T-rex Vs Triceratops

 Triceratops looks like he's winning and he is

Who would win? First, why would t-rex attack triceratops. Research shows that t-rex would prefer to scavange other kills or feast on animals that had died of disease or old age. If it couldn’t find anything dead it would attack hadrosaurs or sauropods before going for triceratops.

Triceratops’ weapons and defences were : thick skin, sharp beak, large frill, big horns. Its weakness was its neck, which was defended by its frill.

T-rex’s weapons and defences were: Sharp teeth, powerful jaws. The rest of its body was a weakness. Its arms were useless.

When you add it all up, triceratops would win.

This entry was posted in Dinosaurs. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to T-rex Vs Triceratops

  1. bob junior says:

    Just a Question: if triceratops could win against t-rex, could spinosaurus?

  2. James says:

    Spinosaurus was larger, had a larger head and longer arms than t-rex. If the two came into contact, spinosaurus would probably win. No offence t-rex lovers but t-rex is not as good as he seems.

    • Kike says:

      Just cause it has longer arms does not make it deadlier…T-rex’s skull and jaws were way more powerful than Spinosaurus. In truth if the T-rex gets Spino in between his jaws its over for him

      • james says:

        Yes I agree with you about that now but I said that over 2 years ago, when I was a lot younger thus more inexperienced and bias than I am now.

    • ethan says:

      t-rex specialized in eating armored dangerous tank like prey , its thick robust skull gave this animal the most powerful bite of anything that has ever had legs. An average t-rex size would be a little over 40 feet although ”Sue” the t-rex was 42 feet long. Spinosaurus had a very narrow snout which meant i’ts bite would not have been able to deliver a very lethal bite. But I suppose that the arms were i’ts main weapon but truthfully spinosaurus arms have never been found. In fact the only spinosaurus skeleton ever found was destroyed in an allied bombing raid in the second world war (the fossils were in a museum in Berlin right across the street from the Reichstag) (the nazi headquarters) but that skeleton was actually about 45-50 feet long. (the 65 foot estimate was very inaccurate. Plus spinosaurus did not need to be very strong to hunt fishand it’s spines were attatched to the vertebra so if it ever was bitten in the sail or fallen over it would have paralyzed itself. and spinosaurus lived in egypt and wet extinct millions of years before t-rex ever terrorized north america

      • james says:

        No, we used to think Spino was 12 Metres, but know we estimate 18 metres, and I am not alone in saying this. Fair enough T.rex had more advantages and would be more likely to win, yada yada, but really it doesn’t matter who would win as it never would happen.

  3. Dr.xiox says:

    Well clearly neither of you guys have done the true research. Research shows Tyrannosaurus was an apex predator. It’s jaws have the capabilties to crush bone unlike other dinosaurs whose teeth were designed to slice flesh. Spinosaurus did not have a larger head. It had a longer one yes but not larger. And besides it was a fish eater. Those long arms are for fishing. Triceratops may pose a threat but that still does not mean Tyrannosaurus is a scavenger. T. rex in comparison to every land carnivore, is so damn powerful strong and it was very muscular. Experts say that Triceratops could easily be killed just as the Tyrannosaurus could if they werent wary.
    And Predators were built to take down prey. T. rex was built to govern the animals in its environment.

  4. James says:

    True, in that t-rex could potentially have taken out spinosaurus. However they lived at different times and places. Wrong, in suggesting that t-rex could easily take out triceratops. Trike may have weighed 11 tonnes, but trike may have been able to out run t-rex. If caught, it could use it’s weight to it’s advantage. 11 tonnes of triceratops running straight at you is a formidable threat. Face the fact, triceratops would probably win. Thanks for raising some good points though.

    Oh, by the way, t-rex’s bone crushing jaws may have been for crushing the bones of a partly eaten kill. It ate the bones so it could get the most nutrition from its find. Still t-rex may have been a hunter, but it prefered hadrosaurs and sauropods as they were easier to defeat.

  5. abcdxyz says:

    @James:
    trike was half as fast as t-rex, but as it was 4-legged, the center of gravity was between the legs thus it was more manoeuvrable.
    t-rex could trike wasn’t a rhino type, running straight into t-rex. it more probably was a buffalo type, because if it hit t-rex in its topspeed, it would break it’s nose off. rather than highspeed impact, it would stay on a relatively small area, turning after the t-rex and trying to impale him on his “above-eye” horn.
    sauropods… the age of sauropods was the jurassic, t-rex lived in cretaceous. there were sauropods in cretaceous as well, but in south america and asia, while t-rex lived in north america. it had a plenty of ceratopsids and hadrosaurids to choose from though.

    the spinosaurus thing… yeah. spino was larger, while t-rex had stornger jaws. the stongest jaws ever evolved on a terrestrial animal. i think you can’t guess one sure winner. if the two met (which would be impossible as you said), it would depend on so many factors… the health of the individuals, their age and their gender. also the areas when one would bit/scratch the other. spino might be able to create a fatal wound on t-rex’s neck with the horrible claws on its forelegs, so t-rex would either bleed to death or suffocate, but the t-rex would be able to briefly bite spino’s head off with its bonecrushing jaws. the shape of spino’s head shows piscivorous (fish-eating) characteristics, while t-rex could be quite compared to a cretaceous lion, either hunting on its own, eating carcases or drive away smaller predators from their prey.
    i’m not on side of either one of the two, i’m just saying that claiming one of them to be an obvious winner is impossible if you want to be rational. 😉

  6. abcdxyz says:

    P.S. no animal ever evolved to be a strict scavenger. hyaenas and vultures can also hunt. hyaenas rather hunt than eat carrions when they have the chance to hunt. 😉
    my last point is: would you be starving to death in a wait of a carrion or tried to hunt? this lifestyle is more likely to make a carrion from yourself! 😉

  7. James says:

    There was one sauropod in North America at the time of T-rex. It was called Alamosaurus and it was a titanosaur. It was not that big for a sauropod. Here is a link for a scale picture of one: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinotemplates/Alamosaurus2.shtml
    Also will you lot get over the fact that trike was faster than t-rex. T-rex went about 18mph wheras trike went 28mph which is alot faster than t-rex

    • Ryan says:

      Actully trikes went up to to only 15 mph.
      Trexs were 25, but scientists now think only 15.

      I agree that trikes would win though. Plus trikes’ neck bone connecting to the skull was almost a perfect sphere. It could twist it’s head very well and twist off trexs bite.

  8. David Mitchell says:

    Never write “research shows” or “studies show” without including actual references and expect to be taken seriously. All you will do is fool people who don’t read carefully enough.

    Anyway, the notion that T.rex was an obligate scavenger is really only being backed by Jack Horner, and there is a whole host of evidence against his claims. Here’s one site that debunks them pretty well:

    http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html

    Yes, Triceratops was extremely formidable, but T.rex was the reason it evolved that impressive armament in the first place. And this, in turn, is the reason Tyrannosaurs became larger and stronger, evolving the most elegant and powerful jaws the Cretaceous world had seen.

    • james says:

      I did NOT say that! Anyway, t-rex had powerful jaws as I agree but they were in no means elegent. You are right in saying that triceratops evolved to fight off tyrannosaurs but t-rex did not have a chance to evolve after that (extinction)

      Many people back up the t-rex scavenger idea nowerdays. I only back it up half way. T-rex hunted hadrosaurs and sauropods but no large ceratopsians or ankylosaurs.

  9. bob junior says:

    Taking all things into acount I think triceratops would always win.

  10. derek says:

    Triceratops fossils are among if not the most plentiful discovered. Countless publications have written they are everywhere and appear to have out numbered T Rex by 10 to 1 and some say that may be conservative and its as high as 20 to 1. I am a man of science and in my book that tells me that T Rex was not actively hunting Triceratops and if they were…..well they weren’t very successful at it. Everyone wants to believe T Rex was the big dog in the yard but I look at is as if its today…..everyone wants the Lion to be the king of the jungle but one on one Hippo’s, Elephants and Rhinos have been proven the tougher species. I suspect the battles between Triceratops and T Rex were few and far between much like the Lion vs any of the three mentioned but like those rare occurrences I’d bet Triceratops put a beating on T Rex 9 out of 10 times.

    • james says:

      To right! Triceratops was bigger than an elephant, had horns like a rhino and ate the same as all of them (excluding grass. rhinos eat roots, elephants eat bark and hippos occasionally eat meat.)

      • Ryan says:

        Correct to both Derek and James. Some scientists say 90% but others say 65%. Wonder which one is correct.

    • Crow says:

      Actually that’s not correct. In EVERY ecosystem herbivores vastly outnumber the carnivores.

      The number of triceratops fossils corresponds to a reduction in other species, such as hadrosaurs which shows it was outcompeting it’s plant eating rivals.
      It is also because the triceratops skeleton is thicker and sturdier and better able to withstand the fossilization process instead of being broken up.

      As for T-Rex being a scavenger, there are NO ground based scavenging animals. Hyenas bring down over 80% of their own kills. The only pure scavenger is the vulture, and these have slim bodies, and most crucially the ability to fly large distances between dead animals. The amount of energy a trex would not be met by it walking it’s massive body around hoping to stumble upon a carcass.

      One on one fight? Triceratops would prevail, but for a different reason you expect. As buffalos show, they can fend off lions as long as they face the threat, using their horns as threats. Because it makes no sense a predator winning a meal if it means your death because you’ve been wounded. Even an ankle injury will mean a predator starves to death.

      However if they can be panicked into running perhaps by an ambush, or from a pack attack ( some paleos suggest tyrannosaurids weren’t solitary hunters) a triceratops is defenseless, the Trex will attack like a shark – come in from behind, inflict a massive single wound and then retire and let it’s prey bleed to death well away from the triceratops horns.

      Also recent modeling has shown a triceratops running into an object like a rhino would snap it’s horns and possibly crack it’s skull open, meaning it’s defences were more likely threat displays, waving it’s head at predators, possibly with several bull males fronting to the threat ( as water buffalo do with lions) in the hope the trex will go look for an easier target.

      • james says:

        I see some simple flaws in your arguement.

        1. Triceratops was an OMNIVORE like a hippo
        2. Triceratops lived in herds so if attacked they would not scatter exposing their backs, they would form a defensive circle
        3. T-rex was not a wall. If a triceratops charged it would only be in a short burst to stab its rival’s soft belly
        4. T-rex is not a mammal, like a hyena. It was built like a condor (apart from not flying) which is mostly a scavenger.

        • Crow says:

          Triceratops was not an omnivore. It was strictly a herbivore, consuming low level vegetation and plant material.

          Buffalo, Wildebeest, zebra etc also live in herds. they can also scatter if they are panicked by a predator. Herds dont neccesarily act as one entity, and it doesnt take much for a predator to single out one individual and seperate them.

          the modelling on triceratops was done against similar density material as flesh. computer modelling also shows that the triceratop horns are poorly designed to be thrusting weapons, given their leverage and position on their head puts enormous strain on the animals skulls.

          No, T-Rex is not a mammal, but thats not the point. The point is, there are NO ground base pure scavengers. The animal most people think as a scavenger (the hyena) actually kills most of its own prey. Whilst no doubt T-Rex would have been happy to chase a smaller therapod away from its kill, no animal relies on this to get its meal.

          As for T-Rex being a similar shape to vultures, well Im not sure what you mean there. T-Rex is an enormously stocky, well built and muscled animal, its energy needs are enormous. Far too large to hope to be able to find carcassess lying around on the ground. Any dinosaur pure scavenger would have been something small and slender like a Compsognathus or Coeulophysis type animal (though these animals also hunted) , that waits until a large hunter has finished with its kill.

          T-Rex has exactly the same S-bend neck that other smaller therapods have (for striking forward delivering blows) Its recurved teeth, along with its D-Box front jaw are the same (only larger) as previous hunters such as the Allosaurids and earlier Tyrannosaurids. They were teeth designed for slicing and killing. The reason the Tyranosaurids were getting larger is that they were very good at what they did – kill.

          Also, the last piece of evidence, there are Triceratop fossils that show T-Rex teeth markings on them. Not only that but they show signs of healing, which means it survived the attack ( as seals sometimes do against sharks, zebras sometimes do against lions). Which means the animal was alive when it was bitten, meaning it was being actively hunted by the TRex, not simply scavenged.

          good to chat with you.

          • james says:

            The whole omnivore thing is new reasearch. It is not proven yet and all we have to go on is a dodgy psittacosaurus fossil with a lizard in its stomach.

            You are right that t-rex is like the hyena which is a hunter but it is also like a condor, a bulky bird with an excelent sense of smell and bone crushing jaws. This creature does all of the following:

            1. chase away hawks from there kills
            2. Hunt
            3. Scavenge

            We have to think of the dinosaurs as flightless birds. And like fieldfares when attacked by a raven, rook or crow, they defend their young together. It is likely that triceratops did the same, just instead of pooing on the enemy they fended them away with their horns

        • Ryan says:

          @James
          Trike was a herbivore. But you’re right about the circle. It would do that with horns pressed out, just like protoceratops. Trike couldn’t charge though, it more often gored its opponents.

  11. derek says:

    So Triceratops was preserved better because it was built thicker and sturdier but then you suggest the very opposite with very preliminary speculative research on its ability to charge. The most common Triceratops fossil found is that very skull you suggest is so brittle and they are impressively intact…..that’s a heck of a long time for a brittle fossil not capable of breaking a wet paper bag to last. You have preliminary research vs the word of every paleontologist I have heard or spoken to insisting Trceratops was a tank built for ramming. Due respect I will go with them on this. Think about every horned animal on earth today for a moment and think about how hard they can push, charge, maim, gore etc etc etc. What other possible reason would Triceratops develop such exaggerated splayed front legs if not for thrusting and goring? I live for the science of it so I understand that but common sense must come into play at some point.

    • james says:

      You have pretty much nailed it. No sain bison, rhino, gnu, buffalo or even gazelle is going to say when attacked “No, I’m not going to fight you mister lion/leopard/tiger/bear/wolf/hyena/hunting dog/cheetah/mountain lion/crocodile. My horns are for display. ” Of course, not all of those predators would attack all of those herbivores.

      Oh, and of course T-rex was mostly a scavenger so it should be “No, I’m not going to fight you mister condor/vulture/red kite/jackal/marabou stork. My horns are for display”.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Lol. You all are soooo misguided. Most of you, anyway.

    Not only was tyrannosaurus mostly a hunter and much larger and faster than triceratops, the triceratop’s “thick skin” and frill are completely useless against the tyrannosaurus’ 7+ ton bite. In fact, if tyrannosaurus couldn’t even chomp through triceratops skin, then it must have seriously failed as a predator.

    • james says:

      Triceratops’s thick skin was not that strong but the frill was. And no – T-rex WAS mostly a scavenger.

      Ohh, and you haven’t taken triceratops’s horns into account, have you?

    • Ryan says:

      @anonymous
      Trex had a 3-4 ton bite, not 7+. trikes frill and horns could withstand a 3-4 ton bite. This is what scientist believe.

  13. j carberry says:

    Some of these comments are hilarious. Triceratops had an impressive set of horns and frill but very poor vision, intelligence and top speed compared to a T-rex. As seen in many predator prey battles today, most hunting attempts are unsuccessful resulting in the healthy predator backing off to try again later. T-rex was a real animal that wanted to stay alive by avoiding head on attacks just like modern predators. Predators want to kill their prey as quickly as possible without sustaining injuries, not engage in lenthly head on battles with prey as formidable as a Triceratops, an injury could prevent it from hunting efficiently and it could starve to death . Triceratops, like many large plant eaters, would have spent alot of its time looking for food and grazing to feed its huge body with plant matter. T-rex, when hungry, spent its time hunting and stalking its prey and try ambush from behind to give the T-rex the advantage. Triceratops spectacular horns and frill were great to hold off a T-rex if it seen the predator coming but the frill gave Triceratops a huge blind spot behind it making it vunerable to an ambush from the rear. T-rex co-evolved with Triceratops and would have exploited this weakness on successful hunts. If T-rex hunted in mating pairs or family groups a singled out Triceratops stood little chance of surviving the attack, one keeps the pointy end busy while another moves in on the unprotected sides, back or rear to deliver a killing blow.

    • james says:

      We know albertosaurus and daspeltosaurus hunted in packs, but I dont think T-rex pack hunting has been proved yet. You are right about T-rex not wanting to fight head to head, but in order to avoid injury it would rather fight a hadrosaur.

      The likely-hood of a battle between triceratops and t-rex would be very low

    • Ryan says:

      You are right about every thing you said j carberry but trike could turn its neck almost 360 degrees because of the balljoint. The frill did block its eye view, but it turned its head if it sensed a predator.

  14. veronica says:

    Okay firstly a t-rex had a bite force of 3.1 tons. The most powerful of all dinosaurs. evidence shows the t-rex regularly fed on the triceratops. Bite marks on the skull is proof of this. With footsteps of 5m long , jaw strength being the most powerful of all dinos , and a muscular body , the t-rex was not merely a scavenger because it was far too powerful. And a triceratops being bigger than an elephant is ********. Face to face , a t-rex would over power the triceratops by taking it by surprise. Just like a great white. The t-rex could simply grab the triceratops by the horns and fling it to the ground if it charged and therefore crush the horns during the bite and therefore disarming it. By doing that , the triceratops would be rendered defenceless. The t-rex could do all this without even ambushing the triceratops. It did however mostly hunt like the great white , ambushing its prey , leaving it to bleed to death and come back to feed on it.

    • james says:

      But triceratops had a lower centre of gravity. And it was heavier. If the T-rex tried to throw trike to the ground it would fail. Miserably. And the front on attacks were rare, probably only during the dry season when food was rare. And trike was heavier and longer than an elephant.

    • Reira says:

      Ok, listen here, VERONICA.
      I might not be an expert or anything, but you can’t say that a Trex wins every battle. Sometimes a Trike might win, and other times a Trex wins. It also depends on the situation, like Ryan says.
      Oh yeah, a Trike IS bigger than an elephant. Really, it’s freaking 25 feet long! How is it NOT bigger than an elephant? You said that a Trex can crush a Trike’s horn, so how come now you say it can pull the Trike down using the horn without crushing it? And a Trex can’t pull down a Trike, because the Trike is too big. On another comment, you said that a Trex is 9 meters long, but that’s when it’s laid down and it stands up when fighting. Trike is 8 meters long when it’s laid down, and it stands laid down.
      People have opinions, yes, but don’t go around trying to freaking diss other
      people’s opinions. Like, legit. And don’t swear, even if you ARE using the *** for it.
      Yeah, so that’s all I have to say. And I didn’t mean to be offensive or anything
      so don’t yell at me. Really.
      ~Reira x3

    • Ryan says:

      Veronica, trex can’t fling a trike. Trying to fling it would mean it wastes its time and gets slaughtered.

  15. jeff says:

    I’m sorry James. You’ve missed somthing out about what veronica said. They have found bite marks in the skull but if they couldn’t kill a triceratops then there skull would not have marks.

    • james says:

      Well, the bite marks were often found to have healed up, showing the triceratops had prevailed and that its frill had grown back.

      • jeff says:

        thanks James

      • Crow says:

        Which also proves the T-Rex was actively hunting, not scavenging.

        Lions and Cheetahs are strictly hunters also, and their hunts fail 9 out of 10 times. T-Rrex would have been similar, given that like Lions their main preoccupation is to avoid injury (which means death by starvation) and deliver massive blows to the rear end of a fleeing Triceratops through ambush attacks

      • Derek says:

        This is correct…..there is one Triceratops fossil showing wounds inflicted by a T-Rex……one ….. that one fossil people and it’s been clearly stated by the scientists involved the wounds were healed so in what part of that is there proof T-Rex hunted and killed Triceratops. I love how so many are coming on here laughing like they are experts at others deductions and conclusion….I’ll put my time in the lab researching Dinosaurs against any of you, just because you don’t agree with my opinion doesn’t make you right or me….thats why they are called opinions.

        • james says:

          Exactly. One fossil is not proof for much at all.

          Anyone who wants to put their theory through should use some hard evidence.

          Of which, as you said, there is very little.

        • Ryan says:

          Triceratops SOMETIMES won the battle. Other times trex would win. It doesn’t just depend on one battle. One on one is probably 5/10 chance of winning for both. One trike against a group of trex would make it 1/10. Herd of trike against one trex would be 9/10. Herd of trike vs pack of trex is 5/10.

          Trikes might have made a circle around there young with horns pressed out as protoceratops.

          Trex would go for something smaller and less defenseful.

  16. veronica says:

    I should mention that pieces of the triceratops frill was found in fossilised t-rex dung. If a t-rex grabbed the triceratops by the horns , the horns would be crushed as I have mentioned. The t-rex would have won nearly every confrontation it had with the triceratops. And if it did fling the triceratops to the ground it would have used its foot to hold it down. How would a triceratops be able to move 9 tons off its body? How could it do any significant damage to the t-rex if its horns were crushed after the t-rex grabbed them? Like I said , bite marks and fossilised t-rex dung is proof. There’s a video on youtube that shows how the t-rex may have attacked the triceratops. To me its a logical explanation and also because the t-rex was built for killing and hunting and had a certain degree of intelligence
    The t-rex wouldn’t have won every fight but would have won about 90% of them.

    • james says:

      But if the t-rex did try to step on the triceratops it would get shoved off. Ant the frill in the t-rex’s dung was probaby beacause the t-rex was desperately hungry.

    • Ryan says:

      Trike horns could withstand 3-4 tons of bite force, and in battles scientists believe only a tiny piece of the top broke. Trikes live in herds so more trikes.

    • Ryan says:

      SCIENCE says TRICERATOPS won 90% of the time, NOT TYRANNOSAURUS REX!!!

  17. veronica says:

    Go to a museum and stand next to a triceratops you’ll find its taller than you but not by much. Stand next to an elephant and it will tower over you. I know this because I live in south africa and I would know how big an elephant is. The triceratops was smaller than an elephant and I doubt it would have weighed more than one. Compare that to a t-rex. A t-rex was 12.8 meters long , 4 meters tall at the hips , had a weight of 6-9 tons. These possibilities that it may have even exceeded 9 tons. A bite force of 3.1 tons. A speed of 25 mph taking footsteps of 5m long. If the triceratops charged it , the t-rex was more than capable of moving out the way or just grabbing and crushing the horns. A triceratops was not built to fight off a t-rex. If it was , it wouldve been a lot bigger and stronger. But it wasn’t.

    • james says:

      Triceratops had a low centre of gravity to push things over with. And a recent study showed that t-rex was to heavey to run over 18 MPH.

    • Ryan says:

      Trike was built to figt trex because it won 9/10 battles. Trex only weighed 6-5 tons and science says trike weighed the same.

  18. veronica says:

    Triceratops were long thought to have possibly used their horns and frills in combat with predators such as Tyrannosaurus, the idea being discussed first by C. H. Sternberg in 1917 and 70 years later by Robert Bakker.[50][58] There is evidence that Tyrannosaurus did have aggressive head-on encounters with Triceratops, based on partially healed tyrannosaur tooth marks on a Triceratops brow horn and squamosal; the bitten horn is also broken, with new bone growth after the break. Which animal was the aggressor is not known.[59]Tyrannosaurus is also known to have fed on Triceratops. Evidence for this includes a heavily tooth-scored Triceratops ilium and sacrum. Found this info on wikipedia.

    • james says:

      But those marks could have been from either hunting or scavenging

    • Ryan says:

      Don’t trust Wikipedia anyone can edit it.

      It depends on who attacked first. Also trike is heavier and about the size of an elephant. Trex would hunt for something weaker. Trike is big and can crush a small trex by falling on it.

      Protoceratops hates verlociraptor as trike hates trex.

  19. veronica says:

    The fact that you can’t prove that to be so , I’d say you just lost a debate. Sorry for you. I know my facts and you didn’t.

  20. veronica says:

    One more thing , research and evidence are two different things. The so called research you’ve been looking at is probably so outdated. Evidence , however , shows its maximum speed was 25mph. Thank you for this debate. Logic has finally won.

  21. veronica says:

    Shame james , physical proof that it hunted triceratops just makes you want to try again. Say what you like deary you lost. Oh and btw update your facts you’ll need it

  22. veronica says:

    Yet you’re “knowledge” doesn’t cover the facts. Yet you’re so bias against the t-rex. Yet you will deny anything that is evidence. I’m clearly wasting my time on somebody who’s not informed. Sorry but that’s the truth

  23. veronica says:

    And just because its your website doesn’t mean you’ve won the debate. Doesn’t make you smarter than other people either.

  24. veronica says:

    Only smart people won’t undermine the t-rex like you do. Because they’re not stupid enough to make a dumb animal like the triceratops with a skull for mating display to be an animal that’s even capable of fighting predators. Just cause its your website doesn’t mean you’ll win every debate and it doesn’t make you smarter than other people. Sorry james but realism is better than fantasy

  25. Jerry says:

    Trex would win. This assumes health of both is good and you have good size
    animals of each species. All people are not the same size or age. Some men
    Could beat a coyote in a fight but others could not. So do we have a full grown
    Small and old Trex vs a full grown “in his prime” triceratops?

    • james says:

      The T-rex vs triceratops argument is like a Condor with no wings vs a Warthog. And the pig would batter the bird. True an old triceratops might loose but if the two are strong healthy individuals the triceratops would win.

      • Crow says:

        And a single Wildebeest will see off a single Lioness as well. And yet Lions still eat meat.
        There are far more hunting strategies than simply facing up to each other and then wrestling to the death.

        Seals are faster, more maneuverable, and much smarter than Great White Sharks. And yet the shark has evolved methods to hunt them succesfully.

        You would agree that all previous Tyrannosaurids actively hunted. and the fossils show they were getting bigger through the years because evolution was favoring their combination of size, speed and killing ability. and yet apparently despite T-Rex taking these winning attributes of killing power, size, strength and speed to unprecedented levels, it gives up this winning combination and decides to go scavenging, even though we cant find ANY exemple of a ground based animal that can survive on scavenging (hyenas kill 80% of their own protein intake) let alone one of the most massive predators ever made. And even though we already have evidence that it hunted in fossil records, and that only one Paleontologist currently supports this theory.

        • james says:

          But T-rex did not have the same body plan as earlier tyrannosaurs. It was slower and fatter.

          • Crow says:

            And Great whites are slower and fatter than reef sharks.
            And Lions are slower and fatter than Cheetahs.

            If you only knew of these animals purely from their skeletons would you use the same logic to suggest that great whites and Lions must be pure scavengers?

            You still have provded NO evidence as to why evolution would make a Tyrannosaurid depart from a winning strategy and make them scavengers, despite T-Rexs merely being a continuation of tens of millions of years of Tyrannosaurid growth in size and power as they dominated the landscape. nor why becoming so massive would be an advantage to being a scavenger, given that even a smaller, more slender predator like an Albertosaur could have pushed away smaller animals from their kills.

            The energy required to keep a T Rex going is simply monsterous, and if you do the calculations you will find T-Rex just could not have stayed alive by stumbling onto other animals kills and scavenging. Also when no other non-flying animal in history has been a pure scavenger, let alone the most powerful killer of all time.

            Which is why Paleontologists (and the evidence ) overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

  26. joseph says:

    all right, trex had the bone crunching amazing bite, probably faster than trike, and smarter. but, if it was head to head, trike would have used his amazing defense and attack. its horns and frill. trike would have used its strong sharp horns to destroy the soft belly of a trex.

  27. james says:

    @ crow I can think of land scavengers: Marabou storks, Jackals, Pigs, Hippos, Mugger crocodiles. Of course some of these also hunt or eat vegetables but you get my point. And T-rex was not a total scavenger, but is unlikely to want to attack a triceratops.

    • Crow says:

      ALL predators will scavenge. After all why risk your safety hunting when you can push a smaller predator away from its kill if you happen across them and eat it yourself.

      The problem is though, NO animal scavenged as a feeding technique. None of the animals you have high lighted are scavengers, or at least scavenge more than a small percentage of its food intake compared to hunting/grazing for its own food.

      The one land animal we most think of as a scavenger (the hyena) kills 80% of its own protein. the only animal that purely scavenges is the vulture, and only because it can fly large distances between kills to eat, a T-Rex would starve trying to haul its body between carcasses.

      T Rex was a hunter. the fossil evidence shows it hunted. no doubt it happily stole a meal from smaller predators if it could, but then lions do that to Cheetahs.

      As for not wanting to attack triceratops, there are triceratops fossils with healed T Rex teeth marks in them, showing it was not adverse to taking on live triceratops. If it hunted in pairs or in packs as some suggest, triceratops would have stood no chance

      • james says:

        When there were migrations of hadrosaurs, T-rex would have scavenged. However when they left it would have hunted. When in scavenge mode it would not have to travel far to get the next meal.

        And I still can’t believe that even a pair of t-rexes could have easily taken down a trike, though maybe 3 or 4 might do it. However we have no evidence for pack hunting yet.

        T-rex undoubtedly hunted. But scavenged more often than that. And when t-rex did hunt, no way was triceratops at the top of the menu, Probably not on the menu. If you take into account edmontosaurus, alamosaur juveniles, pachycephalosaurs ect, the t-rex would have to be seriously desperate to even consider taking on a triceratops.

  28. joseph says:

    james i know triceratops had a nice chance of beating a trex but it wasnt a fat beast

  29. veronica says:

    Get this james , a t- rex could run at 40 mph , it had the strongest bite force of any dinosaur , it was extremely muscular and well built , it had hunting techniques like the great white shark , it could read body language , it could smell blood from a few miles away , it had extremely good eyesight and used ambush on dangerous prey like the triceratops. The tricertops horns were crushed in a single bite by the rex as well because it was NOT designed to fight predators. It was too slow to even charge the t-rex and by the time it took the t-rex would have killed it already. A dinosaur with the power of a rex was NOT a scavenger. And just because the rex scavenged on dead or dying animals doesn’t make it a scavenger and neither does it make the great white shark a scavenger because it feeds off dead whales. You are not scientifically sound to call the rex a scavenger WITHOUT producing evidence on your site.

    • james says:

      T-rex could not run that fast. Of all dinosaurs only compsognathus could do that making it the fastest dinosaur that ever lived. No way could t-rex do that.

    • Ryan says:

      Trex bites horns = trex with bloody mouth even if if could crush bone. Trikes have tough skin and is a powerful beast.

      Trikes didn’t have much dinos attacking either than trex did they? No.

      Trikes win 5/10 fights. ADMIT IT. Trex won yes, but so did trikes. You are saying they win every time, which they DON’T.

    • Ryan says:

      One more thing. Trikes have healing marks on them which means they sometimes did survive. So you are WRONG Veronica.

  30. veronica says:

    And james the horns on a triceratops were there as a means of getting a mate. And you’re not considering the fossilised t-rex dung that had pieces of triceratops frill and skull. Add to it , a lone t-rex was more than capable of taking down a triceratops. 2 rexs and a triceratops and the triceratops would be down in a matter of minutes , simply because one rex would distract it and the other would bite it from behind. A triceratops was smaller than an elephant and a rex was a lot bigger than an elephant. So I know for a fact a triceratops wouldn’t stand a chance. Especially not against two t-rexs. Translate the name tyrannosaurus rex and it means tyrant lizard king. And its for very good reason that it was given that name.

    • james says:

      Just because triceratops’ horns were for mating doesn’t mean it couldn’t use them in defence (read my previous comments)

  31. veronica says:

    I have to say that even if the triceratops charged the t-rex if it saw it all the t-rex would have to do is move out the way. Given two rex’s hunting a triceratops , I honestly do NOT think the triceratops would win. It wouldn’t have been fast enough to defend itself against two. Not with one distracting it , and the other coming from the side or from behind. And I do agree that the rex hunted like a shark. GW shark though. They always come from the bottom or from behind when hunting dangerous prey like seals. There’s no reason that the rex wouldn’t have done the same with dangerous prey like the triceratops. And the rex wouldn’t just stand there and let itself get gored it could move out the way and crush the horns while biting them. One bite to the spine and the triceratops would be paralysed, and that’s why I suggest it couldn’t have held off two rexs. And james you are right when you say the rex wasn’t a pack hunter. They were solitary hunters except when they were a breeding pair. Then it was team work between the two.

    • james says:

      It could. Triceratops was aggressive. When it first evolved albertosaurus was dominant. And they were pack hunters. The triceratops would stab the first tyrannosaur and then stab the second, much like a buffalo or bison which is used to pack hunters (lions and wolves)

  32. james says:

    Thank you to all who have commented on this post. If there is any other pair of dinosaurs you wish to know who would win in a fight please say!

  33. emiliano says:

    im a very big fan of triceratops, but i think that it was eaten by t-rex. if lion kills bigger animals like buffalo, think what could happen with a enormous t-rex vs a triceratops which has half size of a t-rex. triceratops itsmy favourite dinosaur ever, and this hurts a lot, but its the truth. ah, and i searched about the size of the trike, and you dont have to look the ilustrations, look at the rel size skeletons compared with people and you see… but its very frustrating…

    • james says:

      Ah, but regardless of whether it was eaten or not, on average triceratops would have won. And remember, triceratops still weighed 9-11 tonnes, about the same as T-rex, meaning it had a low surface area in comparison. This means it was hard to knock over (regardless of the previous comments claiming t-rex could throw a triceratops).

  34. emiliano says:

    look at the skeletons… trike didnt weight 9 tonnes, there is no way… the physics says

  35. emiliano says:

    actually i think that t-rex weighed that. but the trike didnt, just look a photo… its just common sense

  36. emiliano says:

    looking the size, no more that 6 tonns. its impossible that weight the double that an elephant when the elephant its somuch bigger…

    • james says:

      Not in length. Ask most people around and they will tell you between 7- 12 tonnes.

      You see there are 2 types of Trike. T. horridus and T. prorsus. My size estimates always refer to T. horridus. T. prorsus, however, did weigh 4-6 tonnes.

  37. emiliano says:

    i really want a time machine and see a trike killing a t-rex, but i dont have it, so we have to use our knowledge and common sense to think what could happen 65 million years ago…

  38. emiliano says:

    actually i think that t. prorsus was bigger than horridus maybe im wrong… i bealive that trike was a potencial prey, it was the 5/6 of fauna on the cretaceous. possibly was a relation like the lion and the gnu. however, today the predators have an efficiency 0f 20%. maybe thats the reason why was found a horn broken by a t-rex, and the trike survived… a recent discover says that trike had spines in the back, like the porcupines. and a curious fact its that the frill hadnt the holes that all the others ceratopsians had. trike evolved to try to face off a t-rex, but i doubt it had succes…

  39. emiliano says:

    interesting material… how long its the skull do you know?

  40. enzo says:

    ya i agree tricaratops would win against t rex because of its armor and horns.
    plus he has probably the 2nd most defence of all dinosaur or maybe all animals

    • james says:

      After ankylosaurus, triceratops was the best defended dinosaur of his environment. However, it did not have armour, just tough skin. Also, we must remember that many sauropods were not defended with armour but just beat theropods with their shear bulk and long tails.

  41. Faith 113 says:

    1. i think triceratops would win because the triceratops could hit a t-rex with his horns.
    2. i think t-rex would win because the t-rex eats meat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *