• octoperson@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ll defer to actual paleontologists (or anyone who drops links), but my guess is T-Rex could go a month without food easy. Most modern large reptiles typically go a long time between meals.


    Edit: following the intense scholarship in this thread, I have changed my stance. T-Rex probably would not survive a month without food (or water). BUT ALSO, the entity setting the rules and betting 500 mil on it surviving is going to know that. So the Dino’s getting fed either way.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dinosaurs were not reptiles. Reptiles already existed when dinosaurs evolved and there are completely different evolutionary lineage.

      • Communist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That is not even a little true. If it was your phylogeny would mean crocodillians aren’t reptiles.

          • Communist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It is your phylogeny (not philosophy), you’re proposing a different phylogeny than science does.

            Archosaurs, such as crocodillians, diverged from a common ancestor BEFORE birds/dinosaurs did, from other reptiles.

            In order for what you’re saying to be true, we’d have to exclude crocodillians from being reptiles. No standard definition would not include crocodillians as reptiles. In modern taxonomy, we use what are called monophyletic groups to determine relatedness. Because of this, birds and all dinosaurs fall under the clade archosauria, and are therefore reptiles.

            In essence, what you’re proposing would be like saying “Your cousin is a reptile, but not your brother”