The Energon Pub

I noticed that on the episode that introduced the Dinobots, the robot teaching Sari and the Autobots about the dinosaurs made a mistake.

1- These dinosaurs (Pteranodon, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, Apatosaurus) were said to be in the Jurassic period. Actually, none of these dinosaurs lived during the Jurassic period except the Apatosaurus, but the Cretaceas (sp?)

2- The Jurassic Period was 200 million years ago. The jurassic period was NOT 200 million years ago, but 160 million years ago.

3. The prof. said that the "dinobots" were perfect replicas. The Tyrannosaurus was not; its arms were too long, plus some other mistakes.

4. The robot also said that the dinosaurs were very large, but very fast and agile. Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, Apatosaurus, were NOT very fast. Tyrannosaurus Rex couldn't EVEN RUN. The dinosaurs' body masses were too heavy for running, except maybe the Triceratops.



There may have been some other errors about the dinosaurs, but I probably haven't even noticed or remembered them . I know a lot about dinosaurs, and I hate it when cartoons, shows, movies, etc. say things about dinosaurs that aren't true.

NUHRD!!!
lol, just kidding.
But seriously, its a cartoon.
I was thinking the same thing asyou when I watched too.

I hear you. I used to follow dinosaurs as well and agree with you mostly. But come on, it's a kids show. And it at least used to be a controversy over T-rex's speed. I suppose there is more evidence supporting the scavenger theory, but we'll never know. I just can't help being a T-rex fan.

And that's why the teaching robot got TOASTED! He fails at teaching so he deserved it.

Sumdac is just an idiot, making money off of recycling Megatron.

Actuall this is set 50 years in the future so it would have been 210million years since the jurassic period. But I don't kids pay attention to that stuff they just laugh at Grimlock talking stupid

OptitronPrime wrote:Actuall this is set 50 years in the future so it would have been 210million years since the jurassic period. But I don't kids pay attention to that stuff they just laugh at Grimlock talking stupid

I don't know how good your math is... but....

160,000,000 + 50 doesn't equal 210,000,000...

160,000,050. =x

Omega Charge wrote:I suppose there is more evidence supporting the scavenger theory...

I'm no paleontologist or biologist, but I still don't subscribe to the idea that Tyrannosaurus was purely a scavenger. Biggest issue I have is that this is a 8-10 ton land-bound animal, and as far as I'm aware, there is no carnivorous terrestrial animal living today that is a complete and utter scavenger - most either have the ability to kill their own food or supplement their diet with other eatibles.

Thunderscream wrote:

Omega Charge wrote:I suppose there is more evidence supporting the scavenger theory...

I'm no paleontologist or biologist, but I still don't subscribe to the idea that Tyrannosaurus was purely a scavenger. Biggest issue I have is that this is a 8-10 ton land-bound animal, and as far as I'm aware, there is no carnivorous terrestrial animal living today that is a complete and utter scavenger - most either have the ability to kill their own food or supplement their diet with other eatibles.

I'm with this on you.

But I think that with the Jurassic was a hint at something big and famous that did the same mistake.

There's a lot of liberties taken with the science on the show. I don't think it really matters all that much. Like I heard of the La Brea Tarpits, but I never heard of any dinosaurs found in tar. Also I'd like to think we won't be still dependent on fossil fuels 50 years in the future, but who can say. It made sense for the show, and that's the main thing.

Thunderscream wrote:

Omega Charge wrote:I suppose there is more evidence supporting the scavenger theory...

I'm no paleontologist or biologist, but I still don't subscribe to the idea that Tyrannosaurus was purely a scavenger.

No one really believes T.rex was an exclusive scavenger. Not even paleontologist Jack Horner ... and it's his theory. I read his T.rex book. He points out the reasons why it might have scavenged: good sense of smell, small arms, the serration on the teeth. Then he says that he doesn't think it was an exclusive scavenger, he just likes to make the case that it was to question the conventional wisdom and get attention.

Bumblethumper wrote:There's a lot of liberties taken with the science on the show. I don't think it really matters all that much. Like I heard of the La Brea Tarpits, but I never heard of any dinosaurs found in tar. Also I'd like to think we won't be still dependent on fossil fuels 50 years in the future, but who can say. It made sense for the show, and that's the main thing.

There have been finds with mass numbers of one type of fossil, leading some paleontologists to believe that animals died in a "predator trap" similar to a tar pit (though not exactly tar).

Bumblethumper wrote:

Thunderscream wrote:

Omega Charge wrote:I suppose there is more evidence supporting the scavenger theory...

I'm no paleontologist or biologist, but I still don't subscribe to the idea that Tyrannosaurus was purely a scavenger.

No one really believes T.rex was an exclusive scavenger. Not even paleontologist Jack Horner ... and it's his theory. I read his T.rex book. He points out the reasons why it might have scavenged: good sense of smell, small arms, the serration on the teeth.

While I don't argue that it did scavenge, and again I don't claim knowledge in zoology, but I think there some issues to be taken with his reasoning.
Good Sense of Smell
Yes, tyrannosaurus had quite the honker, and a brain with a large portion dedicated to smell. But so do a lot of modern predators, including one of the dinosaurs' closest relatives, the crocodillians. Horner often sites the turkey vulture as modern example, but the turkey vulture is one of two unique (New World) vultures with a superb sense of smell. Most vultures (and birds in general) have a very poor sense of smell. And lot of terrestrial animals (primates excluded) have an excellent sense of smell, herbivore and carnivore, and they use it for more than finding their next meal.

Small Arms
A lot of attention has gone into Tyrannosaurus' puny arms, but there are several examples of predators that don't use their arms to restrain prey. The crocodilians, for example, use only their jaws to grab and drag prey - and Nile crocodiles can haul in some pretty large prey.

Serrated Teeth
Tyrannosaurs weren't unique in this feature; most predatory dinosaurs had serrated teeth, and some modern carnivoruous lizards, like the monitors, do as well. What made Tyrannosaurs unique was that the strength of their jaws, which is theorized to have crushed bone. Horner often sites this as another example of scavenging, siting another famous "scavenger," the hyena. But spotted hyenas can and do hunt their own food, and the related aardwolf and striped hyenas can be considered as much opportunistic generalists as scavengers. In fact, the true scavengers, the vultures, have, with a few exceptions, relatively weak jaws. Predators, again with a few exceptions, are usually the animals with powerful jaws, because they have to be able to hold and/or kill their prey with them - in the case of most cat species, that's *the* primary killing tool. If we could measure the bite strength of a T-rex, we'd probably find that it was closer to - if not superior than - those of it's living relatives, the crocodiles.

And I've gone completely off course of the main discussion

You made some points there. And no you're not totally off topic, the person who started this thread said T-rex couldn't run. As long as we keep talking about dinosaurs.

I'm surprised that the biggest mistake has yet to be mentioned. They were
too friggin' HUGE !

I mean, seriously. The Pre-Grimlock T-Rex was at least twice the size it should've been. Of course that problem mysteriously vanished towards the end, when the Dinobots had somehow gone down to deluxe class toy compatible height.

Tekka wrote:

OptitronPrime wrote:Actuall this is set 50 years in the future so it would have been 210million years since the jurassic period. But I don't kids pay attention to that stuff they just laugh at Grimlock talking stupid

I don't know how good your math is... but....

160,000,000 + 50 doesn't equal 210,000,000...

160,000,050. =x

Oh I thought it was 160 I'm an idiot

Creature SH wrote:I'm surprised that the biggest mistake has yet to be mentioned. They were
too friggin' HUGE !

I mean, seriously. The Pre-Grimlock T-Rex was at least twice the size it should've been. Of course that problem mysteriously vanished towards the end, when the Dinobots had somehow gone down to deluxe class toy compatible height.

LOL! It's G1 animation errors all over again!

OptitronPrime wrote:Oh I thought it was 160 I'm an idiot

It's okay. We all misread things.

Thunderscream wrote:

Bumblethumper wrote: Like I heard of the La Brea Tarpits, but I never heard of any dinosaurs found in tar.

There have been finds with mass numbers of one type of fossil, leading some paleontologists to believe that animals died in a "predator trap" similar to a tar pit (though not exactly tar).

The Allosaur fossils in the Cleveland-Lloyd quarry is the only known dinosaur 'predator trap'. But that is believed to have been a mud swamp/ boggy land at the edge of a lake. I've never heard of any dinosaur found in a tar pit.

So it's a bit odd that the robo-guide mentions tar pits on the third sentence into a talk about dinosaurs. But it is a plot point that comes up later in the episode, so I guess it's forgivable.

Plus, who knows what fossils'll turn up in the next fifty years. I just hope cars aren't still reliant on fossil fuel by then.

Bumblethumper wrote:No one really believes T.rex was an exclusive scavenger. Not even paleontologist Jack Horner ... and it's his theory. I read his T.rex book. He points out the reasons why it might have scavenged: good sense of smell, small arms, the serration on the teeth.

I took another look at the book, he doesn't really go into the tooth serration much, that was a false recollection. He does mention that other predatory dinosaurs had flatter more sharply serrated teeth better suited for cutting through flesh where T.rex teeth were stronger and more conical.

My view on T.rex, is that the arms were reduced in size for the sake of balance, because the head and neck had become the primary weapon. Otherwise it'd be too front-heavy. T.rex had a strongly muscled neck, so I figure it probably shook it's prey or head-butted and knocked it over. The arms weren't necessarily useless vestiges either, otherwise they wouldn't have such sharp claws. I reckon they could probably still inflict some vicious cuts and wounds, while the jaws were doing the main damage.

On the scavenger side of things, there's really no other meat-eater that could stand up to T.rex known from the time, so T.rex probably had first call an anything that died of natural causes.

Thunderscream wrote:

Omega Charge wrote:I suppose there is more evidence supporting the scavenger theory...

I'm no paleontologist or biologist, but I still don't subscribe to the idea that Tyrannosaurus was purely a scavenger. Biggest issue I have is that this is a 8-10 ton land-bound animal, and as far as I'm aware, there is no carnivorous terrestrial animal living today that is a complete and utter scavenger - most either have the ability to kill their own food or supplement their diet with other eatibles.

Considering that they recently found fosilised evidence that link Raptors to T-Rex's I would have to agree.

This story is set what, 50 or 60 years in the future? Maybe by then they discovered that the things we thought in the past were wrong! Carbon dating was refined and they redated everything, they found t-rexes with bigger arms and realized the few uncovered ones from before were deformed, etc.

Actually they've only ever found about 2 t.rex's that had arm bones preserved. I don't think any are 100%.

In the older restorations, before they'd found T.rex arms, the arms were based on the less robust arms of related dinosaurs like Gorgosaurus.

So when you don't have much to go on, you speculate. A lot of what we have now is more substantiated.

Dozertron wrote:3. The prof. said that the "dinobots" were perfect replicas. The Tyrannosaurus was not; its arms were too long, plus some other mistakes.

Technically speaking it's humanly impossible for anything ever to ever be perfect. Fact of life, humans make mistakes and therefore perfection simply doesn't exsist.

It's 50 years into the future. Most likly man messed up on dinosaurs in our time and 50 years later they may have perfected the study of dinosaurs, so everything we think is wrong may be right. Guess we just have to wait 50 years to find out.