ATRIUMsearch → argument graph
Audio · 2025-09-04 · 3h 42m · 6 moments

#480 – Dave Hone: T-Rex, Dinosaurs, Extinction, Evolution, and Jurassic Park

Dave Hone is a paleontologist, expert on dinosaurs, co-host of the Terrible Lizards podcast, and author of numerous scientific papers and books on the behavior and ecology of dinosaurs. He lectures at Queen Mary University of London on topics of Ecology, Zoology, Biology, and Evolution. Thank you for listening ❤ Check out our sponsors: https://lexfridman.com/sponsors/ep480-sc See below for timestamps, transcript, and to give feedback, submit questions, contact Lex, etc. Transcript: https://l ✦ AI generated

timeline · colored by role

01
Fact

Tyrannosaurus rex was an orca-sized terrestrial predator, roughly 12 meters long, 5 meters tall at the head, and 7+ metric tons—making it the most massive carnivorous dinosaur we know of.

Dave Hone describes the sheer scale of T-Rex, comparing it to an orca on land, and explains how this mass dwarfs other large carnivorous dinosaurs like Giganotosaurus.

transcript

Dave Hone: It's gigantic. It's almost trite now because everyone knows T-Rex is massive. But yes, if you actually stand in front of 1, you would be seriously impressed just how absolutely vast they are. So I've got a copy of a T-Rex skull downstairs from my office. And yeah, I could fit comfortably through its mouth. So it would be just about capable of swallowing me whole and I'm a pretty big guy. ... 12-ish meters long. So what's that? 14 yards, 4 1/2, maybe 5 to the top of the head standing up. So another six yards high and then seven-ish metric tons. What's that? About 8 1/2 short tons. So A colleague of mine, Tom Holtz, described them as an orca on land. That's it. is a killer whale sized animal. but on legs on land. And those are massive predators. ... T-Rex is massive. It is built. So there's things like Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus in South America, maybe they get a bit longer, another meter or so in length, but in mass, we're talking about maybe only two-thirds, three-quarters. So T-Rex is just massively bigger than basically any other big carnivore we know of.

02
Mechanism

The T-Rex skull was massively overbuilt with fused nasals and a bone structure designed to resist the forces of its extraordinarily powerful bite, far exceeding other similarly sized carnivores.

Hone compares the T-Rex skull to Giganotosaurus, showing T-Rex has far more bone mass, fused nasals, and a jaw built to withstand the stresses of its crushingly powerful bite.

transcript

Dave Hone: If you put Giganotosaurus T-Rex in... just look at the robusticity. Like the front of the snout of T-Rex is all bone. And yet the major openings is a thing called the Antorbital Fenestra, the opening in front of the orbit. It's absolutely massive in Giganotosaurus. It's like half the skull. The opening at the back of the skull is much bigger. The opening in the lower jaw is much bigger. And actually the jaw, what you can't see side to side is much thinner. So the heads are the same size. And as animals, they are about the same linear dimensions. But you can just see there's just way more bone in the T-Rex. ... So you need this kind of structure for the power that Crush has. So one of the big things tyrannosaurs have, and this goes all the way down to the earliest tyrannosaurs were like our size, like little ditty things like 2, 3 meters long, be a meter and a half tall. But they have fused nasals. So the pair of bones that in us, there's not a lot there, but obviously in something like a dog or something like a baboon with a long nose, it's like the whole top of the snout. And there's two, one each side. In tyrannosaurs, they fuse together. So they form a solid bit of bone. So the whole top of the nose is solid. And then that makes it very strong. And with that giant head, with all that extra bone and then all the extra musculature attached to that giant head, they've got this uber powerful bite and the ability to just chomp through basically the thing it wants to.

explains mechanism · 1

03
Claim

T-Rex primarily hunted juvenile dinosaurs rather than adult prey of comparable size, which is consistent with the general predator-prey mass ratios seen across modern carnivores.

Hone argues that despite the popular image of T-Rex hunting adult Triceratops, the evidence shows it targeted juveniles—smaller, weaker, inexperienced, and poorly defended—matching the pattern seen in nearly all modern predators.

transcript

Dave Hone: Every record we have of basically any large carnivorous dinosaur where you have stomach contents where it's like consumed something or healed bite marks, we get quite a few, there's a handful of them where there's an obvious damage to a bone in more than a couple of cases with a tooth broken off in the bone and then the bone has healed over so it got away. They're juveniles. They're relatively young animals and that's what they're targeting. It makes ecological sense. It's what modern animals do for very good reason. Juveniles are relatively small and weak. They don't have the horns or frills or armor or shields and other stuff. They're naive. They don't, they have, you often have to learn what predators are or you have to learn how to avoid them or to check the wind or even physically see them before you know, see them kill something else before you know that they're a threat. And juveniles forage badly. They're relatively inefficient, so actually they need to eat more for their size than an adult does. And then on top of that, they're not very experienced at foraging in the right areas. And even if they can find a good patch, the adults will often beat them up and chase them off. ... So guess who's getting eaten? Like this is, again, there's lots of exceptions. You can't have nature without things like that, but this is the absolute rule of thumb for how foraging and growth and predation operate across everything from fish to star, as fish as predators, starfish, praying mantis, all the way up to things like big cats via stuff like crocodiles. It's how it works. So it'd be very weird if it didn't also operate for dinosaurs.

provides context · 1

04
Example

Fossils cannot be interpreted at face value: the difference between a predator's kill and a scavenging event can only be determined by analyzing subtle taphonomic signals like the order of erosion, bite marks, and bone damage.

Hone illustrates this with a Mongolian hadrosaur skeleton bearing tyrannosaur bite marks. The marks were on top of pre-existing erosion, proving the animal was scavenged after lying dead for days or weeks—an insight only possible by reading the order of damage on the bones.

transcript

Dave Hone: We're pretty confident that the bite marks are sitting on top of erosion. What does that mean? So it means that the animal had died And it was found in sand covered, but in what would have been a river channel. So this animal has died, washed downstream, ended up on a sand bank. The sand is whipping past because I've been in a sandstorm in China and it is not fun. And that's starting to etch some of the bones and damage them. After that, you're getting bite marks coming in. So that can only be scavenging. That thing has been dead and sitting out for days, possibly weeks. before something came along and chewed on it. pretty much can't have happened any other way. And you have to take these really subtle signals to reconstruct the story. ... And then it's got these, actually, T-Rex has really small teeth at the front of its mouth, right in the front where our incisors are. They're called incisiform teeth. They look like incisors. They're A fraction of the size of the big ones. And they've got a really weird flat back. And that's what these are. It's hidden this with the front of the mouth and pulling. And that's mostly for eating. And that's why it's just on the delta pectoral crest because that's where all the muscles are. So it's, I always liken it to getting something like an Oreo and you take the top off and you scrape the cream out with your teeth. I think most people have done that. Right. But that's what it's doing. So it's got this little row of teeth and every where you get lots of muscle, you get little rows of teeth together. So there's different bite marks for sort of fighting, killing, and then there's different bite marks for eating.

05
Mechanism

T-Rex was a pursuit predator using long-distance endurance rather than short bursts of speed, likely hunting nocturnally to close the distance before running down its prey.

Hone explains that T-Rex's biomechanics—energy-efficient foot locking, long tail muscles for propulsion, and a top speed of about 25 mph (40 kph)—suggest a hyena-like persistence hunting strategy, aided by nocturnal vision and a keen sense of smell.

transcript

Dave Hone: They're relatively efficient. compared to a lot of other things, and particularly compared to the herbivores. So that means they're probably looking at long distance rather than speed. And that makes sense, because even though the kind of stuff we're talking about, like I said, maybe they're getting to 20, 25 miles an hour, that's pretty quick, but some of the smaller stuff is going to be a lot faster than that. And remember, that's a real upper estimate. They're probably not that quick. Because they're just jogging after you. Right, but they've got they've got the distance. So yeah, so it's much more hyena or wolf-like strategy than like a cheetah going for hyperspeed or a lion going for a relatively quick burst and it either gets you or it doesn't. ... I think it's either or some combination of being nocturnal. So it's relatively easy to sneak, isn't quite the wrong word, but approach things to cut the distance down for your initial strike and then just running them down.

provides context · 1

06
Context

Fossil discoveries are time-sensitive because fossils erode away once exposed; there is a unique urgency to paleontology that other sciences do not share.

Hone notes that while researchers can study black holes or genetics at any future time, fossils erode and disappear once exposed by wind and weather, creating a unique imperative to excavate now or lose the evidence forever.

transcript

Dave Hone: I've jokingly written a couple of times about how all science funding in the world should go to paleontology. And the idea being that like, yeah, if you want to investigate black holes or neutrinos or chemical crystallography or panda genetics or whatever it is, You can do that any time you want. Like that, that's not going to change a million years from now as it will from tomorrow. But fossils are in places that erode and if we don't dig them up, they're gone. So we should dig all the fossils up now and then we've got forever to study them. But if we don't dig them up now, who knows? maybe there was something twice the size of T-Rex and it sat on a hillside for six months and then the wind got to it and it's gone. And that was the only one that ever preserved. Well, we'll never know now. To be clear, this is a joke. I'm not suggesting we should stop doing cancer research and physics and other things, but it is, we're in a fundamentally different field where our science is literally disappearing.

Highlight slides
Related episodes