>>5114611 A half pound rock thrown by a 130 lb person who isn't sedentary can kill a grizzly bear if it hits them right. I wouldn't go hunting grizzly with a basket of half pound stones, but if you get a troup of early hominids on the savanna and each has a basket of rocks, they'll absolutely drive lions off off kills and fuck up anything that wants to predate on them.
>>5114125 >Gaslight an entire scientific community into thinking a single predator could take over half the niches in an ecosystem. >It takes two decades before scientists realize there was in fact a medium sized predator in Hell Creek. Before I would've said yes but this is too embarrassing in retrospect to let slide now. As an animal Rex is so overhyped it even blinds professionals, which is hilarious to think about. But in terms of pop culture impact yeah, there's not many animals out there which are so infamous their scientific name became the same as their common name.
>>5120930 I mean, given that adults probably lived to like ~30 on average with an upper boundary of ~50 and that they didn't hit maturity until 18 or so it wasn't unreasonable to think that juveniles and sub-adults dominated the medium niche as well.
>muh Nanotyrannus Yes yes it's valid but the confusion is entirely understandable. IIRC until 1999 nanotyrannus consisted of one (1) juvenile skull and it wasn't even placed into the correct genus until 1988 when it was re-examined.
>But in terms of pop culture impact yeah, there's not many animals out there which are so infamous their scientific name became the same as their common name. Isn't that the case with pretty much everything that doesn't have an existing frame of reference, at least as far as genus goes? "Saber-toothed cats" got the name because they're very similar to the big cats that exist today but with huge curved teeth and the Irish Elk got its name because it was an Elk found in Ireland but there's no frame of reference for Hatzegopteryx or Mosasaurus or even more recent animals like Livyatan.
>>5121733 >and they also carried a Remington 700 with thermal scope, suppressor, and subsonic rounds to take out their prey before they know what hit 'em!
>>5120964 >Yes yes it's valid but the confusion is entirely understandable. IIRC until 1999 nanotyrannus consisted of one (1) juvenile skull and it wasn't even placed into the correct genus until 1988 when it was re-examined. Most of the arguments made in the 2025 Nano paper were actually things we knew already for a long time. Like it's tooth count differing, or it's arms being proportionally bigger. Nano wasn't a dubious taxon due to being only known from meager material, like most of those taxon usually are. There were already insane assumptions on ontogeny that had to be made to justify the synonym argument, like Rex's arms somehow shrinking as it grew. (Which contradicts what we know about vertebrate growth) You could also just compare Hell Creek to other ecosystems we know about to see how absurd the concept was. In the late cretaceous, NA megafauna mirrored Asian megafauna, and in Asia, lightly built tyrannosaurs like Alioramus weren't cucked out of existing because they had to compete with juvenile Tarbosaurus. The very discovery of Bloody Mary should've been the smoking gun that switched everyone to accepting Nano. Instead it took the publishing of a paper over a decade later to change people's minds.
>>5123184 It was, my point was more so that the very knowledge of its existence should’ve put more people in the Nano camp. You don’t need a formal paper published to acknowledge some things. Like how people were talking about “Predator X” long before it was described as a Pliosaurus species. General consensus after Mary should’ve been “well I guess Nano is real and we’re just waiting for the paper to make it official”.
>>5115416 >Cats are not even on the same level as eagles and other large raptors, which are more closely related to T. Rex anyway. Cats combine the best aspects of both prey and predator, at a scale where it works incredibly well. They apparently have just enough cognitive power to function well in isolation and adapt to colony life. If the question is, which predator is deadlier, the answer is us. Rocks and sharpened sticks aren't to be fucked around. If you account for things beside pure hunting/killing potential, cats come back into the running because of their insane reproductive rates. The whole discussion is dumb anyways because it doesn't set any variables. Otherwise its probably some insect or single-cell organism.
>>5126502 why do trannies and other pedophiles have so much vitriol and hate toward dinosaurs, they hate children and happiness and truth that much? just kill yourselves then, please ffs
>>5123184 Many researchers were invited to see it. They didn’t because academics have hang ups and believe they are owed physical ownership of every fossil ever.
>>5114125 Well it is literally the greatest in terms of size (i was going to leave it at that assuming we all know i mean on land but i remembered you are all retarded)
>>5120847 it's not a pasta, he's right. i wouldn't personally want to be in a rock fight with a grizzly bear, but it is undeniably possible to kill a grizzly with a rock
>>5114140 >>5114611 >>5114920 You guys know that if you are holding your ground against an animal, like a dog for example, and scoop your hand on the ground and mime the action of picking up a rock- the animal is conditioned to know to fear this motion alone and will recoil/back away instinctually.