Where's the article to back this up? You said that scientists have new research to back this up. Cite the article that says so. Because until then, I have to disagree.
Larger muscles don't mean agile. A Spinosaurus could have had huge muscles in its legs, doesn't mean it was agile. Elephants and hippos have HUGE leg muscles, but they aren't very agile. Also, that wind stuff you mention is nonsense. That wouldn't help a T-rex turn in most cases. For example, one of the most agile land mammals is the leopard, but a lot of its close relatives have MUCH more muscular legs, yet aren't as agile. Bears have MASSIVE legs, but have trash turn radii.
The tail being thick with muscle isn't specifically good for agility. For a Theropod to be agile, it should follow the raptor model (thin but long tail to help balance). Above all, the tail should be somewhat flexible, because the stiffer the tail, the less agile the Theropod is, as seen in Carnotaurus. The huge muscles would make it harder for the T-rex to move it's tail, both due to the added weight and due to the muscles getting in the actual way of the movement. Besides, the tail is so muscular so it can balance the head weight, not to make it more agile.
There's no evidence it hunted or even ate Ankylosaurus, Alamosaurus, or Denversaurus, but let's assume it did. No. No it did not. First of all, it wouldn't hunt a full grown Alamosaurus. They're huge, so a Rex 1v1ing it would be suicidal. Could a pack do it? Sure, but then that gets rid of the agility argument. Ankylosaurus' armor isn't all that great, so the rex could just bite the neck and kill it. It's an ambush hunter, it's going to go straight for the neck before the Anky knows it's there, it's not going to let the Anky turn 180 degrees and hit it with its tail. Denversaurus is better, but even then a Rex can prey on weaker, younger, sick, or older individuals. Or just use its weight to flip it onto it's back. Again, it just needs to avoid the shoulder spikes. Triceratops really is your best bet... but even then, same argument for Denversaurus. And the same thing goes for all of these creatures: T-rex was an AMBUSH hunter, meaning it would sneak up on its prey. It relied on the initial hit to kill its prey, so it didn't necessarily need to be agile. There's also no evidence it really "fought." We have evidence of Allosaurus doing so because there's a fossil with a huge indent left by a Thagomizer from a Stegosaurus, but for T-rex? Not really, except for maybe other Tyrannosaurus. You can see a similar thing with Tigers today. They ambush hunt, and while incredibly strong, rarely actually fight. This is why there's so many instances of them losing fights they seemed to have been able to win, like how a tiger got killed by a porcupine, and how they aren't very good at fighting sun bears, or against lions and lionesses.
That evolved argument makes no sense. By that logic, a Dryptosaurus is a more powerful predator than a Carcharodontosaurus. And evolution isn't linear, it's branching. There really isn't "more evolved," especially when considering completely different predators with completely different builds, prey, and from completely different groups. T-rex to Tarbo is better, but T-rex to Carc? No.
The real important thing is that it was an AMBUSH hunter. It would have needed to take it's prey by surprise, due to being slow and not being able to run for very long because of it's immense weight. Because it's an AMBUSH hunter, it's fights wouldn't be very long. So that it's prey couldn't run away or fight back it would try to kill its prey with it's first move, like many predators today. If it didn't need to run, make sharp turns, or fight that long (especially against very NON agile creatures), why would it need to be agile? All this NEGATES the need to be agile, unless it was a weak predator that needed to do get multiple hits in (like an Allosaurus hunting a Stegosaurus) or was chasing fast prey, it wouldn't need it (Giganotosaurus V.S. Amargasaurus or Argentinosaurus). Due to T-rex's life style, it wouldn't need agility. I know the next comparison will seem like it makes no sense, but it's similar to Carnotaurus. Although occupying very different niches, both predators are ambush predators, and rely on getting to their prey before being noticed so that they can get their killing hit in the first go. If the Carnotaurus' prey doesn't notice, Carnotaurus will speed right up to it, slam its head down, and usually swallow it whole or in a few bites. If T-rex's prey doesn't notice it, it bites the neck and crushes it with its immense bite force. If the Carnotaurus' prey turns before it catches it, it'll get away because Carnotaurus isn't agile and the Carnotaurus will probably fall. If the T-rex's prey notices it, it may get killed or will have to find another prey item unless it's a weak individual as mentioned before. T-rex's circumstances don't require agility, and I'm willing to bet its lack of agility and speed is probably the main reason why it would sometimes fail hunts (as evidenced by the Edmontosaurus that healed a bite wound from a T-rex).
So no, I don't agree. If you give a citation for an article, I'll eat my words.
If people weren't lazy, we wouldn't try to be efficient. If we weren't efficient, we'd never get anything done.
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!