon, it would ahve been anything but fast and clean. They would have taken a long time (if they could) to bring down that 7 tonner by their slashing(if they could again) It would have been messy and cost the lives of a few raptors too. Given all that, I suppose a Tyrannosaurus coming in to kill its prey with a single shoveling bite would have been "faster" and "cleaner"

It also puzzles me that you can deduce so much about raptor behaviour from their bones, and be sure about it. If you ask me, Bill's deduction seems more rational and less "movie-logik"
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

"Scum?" I don't think any type of survival behaviour an animal employs can be defined as "scum". Other than that, I tend agree with you.

Madhatter, you do have a few misconceptions to clean up, firstly, I'd like to establish that ganging up on somebody here is what I would define as "scum" and I would certainly not agree with it, nor take part in it. I hope you do absolve me of ganging up on you.

Secondly, I do have a reason for suggesting why Bill may be right that the raptors may not mave been "hard hitters". The answer tends to lie in their legs. Now, of all their equipment, its their sickle claw that tends to transfix us to "assume" that they would have used it to very deadily means in hunting instead. But, I would like to offically denounce that "fact" here.

Well, if you look at the legs of many kicking birds today, you'd notice that they tend to have extremely long tibia that are longer or at least the same length of their femurs. The reason is this allows their legs to draw on circular velocity to put up an incredible force while kicking. But raptors seem to have the opposite arrangment, they have extremely short tibia and conversely long femurs. This would have given them great acceleration, but would have also limited their maximum speed and their ability to kick. A modern day ostrich would have outkicked a Deinonychus antirrhopus anytime. Which is odd, considering that the best way for them to employ their sickle foot claws against big animals is to kick hard and open a wound. So waht were their claws for? Well, considering the idea that they may have been prey for larger carnivorous dinosaurs, the claw could have been a good deterent. The sickle claw was certainly useful for defence where you don't have to kill your attacker , but merely deter him from attacking, hence the non-need for a overly powerful kick. Those claws could ahve been useful for pinning down smaller animals in the same way that modern day raptors use their talons to. But considering the fact that they could not have POSSIBLY used their sickle claws in general offence tends to limit their firepower to their claws.

Also, jumping animals also have slender and long tibia and short femurs to optimize thier ability to leap, raptors have the opposite limb configuration. Whatever it was, they were not jumpers nor leapers. Their feet seemed to give them on-the-ground agility and acceleration, not extreme seed, kicking ability nor jump capacity. So that would have limited them to attacking with their formidibly equipped forelimbs. Formidible, but not as deadily as once presumed.

Also, I believe the term "compairative anatomy" has been badly misused by many paleontologists (I'm afraid even Bakker). The underlying premise of compairative anatomy by all my zoology textbooks is " similar in form, similar in function". A basic rule that seems to have been ignored by many paleontologists who lump raptors with modern day hunting cats. NO, they were NOT similar in form, nor function. If you choose to believe them, you're going by very poor scientific methods. The methods of hunting cats can never be linked to raptors, nor would I aliken their niche to hunting cats. One forgets that hunting cats do not have 6-ton superpredators to live around with. No, Madhatter, the cat-raptor link cannot and will not hold. Besides, cats don't attack primarily with their claws (which the raptors do) they do so with their well adapted canines. An adaption I have yet to see in a raptor. No, we cannot link raptors to cats, not if you want an accucrate and correct picture of them anyway.

What makes you so sure a Velociraptor could commonly bring down a Protoceratops anyway? Have we found evidence of predation of full grown Protoceratops adults by Velociraptor? (No, not the combat fossil!) No, we have not. Raptors seem to remind me of Johnny Rook, a modern raptor that behaves more like a crow than a falcon.
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 7, 2001

Billy, raptors were heavy hitters in the same way cats are. Raptors could take anything from a shrew to something 35% larger(protoceratoprs). Seeing raptors as "scum" is simply JUST your opinion and what you wish. I dont show favoritism to any dinosaur, I love them all equally, but my top favs are Megalosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Its just you fail to realize how nasty a raptor could be, thats what I dont like. What else I dont like is the grouping up and lack of respect for me. Just because Im new doesnt mean I dont know anything. Raptors were not like foxes or jackals or something in that area. They were most like cats, like cougars and such, not to mention comparative anatomy is used by most paleontologists and is used to help reconstruct the lives of all dinosaurs and prehistoric animals. Raptors were very deadly animals that were built for fast clean kills and ambush. Whether they did this alone or in groups, we will have to wait for more evidence. The only "scum" as you call it were troodontids, carnivorous reptiles and mammals and other small dinosaurs. I doubt iguanodon wouldve laughed a raptor off, but watched it carefully, in the nesting season. Now something like utahraptor wouldve been looked at differently.
from MadHatter, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 6, 2001

I differ from your view Mad Hatter, the raptors do seem to have alot of firepower for their size, but it seems to be more of the wrong type of firepower. For instance, you don't use naplam on tanks. I don't think its good to compair raptors with saber tooths as saber tooths rely more on precise application of massive localized damage to kill. They'll be pretty useless stabbing into the flanks of a pachyderm. If anything, the saber tooth's method of massive localized damage to a precise point seems to resemble more that of Tyrannosaurus than the raptors. Heavy claws? I don't think so, Hard hitters? Unlikely. You seem to have a skewed "superman" view of the raptors. Really, I do not think they jumped and swerved and kicked and slashed their prey to death. In jurassic park, maybe. The raptors seem to match more that of a small prey hunter, if you ask me, the low down scum that plundered the nest of other dinosaurs for the helpless young. That's a more realistic view of the raptors. A Iguanadon would probally laugh off a raptor attempt on its life the way an elephant laughs off cheetahs.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

I'd like to add further clearance on my post, what I'm trying to say is that the raptors could wound "terribly" but they could not wound "effectively". What's the point of giving an Iguanadon a lot of nasty gashes that will not bring him down? To bring down a large herbivore in those times, you need the smash-mouth tatics of Tyrannosaurus, not a series of sickle blades used to carve repeatedly away at your target.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

The Tenontosaurus you are refering to, a small subadult supposed to have been killed by the Deinonychus. Well, there are signs of another larger predator doing the job for them. Personally, that fossil also shows the wide and low density of bitemarks associated with scavenging. Chandeler, that fossil points to scavenging by Deinonychus, not hunting!
from Levine, age 25, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

I share Honkie's view. As what Levine would say, a lot of our raptor ideas lack "null intergity" they appear to overlook alternative explinations and contradictory evidence. I also find it rather strange when people say that it was obvious the raptors were big prey hunters, but to all my knowledge of biology, the raptors don't seem to hold up well as big prey hunters.

Firstly, if your prey is going to be many times your mass, you do not have a prayer in hell of bringing it down simply by clawing and slashing at it. You'll have to strike precisely and at a weak spot, say a neck or something. Now, Saber-Toothed cats seemed to acomplisish this rather well by bringing down their prey by stabbing them in the neck with their fangs.

Now, if you ask me, raptors seem to lack the specialized equipment for bringing down large prey, as deadily as they might seem. They don't have any stabbing equipment or such. What they do have is slashing equipment. Which is ill-suited for killing big prey. Slashing repeatedly at a 5-ton herbivore will hardly bring it down. You need to apply a massive amount of damage to one area, which the raptors cannot do, even in numbers. Giving a herbivore a shallow gash will not do to kill it.

All in all, if I look at the raptor body plan, it seems anything BUT a hunter of big prey. It's easier to imagine raptors been drawn like flies to a stinking carcass of a 5-ton herbivore killed earlier by a larger dinosaur than to imagine them actually trying in their opuny ways to kill it. But what do you know, 70 millions years later, some overzealous paleontologist digs all this up and assumes that it was the raptors who did the job. What if we one day found a fossil of a gigantic sauropod with raptor bite marks on it, would we arrive at the same idea that the raptors killed it? I didn't think so. So yes, it seems to go against evidence and logic that the raptors were big prey hunters.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

I understand Chandeler, but what surprises me is why we say that that must have BEEN evidence of an attack. That could also have been scavenging of a already dead Tenontosaurus. What that could really consluvely prove pradatory behaviour is evidence of a miss or a failed attack. Now, we know that the raptors certainly did not have a 100 percent sucess rate in hunting, so given the 35 million years they've been around, we should be able to find alot of evidence of failed attacks on their supposed prey. What confuses me is why we find more evidence of attacks on large animals from T.Rex, a single species of Tyrannosaurid that has only been around for 5 million years. It amazes me when we say that finding shed teeth associated with the remains of an animal MUST have been evidence of an attack. Unhealed bite marks and shed teeth are hardly good evidence on thier own, we need more.

Maybe one day some person who stumbles across an elephant carcass with bite marks from a group of jackals, I wonder if he was going by the same logic, would he conclude that the jackals bought down the elephant? I hope you see my point. I don't want equivocal evidence -- not supporting or rejecting our hypotheses, I want somethiong more "solid."

To my knowledge there has been no such evidence, could you enlighten me?
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

Honkie about your reply to my _Tenontosaurus_ v. _Deinonychus_ post...
The fossil evidence I was talking about did show injury marks to the _Tenontosaurus_ and ONLY teeth were discovered, no _Deinonychus_ skeletons. That means the predators only lost teeth during the attack, and perhaps not their lives. I'm not saying that _Deinonychus_ always hunted this way or anything like that, I'm only giving facts. _Tenontosaurus_ skeletons have been discovered with other dead _Deinonychus_, so maybe both sides of the argument are correct.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

Honkie about your reply to my _Tenontosaurus_ v. _Deinonychus_ post...
The fossil evidence I was talking about did show injury marks to the _Tenontosaurus_ and ONLY teeth were discovered, no _Deinonychus_ skeletons. That means the predators only lost teeth during the attack, and perhaps not their lives. I'm not saying that _Deinonychus_ always hunted this way or anything like that, I'm only giving facts. _Tenontosaurus_ skeletons have been discovered with other dead _Deinonychus_, so maybe both sides of the argument are correct.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; January 5, 2001

Sorry Mad Hatter, but I don't buy that suggestion. Well, T.Rex was probally at the top of its food chain anywhere it went. And I certainly think it would be pretty stupid not to eat any carrion if it came across it. Another thing, what I do find puzzling is that most people assume that the raptors do not scavenge, which I find odd. If you ask me, raptors probally scavenged as much as T.Rex. About T.Imperator, I'd prefer to put it under "Tyrannosaurid" we're still not sure if it was a rex or another subspecies. "Imperator" came from a place well know for extra-sized rexes, so there is a probability it might be T.Rex. The problem with imperator was that its pretty well buried. But currently, Horner has found and is currently excavating 5 comfirmed T.Rex specimens that are "Imperator" sized. So I figure there is a probability that T.Imperator might be a T.Rex.

About the raptors taking down big prey once again, I hardly find a strong case for it. We can't deduce what the raptor ate just by looking at the skeleton, that's indirect. What I'm looking for is evidence of failed attacks on large prey. A lodged tooth in a hip or something. This is odd, considering that the raptors have been around much longer than T.Rex, we should have found more evidence of failed attacks than we do in T.Rex. So far, no signs of failed attacks by raptors have been found. So you can see why the big prey argument is wearing thin. About Tyrannosaurus being a hunter, well, I was intrugied by Leonard's description of a defensive bite, the damaged Edmontodsaur tail and best, a T.Rex tooth fragment stinking out of a Edmontosaur hip. I guess this pretty much proves T.Rex as much a hunter/scavenger today as the modern day lion.

Now, lets look at the smaller raptors, the Velociraptors, I figure many people tell you that Protoceratops was pretty much common prey for Velociraptor, but once again, evidence of healed failed attacks is totally absent. Before you mention that Protoceratops VS Velociraptor fossil, one must note that we are looking for predation, not fights to the death. Now, not finding any evidence of Velociraptor preying on Protoceratops (which is about 4 times their mass) proves pretty conclusively that Velociraptor did not take on prey bigger than themselves, why? Because Protoceratops fossils are extremely common. Had they been common prey to Velociraptor, we would have found plenty of healed attacks by now.

What we do find is evidence that Velociraptor was preying on the Protoceratops young, we do have evidence of Velociraptor plundering Protoceratops nests. So this proves pretty well that Velociraptors were not big prey hunters?

How does this carry onto bigger raptors? Well, it does. Considering the fact that the bigger raptors (safe for Utaraptors) were not too much bigger, and bringing down prey which is 300 times their mass, inspires a streach of the imagination. If a Velociraptor does not prey on a Protoceratops just four times its size, would a bigger raptor manage a herbivore 300 tiems its size? The herbivores were by no means weak too. Ever see a roedo? Yep, those raptors must have been spent alot of their attention to holding onto a rearing and buckling 5-ton animal to avoild been thrown off and injured, let alone kill it. If you ask me, the raptors were no super-killers, they were probally only slightly deadiler than other small carnivorous dinosaurs of their size. Big prey? I don't see how. For such a big theory, there is a awful dirth of hard evidence. We do know T.R