HOME | DD
kustom65 — CRETACEOUS ASSAULT
Published: 2009-05-17 04:45:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 11112; Favourites: 185; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
There was a theory going around a few years ago: a noted paleontologist was putting it about that Tyrannosaurus Rex--one of the most utterly monstrous creatures ever to stride the Earth--was no more than an undignified grovelling scavenger.I disagreed, and was moved strongly to illustrate the point.
Sure, many predators will scavenge if they get the chance, but most of the time they have to hunt. Usually they use the element of surprise, as we see with crocodiles, lions and other cats, eagles, bears, wolves, etc... and as I have shown with T.rex here.
Furthermore, there is always a predator for every grazing animal species, and a TOP predator in every ecosystem. T.rex was the biggest carnivore in its region -- if it wasn't killing the gigantic herbivores, then nothing else could have.
It's fashionable to depict dinosaurs as being very lean, to the point of looking anorexic; but a biped the size of a fully grown T-rex would have required enormous leg muscles in order to lunge from hiding, and to walk at a reasonable pace; powerful legs would also have been necessary to balance the violent flesh-tearing movements of the head and neck during attacks (such as depicted here).
It's unlikely, given its proportions, that the adult creature could have run at appreciable speed -- yet another argument strongly supporting the ambush theory.
I do suspect that younger T.rexes would have been faster runners, and possibly hunted in packs. The monster shown here is an oldtimer, evidently capable of bringing down a Triceratops on its own.
The Attack:
It seems remarkably unlikely that T.rex would have approached Triceratops from the FRONT, although this scenario is often depicted in paintings. It's far more probable that Rex would have lurked in dense foliage and lunged out at the passing horned brute from the side. The Rex in my painting is attempting to pull the trike down for an easier kill; but the trike seems to be responding quickly, wheeling around to gouge his attacker... how will it end?
Related content
Comments: 109
Wow is tah same idea in mine sketch... awesome coincidence...
great work dude
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice work. I've always been fascinated with dinosaurs and the struggle for survival in particular. Lots of energy and action here. Well done!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Unfortunately ideas take a very long time to take hold in science and misconceptions a very long time to be let go despite the evidence. The very name Dinosaur has unduly affected thinking about these creatures - terrible lizard - ergo they have been depicted as a cross between a lizard and a rhino. If you look at a skeleton of a T. rex you will note it is very lightly constructed, despite this fact T. rex is always reconstructed as a very heavy bodied creature, something the skeleton very strongly indicates otherwise. T. rex did not weigh the eight tons ascribed to it, a weight that is based on the incorrect early reconstructions. There is also a trackway in the US of a large predator chasing a sauropod including tracks of the predator lunging at the massive herbivour (I believe the tracks are T. rex but I am working from memory, not the text). Everything about the T. rex indicates a hunter, not a scavenger.
When reconstructing a T. rex think bird, not lizard. The tails on all reconstructions are incorrect, the tail was not thick and lizardlike at its base, it was mounted high as in birds and not thick at the base like a lizard.
T. rex was also feathered, at least one species has been found recently with feathers. Also, skin impressions show identical structure to a plucked bird complete with papules or depressions in the middle of skin tubercules indicative of feather attachment (if you look at the skin of a plucked bird the same pattern is evident).
T. rex was more than fast enough to hunt and chase its prey animals, estimates place its capability at 60KPH (35mph). In gait T. rex waddled like a duck but try catching a duck, those buggers can run pretty fast despite their short legs and waddle (interestingly ducks still have teeth in their upper jaw, teeth that are similar in structure to the predatory dinosaurs).
The legs on T. rex are massive compared to its overall body size, its lung capacity was also great, something that an active predator would require - two very strong indicators of an active hunter, not a scavenger.
I don't know of any predator of any sort that tackles its prey front on, they all tend to attack from the side as you have surmised. The front on reconstructions are romanticised, the battle for survival, head on, between giants - looks more dramatic if somewhat unreal.
The ceratopsisd were also very lightly constructed, their skeletons indicate a rather fast runner, not a tank-like plodder as they are always depicted. If you want to challenge the accepted reconstructions and create something more realistic try to obtain good pictures of the skeletons and think bird, not lizard or tank, and reconstruct them off the skeleton, not popular misconceptions (an error, no matter how many times it is repeated or how well it is accepted is still an error).
Take note, most of accepted fact in science is really nothing more than an idea that has become accepted, not fact. Most of science is erroneous, tha only way to correct errors is to challenge what is accepted on the basis of evidence, not ideas.
I know of the theory you mention, personally I think it is ridiculous and has little basis in fact or available evidence. Much of this thinking is based on the belief that T. rex was massive therefore too heavy to hunt and too unstable on its feet (there was also a theory that T. rex could be easily tripped so couldn't be a strong, active hunter and that a fall would cause it serious injury or damage - no one looked at T. rex and thought - maybe we got the reconstruction wrong, lets have another look).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your lengthy and well-considered comments, Dontheunsane.
As you know, there's a fine line between birds and reptiles -- in fact, cladistic analysis shows that birds ARE reptiles.
So it's not surprising that dinosaurs had characteristics of both of these "classes" of vertebrate. Some were more like reptiles, others more like birds, and many were in between.
It's not correct to classify them ALL as simply being birdlike. Theropods were obviously more like birds than sauropods, for example.
Nor am I convinced that they ALL had feathers. The may well have exhibited barbules on their scales, but not always fully formed feathers.
I used extensive skeletal research and reference in my creation of this painting. As you say, T.rex had massive legs, and I have depicted this.
T.rex is essentially a gigantic ostrich with the head and tail of a crocodile.
Triceratops also had heavily-muscled limbs, as clearly indicated by its bones:
[link]
...however it is often shown as having ridiculously thin rabbit-like legs in paleoart. Other dinosaurs are regularly drawn like this; the artists forget the padding around the toes and feet and neglect to include the muscles, as if the animals were just skeletons with skin wrapped around them.
No, dinosaurs were not the fragile wafer-thin hyperactive beasts it's become fashionable to imagine them as -- they would have snapped their legs and collapsed as soon as they tried to move, let alone engaged in battle.
I'm also weary of the claims that the quadrupedal dinosaurs walked in a purely upright stance like large mammals (i.e. elephants or giraffes) -- isn't it enough that they're like birds and reptiles? For ceratopsians, biomechanical studies show that the forelimbs DID bow out in a somewhat splayed position. Trackways corroborate this.
As for T.rex running; being many times larger than a duck it needed massive legs to propel itself and, again, that's what I've shown.
Biomechanical analysis shows that T.rex did not run at much more than 15 mph, if that. The speed at which an animal runs is determined by the mass and construction of its *leg muscles*, NOT the overall size of the animal per se.
For T.rex to have been a fast runner its leg muscles would have had to have taken up 65 per cent of its body weight -- a mathematical and biological impossibility.
The muscles in a chicken's legs are only 10 per cent of its body weight. Probably even less for a duck.
Fifteen per cent of body weight for T.rex's legs is a reasonable ratio. Enough to propel him/her suddenly and powerfully from hiding, as I've depicted here.
I don't agree with your contention that "Most of science is erroneous". Sure a lot of hypotheses are passed off as fact, but that doesn't mean everything we know is wrong. Science is a continuing process of testing and deduction -- hypotheses and theories can be discarded or they can be demonstrated to be correct, within all bounds of logic.
Dinosaur science is coloured by a lot of heavily opinionated conjecture, and plenty of "shock value" arguments to get attention -- such as the notorious "T.rex was a scavenger!" headline grabber.
There's a big tendency in paleontology to proclaim that everything we thought we knew about dinosaurs 50 years ago was wrong, but this is knee-jerk and goes way too far.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought T. rex lived somewhat earlier than Triceratops, been a long time since I did anything with dinosaurs so I would have to check. As T. rex was such a large predator it would have needed large prey to adequatly feed it. Fifteen MPH would have been adequate for large prey but biomechanical studies are only as good as the programming/data used, they are not absolute (although much better than earlier estimates and probably reasonably accurate although no one seems to include possible errors or variances - like 15MPH +/- 3MPH - 15MPH seems more realistic than the earlier estimates and is quite fast).
Many of our assumptions about dinosaurs fifty years ago were wrong and some these are finally being corrected but most of our knowledge of dinosaurs was correct. We have a lot more data to go on now, a lot more specimins to work with but our basic knowledge remains unchanged.
It would be nice to think that science was objective and that theories change with increased data and knowledge but the reality is that once an idea/theory/hypothesis becomes accepted and entrenched it becomes very difficult to alter no matter how much contrary evidence is presented.
Don't get too hung up on cladistic analysis, it is a useful tool but it is still based on assumption, the belief in the common ancestor. I haven't come across anything that demonstrates adequately that the common ancestor theory is anything but assumption and I have come across an enormous ammount of evidence that is contrary to the common ancestor theory (it would take a book to adequately cover this and at least three years to research and write and probably another two years at uni to cover subjects I don't have adequate knowledge of - even if I did it wouldn't be accepted as it would be contrary to accepted theory).
I sometimes think that the year 2000 had a strange effect, many people seem to think we needed to re-invent the wheel and change just about everything, even if it did work.
Think about Psiticine birds and their evolutionary implications.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That trackway wasn't a tyrannosaur. It was some kind of huge carnosaur, Acrocanthosaurus I think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the update on that one, been a long time since I read about it so my knowledge is well out of date.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ah, cool, I really like the colour of the Triceratops. All made with photoshop? I should learn a bit more about that..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not only is your painting fun to look at and super expressive, but your argument is also clean and well thought out, and I COMPLETELY agree with you.
I also readily enjoy the position that Rex's arms are in, as if he's challenging the trike with a little 'come on and just try to dislodge me' motioning.
The glow in their eyes is also really expressive of the raw clash of titans thing you are going for. Really great piece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for those great comments...! I actually tried several different positions for the Rex's arms before they looked to be 'just right', and you've understood the gesture perfectly. Thanks again -- you completely get what I've set out to do and you've made my day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I'm very happy to oblige you
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ooh! massive dino carnage! VIOLENCE IS GOOD.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow! The colors are brilliant, and the vicious loom on the T. rex is great! And yes- I wholeheartedly agree with the theory of Tyrannosaurus being a hunter, unlike Jack Horner thinks (and the worst part is is that the traitor advised the paleontology for Jurassic Park). The only thing is the Tyrannosaur's leg is a out of proportion (I saw what you said about that, and now I kind of see how he's pushing backwards). Oh, and the Triceratorps legs are kind of sprawled out, but I think it's just because it's wheeling around so that's fine. Fine art!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks again dinodude, very much appreciated! I think Horner might have backed away from his scavenger theory by now. He seems to be concentrating on genetically engineering birds backwards into dinosaurs, so that's a good thing!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah- I saw his documentary on that, it was pretty cool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now this is a fun piece. It has plenty of violent movement and vivid colors. One thing I'm particularly impressed with actually is the greenery. Having to paint all those individual leaves would be a true practice in paitence. There are some really beautiful effects in this one. The only thing I'd suggest for improvement is the leg to chest distance for the T-Rex. It feels just a tad scrunched in there. If he was bending into the background as much as the Triceratops is bending out of it then you'd have a real sense of balance there. Its a moderate issue that can be kept in mind for other works.
-RenDragonClaw
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know what you mean about the T.rex's left leg. I was trying to convey that he's pushing backwards, trying to drag the blue beast down towards him, away from its path through the jungle... I can see how this isn't entirely clear, and I might try a bit of a fix-up. Thanks for that comment!
As for the greenery, well there's a bit of a trick there -- much of it is the same hand-painted frond, which after scanning I cut and pasted many times over, varying each one enough that they didn't look like clones.
Your comments are much appreciated, and your art is really nice -- superbly rendered, powerful stuff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lol thanks. Took quite of few years of experimenting in Photoshop but I color rather well all things considered. Still plenty of guys that beat the pants off me. I'd love to figure out how to recolor individual lines that you've scanned in. Must of the time I just duplicate layer and set to multiply. Saves me the time and effort of inking my lines.
You got a good thing going with these dynamic paintings, plenty of emotion in there.
-RenDragonClaw
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nice one, i like that your exaggerating it
and im with you ll the way bro on the t-rex, it had the most powerful bite force of any land animal on earth EVER, why would a scavenger need that kind of bite force?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanx!-And your art is SO groovy!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"at first we thought this triceratops was crazy sayin there's something attackin him 2 weeks ago, but now he's dead and im pretty shure its a homicide. maybe there is a giant sharp tooth around attacking (somehow...) an armored tri."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hmmm... you may well be onto something there....
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nice!! work and thanks for the comment on my stegosaur!!! what do you use to color ur drawing?
I agree with u that t rex couldn't have been a scavenger (not with a body that large)but i do have to say it wasn't exactly the "biggest" there were spinosaurus (being the largest, i think?, giganotosaurus, Albertosaurus, and others) but t-rex was still probably one of the top predators
--
Heretic! Why have you betrayed us?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi! you're right, T.rex was the biggest predator in its ecosystem, not of the time -- I've edited my wording now, thanks!
The painting was done with acrylic then I added extra details in Photoshop.
Thanks for looking!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ur welcome! It's glad to know that i helped! 
--
Heretic! Why have you betrayed us?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is a beautiful picture. The cartoon style is nicely used, but it looks also semi-realist, which is fantastic.
The colours and textures on the Tricerotops' skin is wonderfully done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks very much!! A very nice comment to wake up to today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The lights, shadows and textures look great, it looks almost tridimentional.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks such nice praise -- especially tridimentional, I like that one a lot!
I respect your art, truly high-calibre work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome!
And thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It was made in a cartoon style, yes? It seems to me that it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, the style is intended to be exaggerated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
not bad, its a great scene.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome picture! I love the style and the colors and particularly the highlight on the T-Rex's nose. I think he could do with a pupil though.
I really like the triceratop's eye, the way it is red with those highlights. Very well done! Thanks for sharing it with me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks so much! The T.rex has had a pupil before, then not, then a pupil again... but I could never decide which way looked scarier. Maybe I'll give him one again after your suggestion. Thanks for checking out the scene + the fave! You rock.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome! Yeah, I think a pupil would be scarier here for some reason, but maybe just a tiny one. Let me know if you do. I'd love to see it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jazeira -- I've taken your advice and the pupil is now present. Let me know how this looks -- thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yeah... I think that looks awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for your help in deciding on this -- sometimes it takes a second opinion, much appreciated!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I remember seeing a show on that. Something about how it was too big, therefore, too slow. I understand where they figure that, but I prefer to picture it as a killer. It's more awe-inspiring.
That being said, it's not my fav Dino
Great pic! Nice choice of colour. Particularily fond of the greenery. Must have taken a while
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the comments! What is your fave dino?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The sauropods, more importantly Argentinosaurus or Brachiosaurus. But TRex is a close second.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really like Amargasaurus -- looks like a dragon!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>