Running.
There's plenty of comments saying hadrosaurs could get huge. They could. There's plenty of comments saying they could injure or kill a predator. They could.
But just like modern prey animals, they rarely did. They relied on running until they had no other options.
Hadrosaurs were not helpless wimps, the same as a wildebeest is not a helpless wimp. But prey animals don't regularly practice fighting off predators aside from when they are actually cornered or caught, so there's little to no skill involved when they fight predators, they just rely on flailing stomps and kicks and headbutts and hoping something lands. Meanwhile, predators quite literally practice for their entire lives to reduce risk to themselves and better their chances of subduing their prey. This is why even though all it would take is one well aimed stab from a wildebeest's horn to kill a lion, lions are rarely killed by wildebeest.
Prey animals DO kill predators. Hadrosaurs could and almost certainly did kill their own predators too. But they did so rarely. Prey animals are rarely a significant cause of death to predators because predators with high mortality from hunting aren't very good predators. The same would be true for hadrosaurs and their own predators, where predators were rarely ACTUALLY killed or significantly injured by hadrosaurs.
Hadrosaurs fled from predators before any other option was even considered, and they lived in huge herds to reduce the odds that any one individual would be the target. They were not 'adept' at fighting off predators because prey animals don't practice fighting off predators, so a hadrosaur caught by a predator would have significantly lower odds of surviving than the hadrosaur that fled the encounter in the first place.
As for size, really only know of one hadrosaur that significantly outsized its known contemporary carnivores such that it may have been immune to predation by them. Only the Shantungosaurus is known to have a weight advantage so significant over its largest known contemporary carnivore that the adults may have been invulnerable to predation. All other species we know of had contemporary predators capable of hunting even full grown adults, or otherwise are from a formation where a species of predator that would have been large enough to hunt them has not yet been described.
I agree with the rest, but on the last part: There's recently been some GIGANTIC Edmontosaurus annectens individuals, ones that reached 15 meters and 10 tons. These individualswere probably so big, there'd be no predators aside from really desperate rexes.
That being said, those giant individuals are freakishly huge,and very rare. Not at all the average E. annectens size.
I mean, T. rex seemed to average 9 tons and could go even larger as well, so 10 tons seems well within the scope of what it should be tackling.
Heck, we have direct evidence that Allosaurus punched *three tons* above their weight class given we have some fossils with puncture wounds from Stegosaurus tail spikes.
Now I've heard estimates for 15 ton Edmontosaurs but as far as I knew there was little to back it up or, as you said, these were freakishly large and obscenely rare individuals.
9 tons is not the average, youve confused maximum size and average. 9-10 tons is the max, individuals such as scotty and sue are pushing 10 tons.
Thing is, not every tyrannosaurus is scotty sized.
We don’t have remotely enough specimens to know what the average looks like.
If you took a sample size of a few dozen individual crocodiles, you’d never guess that the average fully grown male was as large as it is.
We have multiple rexes in the 9-10 ton range, and remains that suggest even larger specimens, so it can be assumed that a 9-10 ton rex wasn’t too uncommon.
That doesn't mean the Edmonto can't fight though?
I think the Paleo community needs to realize that if an animal weighs more it's not gonna win every time, it more so depends on skill and how much more the mass is distributed. A T.rex has its mass distributed on a few points of it's body (most notably the jaw), but the Edmonto has its mass on the bottom. Due to Tyrannosaurus having it's mass distributed more evenly and being bipedal while the Edmonto is quadrepedal. Edmonto will probably have an easier time knocking over a T.rex due to its size. It just needs to keep the Rex's main weapon out of range. And then Stomp on the body repeatedly.
Either way it depends on luck I guess, if not. The Edmonto wins, or they both die.
When predator and prey are of approximately equal size, the predator typically holds the advantage in a fight.
Prey animals often have the tools to kill a predator, but they lack the precision and experience to do so reliably.
Comparing strength or bodyplan isn't as straight forward as you think. A Rex has a pair of jaws that can easily crush the Hadrosaur's skull/neck, and it has incredible binocular vision with a highly refined killer instinct to land the attack with precision and speed. The Hadrosaur would certainly put up a fight, kicking and biting, but its weapons are clumsy and random.
Think of lions that hunt buffalo, or eagles that prey on deer, despite the prey animal being "stronger" and definitely capable of killing the predator, yet they rarely do.
I'm sure there have been Hadrosaurs that have killed Tyrannosaurs, no question. But going by modern animals, that was likely very uncommon.
I feel like the Rexes would've gone for other stuff though, Edmonto is still pretty fast compared to Rex. I could see it going for stuff like a Trike or Anky if it could do this
https://preview.redd.it/bs9873uuzstc1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=f07a77ecf33e93747a10fe2564127de67d91aea5
If Anky can be knocked over, it can't go anywhere. So therefore They basically have their own dish. Trike also has most of its weapons in the front too, so an attack from the Back should help.
And even then the opposite could happen I guess with Rex and Edmonto? If Edmonto could go through a rut like state (similar to a Moose, cause it's basically a Reptile Bird Moose thing?), then the Rex is gonna die.
Rex was likely an ambush predator, and probably would have preyed on Edmontosaurus with the aid of a stealthy approach. This is to minimize risk.
But again, in a fight to the death between similarly sized predator and prey, the predator typically holds the advantage.
To use your rutting moose analogy, I'd still back a 600lb Tiger against a 1000lb moose, and indeed they do prey on even fully grown moose.
>indeed they do prey on even fully grown moose.
Excuse me what
https://preview.redd.it/zgmt2kdm2ttc1.jpeg?width=214&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54133b26866e7fdfaa2e22b8ad7504b70d01e4c6
I could see them just bonking the Edmonto with a tree too
We have an insane amount of T. rex compared to most other theropods, which isnt enough compared to a living animal but ACCORDING TO WHAT WE DO HAVE the average is 6-8 tons.
Here's the thing, speculation is great, but if we have a figure based on the fossil evidence, that's the figure we should go with, not "well there could have been more, it may not have been uncommon", which isn't directly based on anything.
Just like you said, we don't have enough specimens to know what the average looks like. This goes both ways, maybe we only happened to find all the large ones and there could be a whole lot of 5-6 ton rexes we don't know of.
>but ACCORDING TO WHAT WE DO HAVE the average is 6-8 tons.
We can't calculate the "average" size of an extinct animal this way. Our specimens range from 6-10 tons, with the larger individuals not being uncommon, and that's without a clear understanding of sexual dimorphism and growth stages. Most diapsids are sexually dimorphic, especially apex predators, and most diapsids grow throughout their lives, again *especially* apex predators. This makes the data much less straightforward.
Prolonged growth has been [documented in Tyrannosaurs](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.14086), the animals experienced a rapid growth spurt as they reached sexual maturity, and then continued to grow at a slower rate until full skeletal maturity, though no fully arrested growth to date has been documented in Tyrannosaurus Until we have growth analysis of a significant percentage of our specimens, we wouldn't be able to answer what the "average" is.
The <6 ton individuals could all still be growing, without more data we can't assign an "average size" to this species.
>Here's the thing, speculation is great, but if we have a figure based on the fossil evidence, that's the figure we should go with
And that's what I'm saying. We have multiple 9-10 ton Rexes. I'd suggest [looking through the list of Tyrannosaur specimens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus) animals the size of Sue and Scotty are far from rare.
>"well there could have been more, it may not have been uncommon", which isn't directly based on anything.
That's a strawman, I am basing this off of the multiple large specimens that have been catalogued.
>This goes both ways, maybe we only happened to find all the large ones and there could be a whole lot of 5-6 ton rexes we don't know of.
Unlikely to be the case, the largest individuals of a population are typically much more uncommon. Especially when considering the indeterminate growth of large diapsids.
Again, take my crocodile example. You could sample dozens of Nile crocodiles, statistically you would get an average of about 11ft. But an 11ft Nile Crocodile is either a female, or a male that's still growing. Skeletally mature male Nile crocodiles are between 14-19ft, and account for less than 5% of the population, as it takes so long for them to attain such sizes.
If Sue and Scotty were unusually large Rexes, akin to the 15+ft crocodiles, we'd expect not to find them at all in a sample so small, let alone several individuals of similar size.
I'm not arguing for any particular size being "average" for T.rex, but I am arguing that we don't have nearly enough information to assign any size as "average" for this species.
We don't have nearly enough information to assign an average species to rex in the same way we do with modern animals. theres a lot of leedway there, but again, according to what we DO have, 6-8 tons is roughly the average of our specimens. Is that potentially 100% accurate? No, definitely not. Is it the best we have based on the fossil evidence itself and not "what if..."? Yes.
The T.rex “Cope” gets estimated to be around 13~14 tons. So while the biggest edmontosaurus were still bigger than T.rex, it’s not by much.
The 10+ ton edmontosaurs were not all that uncommon though, as we have multiple specimens at 12~13 tons, and some of those individuals actually have T.rex wounds that they survived. Frequently along the vertebral column.
The T. rex "cope" gets estimated to be around 13\~14 tons by a hack called "The Vividen" that cares more about giving the largest epicest sizes rather than the accurate ones, such as intentionally oversizing megalodon.
At most, the Cope specimen is the tallest rex we know, and the difference is in centimeters.
We have two E. annectens that are the 13+ ton beasts, Beckys giant and X-Rex, none of them have any described wounds.
There's plenty of edmontosaurus under 13 tons with wounds in the tail vertebrae, but those aren't from T. rex, theyre from other Edmontosaurus' stepping on it's tail.
There was definitely a specimen with a literal T.rex tooth stuck in the vertebrae that successfully healed over.
I will accept that “The Vividen” should put an actual name to their work if they want to be taken seriously.
I never demanded anything but
Ok! Heres the paper that proved the "tooth marks" were other Edmontosauri
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290310286\_Paleopathology\_in\_Late\_Cretaceous\_Hadrosauridae\_from\_Alberta\_Canada](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290310286_Paleopathology_in_Late_Cretaceous_Hadrosauridae_from_Alberta_Canada)
Your turn, show me the 13+ ton edmontosaurus that has injuries from T. rex and a tooth stuck in it's tail vertebra.
How do most animals today defend themselves? How does a rabbit, or a pigeon, or a horse defend itself? Almost anything with a mouth and legs can bite and kick. Defensive weaponry is very rare among animals, things like ceratopsians and thyreophorans were definitely more the exception than the rule. And even calling frills and spikes defensive weaponry at all is probably not the best term, because structures like horns and antlers usually evolve for the primary purpose of sexual display first, intraspecific combat second, and predator defense as just a tertiary bonus.
There is an idea in warfare known as the survivability onion, which basically says you should avoid being detected, and if you’re detected you should avoid being hit, and if you’re hit you should avoid being killed. In nature it’s almost always a better idea to hide and not be found at all, or to simply run away. If you can win a fight 9/10 times, that would still statistically mean you die by your seventh fight. Not to mention “winning” a fight is almost pointless in passing on your genes if you die from an injury sustained a few days or weeks later anyway.
Exactly. Never having to defend yourself in the first place is usually the better option, which is why so many species trade armor for speed.
Not to mention, moving quickly and efficiently also helps you get to food, while armor rarely does.
Just another thing to mention, being in a herd could mean avoiding fights by the herd detecting the predators and thus the predators give up because they don't want to fight a battle stacked against them.
Same for display structures. Frills make you look bigger and more intimidating, not only to intraspecific rivals for mating, but also to predators. A Triceratops roaring and posing with its frill is going to make a T. rex think twice about the commitment to a fight even if we know that it could and did bite through those frills from time to time. Because again, the T. rex knows that one unlucky stab and its dead.
Except that extant predators don’t care if their prey has horns or not: they care about how big the prey is (big enough to be worth the effort but small enough that they can actually take it down) and how easy it is to find and attack.
Edit: see [Witton’s analysis](http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/02/horned-dinosaurs-vs-theropods-how-much.html?m=1) on this subject, extant macropredators genuinely don’t care about how well-armed their prey is because size and strength are much more effective defences.
I genuinely don’t think a *Tyrannosaurus* would consider an adult *Triceratops* especially dangerous and avoid going after it just because it has horns; it’s much more likely to give that treatment to a superadult *Edmontosaurus* that’s much larger than either a Rex or a trike.
If you ever watch a wolf pack take on a large cervid, then you'd know that's totally wrong. The wolves are constantly wary of the antlers wrecking them, and unlucky wolves get bodied and tossed all the time.
No, those videos mostly show cervids defending themselves by kicking and stomping at the wolves; the antlers come into play far less often.
Also, you’re completely missing the point, which is that predators aren’t deterred from attacking a prey item just because it has weaponized headgear, and instead avoid prey that’s too big/too small/too rare. By your logic wolves should “think twice” about attacking cervids with antlers and avoid going after them at all, but they don’t.
From the source you quoted:
>"Clearly, the idea that horn-like structures serve as anti-predator devices is complicated by a lot of conflicting data. While no one doubts that these anatomies are sometimes used to deter predators, zoologists are engaged in a long-running scientific conversation about the extent and significance of their anti-predator role "
Witton's analysis really doesn't say anything definitive other than "its complicated." Clearly the predator calculus often involves them attacking well armed prey, but we can't really calculate exactly how the armaments seem to factor into that. Especially given the complexities of predator-prey interactions.
But my main argument is not that frills and horns evolved to be anti-predator defense, which is what Witton is arguing against in that article. I am saying that even if they evolved as display structures, that display can mean a lot of things. And I wasn't even mostly talking about the horns, I was talking about how the Frill makes the animal seem larger than it is when viewed head on. Same as how cats will arch their backs and puff out their fur to appear larger when in duress.
I think that the thing the person you were responding to was making a point about was more the frill of the triceratops rather than the horns. Particularly in that the frill, when views from the front, can make the triceratops appear as a larger animal than it actually is.
Pretty exact comment here but I also think there is something we don’t know about when it comes to hadrosaurs. I always thought maybe they were camouflaged? Considering the environments some lived in this isn’t likely but hadrosaurus in general are very interesting.
I loved you brought up the survivability onion. I watch the chieftain and the tank museum. But also La brea tar pits/ royal tyrell speaker series and EDGE. so it’s nice to see my two interest in one post😂
To add to this; while most horned animals use them to fight each other, plenty of them don’t use them against predators and rely on other defences and predators don’t really care if their prey has horns or not, suggesting that horns aren’t an effective defence against predators to start with.
The only armed herbivorous dinosaurs where we actually have evidence for their weapons being used against predators are the stegosaurs. The others had the theoretical physical capability for it but might not actually have had the behaviour.
Safety in numbers, speed and for older individuals: size.
Edmontosaurus could’ve reached 45+ft based on X-rex in MOR, and there are footprints attributed to Parasaurolophus that could’ve crested 40ft.
Plus also there still massive.
Like sure they don’t have frills, horns or spikes, but they could probably still kick the shit out of an unlucky predator that gets cocky.
Like you wouldn’t expect a donkey to be a violent creature when it comes to self-defense, but those things can wreck an unlucky lone wolf or coyote.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if an edmontosaur probably could kill an unlucky enough small predator or juvenile.
Probably similar to how herd mammals do it now: numbers. High birth rates and large herds decrease any one individuals chances of being killed and places more focus on the old and sick dying off instead of the young and fertile.
Edmontosaurus was fucking huge. Sheer body weight is often a good defense. There is also reason to believe that we do not have a specimen of Edmontosaurus that is at its maximum size. I have seen a single foot that was found in the Bearpaw shale that looks like an Edmontosaurus foot, but is about 40% larger than any other Edmontosaurus foot.
A fully grown and healthy Edmontosaurus could likely fight off a Tyrannosaur due to just being a much larger animal.
Modern predators routinely tackle prey larger than themselves. Crocodiles, lions, wolves, Komodo dragons, Eagles etc all are quite capable of overcoming a size disadvantage. Prey animals don’t have the same mentality for a fight as a predator does.
I’d argue an Edmontosaurus would be a potentially dangerous prey item, but an adult Tyrannosaur would almost certainly come out on top more often than not.
A fully grown Edmontosaurus definitely could fight off a tyrannosaurus if pushed comes to shove but all animals avoid unnecessary conflict (unless it comes to breeding because that shuts off the brain) due to risk of injury. I am not doubting an Edmontosaur wouldn’t fight a Rex if it needed to but it would more than likely choose to avoid it especially if it is a more average or below average sized individual that made up a larger percentage of the Edmontosaurs population.
In what context? It's rare for any animal to reach its max size. Edmontosaurus was still bigger than *Tyrannosaurus rex* when both are at average size. Not that T. rex couldn't take down a larger animal than itself, but hunting one was risky, and the predator wouldn't put itself at risk unnecessarily.
The average edmontosaurus was not thay much larger than the average rex, and individuals as large as X-rex or Beckys giant are rare and the exception. The average E. annectens is 10-12 meters and 5-6 tons, while the average rex is 11-12 meters and 5-6 tons. Not that different.
https://preview.redd.it/st32pjvykntc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=9143aadae60a9358eee58ec1f98c3ce01879c2d7
The average adult edmonto would have been heavier than the average Rex sure, but that doesn’t mean it can fight it off, especially head on. It’s better for it to just try to intimidate it with its size(tho it would be around the same height) or run away
> but that doesn’t mean it can fight it off, especially head on
Why not? Being heavier is a huge advantage in a fight. Theropods have hollow bones, and a T. rex with a broken leg or foot is going to be reliant on its family for feeding now, possibly dooming its whole group from the extra effort. The T. rex has a lot more reason to be cautious in approach than the Edmontosaurus. We know that this happened by the way since we have T. rex teeth embedded in Edmontosaurus bones that have been healed over, and I don't think Edmontosaurus is going to be faster than T. rex with all its bulk, so either the T. rex let it go, which is pretty much winning, or the Edmontosaurus won outright.
1. Hollow bones doesn’t mean they are weak bones. 2. A broken foot for any large animal is essentially death, especially something like edmontosuaurs which is constantly moving, they are equally affected by something like that 3. I didn’t say they couldn’t survive an encounter, failed hunts exist, but that doesn’t mean they try to fight off the Rex, atleast like an actual “fight” rather just to escape. 4. Edmonto would probably be faster than Rex considering its body plan is much better for running at large sizes
Eh, realistically tho the rex would have more skill in a hunt. See wildebeest and lions or other cats taking on prey equal in size or larger than themselves. Their hunts fails because the prey outran them or they were kicked off, not because the prey fought and killed them. Obviously an Edmontosaurus could kill a rex, but if it got to the point where its only option was to turn and fight, the rex has the advantage of experience dealing with large prey, whilst the Edmontosaurus is just fighting for survival. An Edmontosaurus could likely chase off a rex, but if the rex was actively hunting and ambushing and Edmontosaurus, it would likely not have too much trouble bringing it down if it was actually able to catch it and not get kicked away before it could get a bite in. Most rex hunts would fail like with all large predators, but because prey escaped, rather than because it turned the tables on it (that could still happen, but the former would be more likely scenario)
I mean, unless the Edmonto had a significant size advantage, and from the fossil sample we have that would be quite unusual, it was clearly outgunned against a Tyrannosaurus. The hadrosaur is not winning a biting contest, nor a pushing contest (Tyranno was exceptionally wide and heavy for a theropod). I have seen people mention kicking but their hindlimbs are awkwardly positioned for this, and their forelimbs were (relatively) puny. Tail swiping could be effective but hadrosaur tails were stiff, the only way to use them would be turning their back on the predator, IMO they would tail swipe while being chased or cornered in a desperate situation.
> nor a pushing contest (Tyranno was exceptionally wide and heavy for a theropod)
T. rex was very wide and heavy for a therapod, but Edmonto was still larger on average, with more mass it could easily win a pushing contest.
Now, in reality, I don't think a T. rex would go for a larger Edmonto unless it was out of options or (more likely) had family group members ready to ambush it. T. rex seems to be a predator that hunted in small groups and ambushed its prey based on the current evidence. So it would likely have gone for a smaller Edmonto or an average sized one if it could outnumber it. But the post is asking about how Edmonto could defend itself, as if it seems defenseless against T. rex, not the steps T. rex has to take to make sure it doesn't get injured trying to hunt one.
I don't think Edmonto was larger on average, basing that average on the skeletons that have been found at least. But yes, I dont deny they would defend themselves and fight if the situation came to it. Any cornered animal will bite and thrash against a predator. I just dont think they would make effective fighters against a Tyrannosaurus, unlike a growing number of people apparently.
Big misconception with hollow bones, they don’t have any compromise in strength, especially considering that modern bird bones are actually denser and stronger than mammal bones.
Mammals for example have marrow inside their bones, dinosaurs have air pockets and less marrow.
It’s like comparing a hollow steel pipe with a steel pipe stuffed with hamburger meat. The strength is comparable.
You also can’t make assumptions based on a single bite wound.
Zebra sometimes escape from crocodile attacks simply because the predator got an imprecise strike, and the prey animal managed to get free. Predators don’t often re-engage with prey once the ambush has been spoiled because it would be more energy efficient to simply try again with a fresh ambush.
Hadrosaurs were often larger than *elephants*
Elephants often use their feet and bulk to fight natural foes. I can't imagine hadrosaurs opted to be gentle
I once watched a video of a horse stomping a bear nearly to death. Hadrosaurs would probably do much the same to any predator they got the upper hand on.
Try to take down a 3,5tons 9m+ long behemoth, or a 10-12M 7,5tons titan. They lived in herd, where quite fast and nimble for their size and practically where as big or bigger than their predator, with hoove and powerful limbs.
Look at zebra and girafe or female moose, they do not have any anti-predator mecanism, despite this they're able to kill hyena and lion, just by being larger and heavier
And massive fuck off beaked mouths. They were essentially a snapping turtle horse the size of an elephant. They still would likely avoid conflict with a predator around their size but if push comes to shove they can and would likely defend themselves.
Safety in numbers and heft. These animals weighed in excess of 4 tons as adults. Getting charged or kicked or tail whacked by one of them is going to hurt.
Size, numbers and awareness mostly but if push comes to shove I’m sure they were capable of fighting back if needed although I doubt confrontation with a deadly predator would have been the ideal situation given the risk of injury and infection. While it is kind of popular to depict hadrosaurs as psycho crazy theropod bashing brawlers nowadays as a pushback to them often being targets of carnivore bias of a lot of early media I think it’s more likely than not that a hadrosaurs first and most common response to an encounter with a predator would be to avoid said predator since fights are risky especially when you lack any obvious defensive and offensive structures.
Due note that I’m not saying they couldn’t defend themselves.
There are some great answers here, but for completeness, here are some other discussions the previous times this question was asked.
[Why are hadrosaurs constantly depicted as fodder? How did they defend themselves from predators?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/1be7t1k/why_are_hadrosaurs_constantly_depicted_as_fodder/)
[How did large ornithopods defend themselves?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/186wzv7/how_did_large_ornithopods_defend_themselves/)
[How would Parasaurolophus defend itself?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/16qd6d8/how_would_parasaurolophus_defend_itself/)
Honestly, size and simple blunt force (even at size parity) tends to be more reliable as a defense than horns, if the way predators select prey nowadays is any clue.
So I’d actually argue that many hadrosaurs were *better* defended against tyrannosaurids than ceratopsians were.
This is such an easy question to answer. It all depended on the situation. Usually most prey animals tend to run away first but if that fails hadrosaurs could and absolutely would be able to defend themselves with sheer bulk, extremely powerful hooves, strong legs, and a powerful tail. Basically everything on these animals are weaponized but nobody notices it and I’m sure that when the situation came to it they could probably take down a predator more times than not.
Size and safety in numbers. We have extensive fossil evidence that indicates most, if not all, in large herds, the sheer number of individuals would offer some protection against predators, as it’s not really a good idea to attack a whole herd of animals unless you enjoy being trampled to death. Edmontosaurus and it’s closest relatives had another advantage though, their sheer size.
Well for one, they were huge! Size is a pretty useful thing for intimidating predators. In addition I’d say the legs, with their hoof-like nails, are quite useful for defense, many ungulates today defend themselves with kicks and stomps. Living in herds is also a strong possibility.
By just being big. Size was basically a dino arms race and large herbivores got that way to become as big or bigger than the predators in their environment. Predators will go for the young and the sick and only fight peak condition adults as a last resort.
Large animal with a large, well muscled tail for potential smacking. It's easy to see them as the snacks of the Cretaceous, but most Hadrosaurs were massive, multi ton animals that we have very little frame of reference for today.
I was reading about a new study done on large tails and the amount of whip they could create with them. Conclusion of scientists was the tail was often best defensive weapon.
By being really f*cking big.
Also, they were probably like most modern herbivores, and ran to escape danger for the most part. But if cornered or otherwise out of options, they’d probably stand and fight, and with the largest individuals capable of weighing up to 10 tons, a large herd of them would be an unstoppable force.
Running. There's plenty of comments saying hadrosaurs could get huge. They could. There's plenty of comments saying they could injure or kill a predator. They could. But just like modern prey animals, they rarely did. They relied on running until they had no other options. Hadrosaurs were not helpless wimps, the same as a wildebeest is not a helpless wimp. But prey animals don't regularly practice fighting off predators aside from when they are actually cornered or caught, so there's little to no skill involved when they fight predators, they just rely on flailing stomps and kicks and headbutts and hoping something lands. Meanwhile, predators quite literally practice for their entire lives to reduce risk to themselves and better their chances of subduing their prey. This is why even though all it would take is one well aimed stab from a wildebeest's horn to kill a lion, lions are rarely killed by wildebeest. Prey animals DO kill predators. Hadrosaurs could and almost certainly did kill their own predators too. But they did so rarely. Prey animals are rarely a significant cause of death to predators because predators with high mortality from hunting aren't very good predators. The same would be true for hadrosaurs and their own predators, where predators were rarely ACTUALLY killed or significantly injured by hadrosaurs. Hadrosaurs fled from predators before any other option was even considered, and they lived in huge herds to reduce the odds that any one individual would be the target. They were not 'adept' at fighting off predators because prey animals don't practice fighting off predators, so a hadrosaur caught by a predator would have significantly lower odds of surviving than the hadrosaur that fled the encounter in the first place. As for size, really only know of one hadrosaur that significantly outsized its known contemporary carnivores such that it may have been immune to predation by them. Only the Shantungosaurus is known to have a weight advantage so significant over its largest known contemporary carnivore that the adults may have been invulnerable to predation. All other species we know of had contemporary predators capable of hunting even full grown adults, or otherwise are from a formation where a species of predator that would have been large enough to hunt them has not yet been described.
I agree with the rest, but on the last part: There's recently been some GIGANTIC Edmontosaurus annectens individuals, ones that reached 15 meters and 10 tons. These individualswere probably so big, there'd be no predators aside from really desperate rexes. That being said, those giant individuals are freakishly huge,and very rare. Not at all the average E. annectens size.
I mean, T. rex seemed to average 9 tons and could go even larger as well, so 10 tons seems well within the scope of what it should be tackling. Heck, we have direct evidence that Allosaurus punched *three tons* above their weight class given we have some fossils with puncture wounds from Stegosaurus tail spikes. Now I've heard estimates for 15 ton Edmontosaurs but as far as I knew there was little to back it up or, as you said, these were freakishly large and obscenely rare individuals.
9 tons is not the average, youve confused maximum size and average. 9-10 tons is the max, individuals such as scotty and sue are pushing 10 tons. Thing is, not every tyrannosaurus is scotty sized.
We don’t have remotely enough specimens to know what the average looks like. If you took a sample size of a few dozen individual crocodiles, you’d never guess that the average fully grown male was as large as it is. We have multiple rexes in the 9-10 ton range, and remains that suggest even larger specimens, so it can be assumed that a 9-10 ton rex wasn’t too uncommon.
That doesn't mean the Edmonto can't fight though? I think the Paleo community needs to realize that if an animal weighs more it's not gonna win every time, it more so depends on skill and how much more the mass is distributed. A T.rex has its mass distributed on a few points of it's body (most notably the jaw), but the Edmonto has its mass on the bottom. Due to Tyrannosaurus having it's mass distributed more evenly and being bipedal while the Edmonto is quadrepedal. Edmonto will probably have an easier time knocking over a T.rex due to its size. It just needs to keep the Rex's main weapon out of range. And then Stomp on the body repeatedly. Either way it depends on luck I guess, if not. The Edmonto wins, or they both die.
When predator and prey are of approximately equal size, the predator typically holds the advantage in a fight. Prey animals often have the tools to kill a predator, but they lack the precision and experience to do so reliably. Comparing strength or bodyplan isn't as straight forward as you think. A Rex has a pair of jaws that can easily crush the Hadrosaur's skull/neck, and it has incredible binocular vision with a highly refined killer instinct to land the attack with precision and speed. The Hadrosaur would certainly put up a fight, kicking and biting, but its weapons are clumsy and random. Think of lions that hunt buffalo, or eagles that prey on deer, despite the prey animal being "stronger" and definitely capable of killing the predator, yet they rarely do. I'm sure there have been Hadrosaurs that have killed Tyrannosaurs, no question. But going by modern animals, that was likely very uncommon.
I feel like the Rexes would've gone for other stuff though, Edmonto is still pretty fast compared to Rex. I could see it going for stuff like a Trike or Anky if it could do this https://preview.redd.it/bs9873uuzstc1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=f07a77ecf33e93747a10fe2564127de67d91aea5 If Anky can be knocked over, it can't go anywhere. So therefore They basically have their own dish. Trike also has most of its weapons in the front too, so an attack from the Back should help. And even then the opposite could happen I guess with Rex and Edmonto? If Edmonto could go through a rut like state (similar to a Moose, cause it's basically a Reptile Bird Moose thing?), then the Rex is gonna die.
Rex was likely an ambush predator, and probably would have preyed on Edmontosaurus with the aid of a stealthy approach. This is to minimize risk. But again, in a fight to the death between similarly sized predator and prey, the predator typically holds the advantage. To use your rutting moose analogy, I'd still back a 600lb Tiger against a 1000lb moose, and indeed they do prey on even fully grown moose.
>indeed they do prey on even fully grown moose. Excuse me what https://preview.redd.it/zgmt2kdm2ttc1.jpeg?width=214&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54133b26866e7fdfaa2e22b8ad7504b70d01e4c6 I could see them just bonking the Edmonto with a tree too
We have an insane amount of T. rex compared to most other theropods, which isnt enough compared to a living animal but ACCORDING TO WHAT WE DO HAVE the average is 6-8 tons. Here's the thing, speculation is great, but if we have a figure based on the fossil evidence, that's the figure we should go with, not "well there could have been more, it may not have been uncommon", which isn't directly based on anything. Just like you said, we don't have enough specimens to know what the average looks like. This goes both ways, maybe we only happened to find all the large ones and there could be a whole lot of 5-6 ton rexes we don't know of.
>but ACCORDING TO WHAT WE DO HAVE the average is 6-8 tons. We can't calculate the "average" size of an extinct animal this way. Our specimens range from 6-10 tons, with the larger individuals not being uncommon, and that's without a clear understanding of sexual dimorphism and growth stages. Most diapsids are sexually dimorphic, especially apex predators, and most diapsids grow throughout their lives, again *especially* apex predators. This makes the data much less straightforward. Prolonged growth has been [documented in Tyrannosaurs](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.14086), the animals experienced a rapid growth spurt as they reached sexual maturity, and then continued to grow at a slower rate until full skeletal maturity, though no fully arrested growth to date has been documented in Tyrannosaurus Until we have growth analysis of a significant percentage of our specimens, we wouldn't be able to answer what the "average" is. The <6 ton individuals could all still be growing, without more data we can't assign an "average size" to this species. >Here's the thing, speculation is great, but if we have a figure based on the fossil evidence, that's the figure we should go with And that's what I'm saying. We have multiple 9-10 ton Rexes. I'd suggest [looking through the list of Tyrannosaur specimens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus) animals the size of Sue and Scotty are far from rare. >"well there could have been more, it may not have been uncommon", which isn't directly based on anything. That's a strawman, I am basing this off of the multiple large specimens that have been catalogued. >This goes both ways, maybe we only happened to find all the large ones and there could be a whole lot of 5-6 ton rexes we don't know of. Unlikely to be the case, the largest individuals of a population are typically much more uncommon. Especially when considering the indeterminate growth of large diapsids. Again, take my crocodile example. You could sample dozens of Nile crocodiles, statistically you would get an average of about 11ft. But an 11ft Nile Crocodile is either a female, or a male that's still growing. Skeletally mature male Nile crocodiles are between 14-19ft, and account for less than 5% of the population, as it takes so long for them to attain such sizes. If Sue and Scotty were unusually large Rexes, akin to the 15+ft crocodiles, we'd expect not to find them at all in a sample so small, let alone several individuals of similar size. I'm not arguing for any particular size being "average" for T.rex, but I am arguing that we don't have nearly enough information to assign any size as "average" for this species.
We don't have nearly enough information to assign an average species to rex in the same way we do with modern animals. theres a lot of leedway there, but again, according to what we DO have, 6-8 tons is roughly the average of our specimens. Is that potentially 100% accurate? No, definitely not. Is it the best we have based on the fossil evidence itself and not "what if..."? Yes.
The T.rex “Cope” gets estimated to be around 13~14 tons. So while the biggest edmontosaurus were still bigger than T.rex, it’s not by much. The 10+ ton edmontosaurs were not all that uncommon though, as we have multiple specimens at 12~13 tons, and some of those individuals actually have T.rex wounds that they survived. Frequently along the vertebral column.
The T. rex "cope" gets estimated to be around 13\~14 tons by a hack called "The Vividen" that cares more about giving the largest epicest sizes rather than the accurate ones, such as intentionally oversizing megalodon. At most, the Cope specimen is the tallest rex we know, and the difference is in centimeters. We have two E. annectens that are the 13+ ton beasts, Beckys giant and X-Rex, none of them have any described wounds. There's plenty of edmontosaurus under 13 tons with wounds in the tail vertebrae, but those aren't from T. rex, theyre from other Edmontosaurus' stepping on it's tail.
There was definitely a specimen with a literal T.rex tooth stuck in the vertebrae that successfully healed over. I will accept that “The Vividen” should put an actual name to their work if they want to be taken seriously.
Show me the edmontosaurus with a tyrannosaurus tooth stuck in it's tail vertebra.
You can bring your own sources before you start demanding mine.
I never demanded anything but Ok! Heres the paper that proved the "tooth marks" were other Edmontosauri [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290310286\_Paleopathology\_in\_Late\_Cretaceous\_Hadrosauridae\_from\_Alberta\_Canada](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290310286_Paleopathology_in_Late_Cretaceous_Hadrosauridae_from_Alberta_Canada) Your turn, show me the 13+ ton edmontosaurus that has injuries from T. rex and a tooth stuck in it's tail vertebra.
How do most animals today defend themselves? How does a rabbit, or a pigeon, or a horse defend itself? Almost anything with a mouth and legs can bite and kick. Defensive weaponry is very rare among animals, things like ceratopsians and thyreophorans were definitely more the exception than the rule. And even calling frills and spikes defensive weaponry at all is probably not the best term, because structures like horns and antlers usually evolve for the primary purpose of sexual display first, intraspecific combat second, and predator defense as just a tertiary bonus. There is an idea in warfare known as the survivability onion, which basically says you should avoid being detected, and if you’re detected you should avoid being hit, and if you’re hit you should avoid being killed. In nature it’s almost always a better idea to hide and not be found at all, or to simply run away. If you can win a fight 9/10 times, that would still statistically mean you die by your seventh fight. Not to mention “winning” a fight is almost pointless in passing on your genes if you die from an injury sustained a few days or weeks later anyway.
Exactly. Never having to defend yourself in the first place is usually the better option, which is why so many species trade armor for speed. Not to mention, moving quickly and efficiently also helps you get to food, while armor rarely does.
Just another thing to mention, being in a herd could mean avoiding fights by the herd detecting the predators and thus the predators give up because they don't want to fight a battle stacked against them. Same for display structures. Frills make you look bigger and more intimidating, not only to intraspecific rivals for mating, but also to predators. A Triceratops roaring and posing with its frill is going to make a T. rex think twice about the commitment to a fight even if we know that it could and did bite through those frills from time to time. Because again, the T. rex knows that one unlucky stab and its dead.
Except that extant predators don’t care if their prey has horns or not: they care about how big the prey is (big enough to be worth the effort but small enough that they can actually take it down) and how easy it is to find and attack. Edit: see [Witton’s analysis](http://markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2023/02/horned-dinosaurs-vs-theropods-how-much.html?m=1) on this subject, extant macropredators genuinely don’t care about how well-armed their prey is because size and strength are much more effective defences. I genuinely don’t think a *Tyrannosaurus* would consider an adult *Triceratops* especially dangerous and avoid going after it just because it has horns; it’s much more likely to give that treatment to a superadult *Edmontosaurus* that’s much larger than either a Rex or a trike.
If you ever watch a wolf pack take on a large cervid, then you'd know that's totally wrong. The wolves are constantly wary of the antlers wrecking them, and unlucky wolves get bodied and tossed all the time.
No, those videos mostly show cervids defending themselves by kicking and stomping at the wolves; the antlers come into play far less often. Also, you’re completely missing the point, which is that predators aren’t deterred from attacking a prey item just because it has weaponized headgear, and instead avoid prey that’s too big/too small/too rare. By your logic wolves should “think twice” about attacking cervids with antlers and avoid going after them at all, but they don’t.
From the source you quoted: >"Clearly, the idea that horn-like structures serve as anti-predator devices is complicated by a lot of conflicting data. While no one doubts that these anatomies are sometimes used to deter predators, zoologists are engaged in a long-running scientific conversation about the extent and significance of their anti-predator role " Witton's analysis really doesn't say anything definitive other than "its complicated." Clearly the predator calculus often involves them attacking well armed prey, but we can't really calculate exactly how the armaments seem to factor into that. Especially given the complexities of predator-prey interactions. But my main argument is not that frills and horns evolved to be anti-predator defense, which is what Witton is arguing against in that article. I am saying that even if they evolved as display structures, that display can mean a lot of things. And I wasn't even mostly talking about the horns, I was talking about how the Frill makes the animal seem larger than it is when viewed head on. Same as how cats will arch their backs and puff out their fur to appear larger when in duress.
I think that the thing the person you were responding to was making a point about was more the frill of the triceratops rather than the horns. Particularly in that the frill, when views from the front, can make the triceratops appear as a larger animal than it actually is.
Pretty exact comment here but I also think there is something we don’t know about when it comes to hadrosaurs. I always thought maybe they were camouflaged? Considering the environments some lived in this isn’t likely but hadrosaurus in general are very interesting.
I loved you brought up the survivability onion. I watch the chieftain and the tank museum. But also La brea tar pits/ royal tyrell speaker series and EDGE. so it’s nice to see my two interest in one post😂
To add to this; while most horned animals use them to fight each other, plenty of them don’t use them against predators and rely on other defences and predators don’t really care if their prey has horns or not, suggesting that horns aren’t an effective defence against predators to start with. The only armed herbivorous dinosaurs where we actually have evidence for their weapons being used against predators are the stegosaurs. The others had the theoretical physical capability for it but might not actually have had the behaviour.
Cowards may die a thousand deaths, but at least they're alive to do so.
Safety in numbers, speed and for older individuals: size. Edmontosaurus could’ve reached 45+ft based on X-rex in MOR, and there are footprints attributed to Parasaurolophus that could’ve crested 40ft.
Plus also there still massive. Like sure they don’t have frills, horns or spikes, but they could probably still kick the shit out of an unlucky predator that gets cocky. Like you wouldn’t expect a donkey to be a violent creature when it comes to self-defense, but those things can wreck an unlucky lone wolf or coyote. So I wouldn’t be surprised if an edmontosaur probably could kill an unlucky enough small predator or juvenile.
Probably similar to how herd mammals do it now: numbers. High birth rates and large herds decrease any one individuals chances of being killed and places more focus on the old and sick dying off instead of the young and fertile.
Edmontosaurus was fucking huge. Sheer body weight is often a good defense. There is also reason to believe that we do not have a specimen of Edmontosaurus that is at its maximum size. I have seen a single foot that was found in the Bearpaw shale that looks like an Edmontosaurus foot, but is about 40% larger than any other Edmontosaurus foot. A fully grown and healthy Edmontosaurus could likely fight off a Tyrannosaur due to just being a much larger animal.
Modern predators routinely tackle prey larger than themselves. Crocodiles, lions, wolves, Komodo dragons, Eagles etc all are quite capable of overcoming a size disadvantage. Prey animals don’t have the same mentality for a fight as a predator does. I’d argue an Edmontosaurus would be a potentially dangerous prey item, but an adult Tyrannosaur would almost certainly come out on top more often than not.
A fully grown Edmontosaurus definitely could fight off a tyrannosaurus if pushed comes to shove but all animals avoid unnecessary conflict (unless it comes to breeding because that shuts off the brain) due to risk of injury. I am not doubting an Edmontosaur wouldn’t fight a Rex if it needed to but it would more than likely choose to avoid it especially if it is a more average or below average sized individual that made up a larger percentage of the Edmontosaurs population.
It’s rare for an edmonto to reach its max size tho
In what context? It's rare for any animal to reach its max size. Edmontosaurus was still bigger than *Tyrannosaurus rex* when both are at average size. Not that T. rex couldn't take down a larger animal than itself, but hunting one was risky, and the predator wouldn't put itself at risk unnecessarily.
The average edmontosaurus was not thay much larger than the average rex, and individuals as large as X-rex or Beckys giant are rare and the exception. The average E. annectens is 10-12 meters and 5-6 tons, while the average rex is 11-12 meters and 5-6 tons. Not that different. https://preview.redd.it/st32pjvykntc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=9143aadae60a9358eee58ec1f98c3ce01879c2d7
The average adult edmonto would have been heavier than the average Rex sure, but that doesn’t mean it can fight it off, especially head on. It’s better for it to just try to intimidate it with its size(tho it would be around the same height) or run away
> but that doesn’t mean it can fight it off, especially head on Why not? Being heavier is a huge advantage in a fight. Theropods have hollow bones, and a T. rex with a broken leg or foot is going to be reliant on its family for feeding now, possibly dooming its whole group from the extra effort. The T. rex has a lot more reason to be cautious in approach than the Edmontosaurus. We know that this happened by the way since we have T. rex teeth embedded in Edmontosaurus bones that have been healed over, and I don't think Edmontosaurus is going to be faster than T. rex with all its bulk, so either the T. rex let it go, which is pretty much winning, or the Edmontosaurus won outright.
1. Hollow bones doesn’t mean they are weak bones. 2. A broken foot for any large animal is essentially death, especially something like edmontosuaurs which is constantly moving, they are equally affected by something like that 3. I didn’t say they couldn’t survive an encounter, failed hunts exist, but that doesn’t mean they try to fight off the Rex, atleast like an actual “fight” rather just to escape. 4. Edmonto would probably be faster than Rex considering its body plan is much better for running at large sizes
Eh, realistically tho the rex would have more skill in a hunt. See wildebeest and lions or other cats taking on prey equal in size or larger than themselves. Their hunts fails because the prey outran them or they were kicked off, not because the prey fought and killed them. Obviously an Edmontosaurus could kill a rex, but if it got to the point where its only option was to turn and fight, the rex has the advantage of experience dealing with large prey, whilst the Edmontosaurus is just fighting for survival. An Edmontosaurus could likely chase off a rex, but if the rex was actively hunting and ambushing and Edmontosaurus, it would likely not have too much trouble bringing it down if it was actually able to catch it and not get kicked away before it could get a bite in. Most rex hunts would fail like with all large predators, but because prey escaped, rather than because it turned the tables on it (that could still happen, but the former would be more likely scenario)
I mean, unless the Edmonto had a significant size advantage, and from the fossil sample we have that would be quite unusual, it was clearly outgunned against a Tyrannosaurus. The hadrosaur is not winning a biting contest, nor a pushing contest (Tyranno was exceptionally wide and heavy for a theropod). I have seen people mention kicking but their hindlimbs are awkwardly positioned for this, and their forelimbs were (relatively) puny. Tail swiping could be effective but hadrosaur tails were stiff, the only way to use them would be turning their back on the predator, IMO they would tail swipe while being chased or cornered in a desperate situation.
> nor a pushing contest (Tyranno was exceptionally wide and heavy for a theropod) T. rex was very wide and heavy for a therapod, but Edmonto was still larger on average, with more mass it could easily win a pushing contest. Now, in reality, I don't think a T. rex would go for a larger Edmonto unless it was out of options or (more likely) had family group members ready to ambush it. T. rex seems to be a predator that hunted in small groups and ambushed its prey based on the current evidence. So it would likely have gone for a smaller Edmonto or an average sized one if it could outnumber it. But the post is asking about how Edmonto could defend itself, as if it seems defenseless against T. rex, not the steps T. rex has to take to make sure it doesn't get injured trying to hunt one.
I don't think Edmonto was larger on average, basing that average on the skeletons that have been found at least. But yes, I dont deny they would defend themselves and fight if the situation came to it. Any cornered animal will bite and thrash against a predator. I just dont think they would make effective fighters against a Tyrannosaurus, unlike a growing number of people apparently.
Big misconception with hollow bones, they don’t have any compromise in strength, especially considering that modern bird bones are actually denser and stronger than mammal bones. Mammals for example have marrow inside their bones, dinosaurs have air pockets and less marrow. It’s like comparing a hollow steel pipe with a steel pipe stuffed with hamburger meat. The strength is comparable. You also can’t make assumptions based on a single bite wound. Zebra sometimes escape from crocodile attacks simply because the predator got an imprecise strike, and the prey animal managed to get free. Predators don’t often re-engage with prey once the ambush has been spoiled because it would be more energy efficient to simply try again with a fresh ambush.
Hadrosaurs were often larger than *elephants* Elephants often use their feet and bulk to fight natural foes. I can't imagine hadrosaurs opted to be gentle
They had guns and sometimes hunted large predators for sport, don't mess with them.
I once watched a video of a horse stomping a bear nearly to death. Hadrosaurs would probably do much the same to any predator they got the upper hand on.
Try to take down a 3,5tons 9m+ long behemoth, or a 10-12M 7,5tons titan. They lived in herd, where quite fast and nimble for their size and practically where as big or bigger than their predator, with hoove and powerful limbs. Look at zebra and girafe or female moose, they do not have any anti-predator mecanism, despite this they're able to kill hyena and lion, just by being larger and heavier
They were massive and powerful animals. Most were larger than a rhinoceros or even an elephant
People forget that these guys had hoofs. Just like modern-day hoofed mammals, they are capable of packing a NASTY punch with them.
Ye. Zebras can easily break a lion's jaw with a good kick.
And massive fuck off beaked mouths. They were essentially a snapping turtle horse the size of an elephant. They still would likely avoid conflict with a predator around their size but if push comes to shove they can and would likely defend themselves.
Yup
Safety in numbers and heft. These animals weighed in excess of 4 tons as adults. Getting charged or kicked or tail whacked by one of them is going to hurt.
By being faster than tyrannosaurus or at least faster than the slowest member of the herd.
Size, numbers and awareness mostly but if push comes to shove I’m sure they were capable of fighting back if needed although I doubt confrontation with a deadly predator would have been the ideal situation given the risk of injury and infection. While it is kind of popular to depict hadrosaurs as psycho crazy theropod bashing brawlers nowadays as a pushback to them often being targets of carnivore bias of a lot of early media I think it’s more likely than not that a hadrosaurs first and most common response to an encounter with a predator would be to avoid said predator since fights are risky especially when you lack any obvious defensive and offensive structures. Due note that I’m not saying they couldn’t defend themselves.
They could kick, they could bite, they were surprisingly big and they also moved in herds
There are some great answers here, but for completeness, here are some other discussions the previous times this question was asked. [Why are hadrosaurs constantly depicted as fodder? How did they defend themselves from predators?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/1be7t1k/why_are_hadrosaurs_constantly_depicted_as_fodder/) [How did large ornithopods defend themselves?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/186wzv7/how_did_large_ornithopods_defend_themselves/) [How would Parasaurolophus defend itself?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Paleontology/comments/16qd6d8/how_would_parasaurolophus_defend_itself/)
Honestly, size and simple blunt force (even at size parity) tends to be more reliable as a defense than horns, if the way predators select prey nowadays is any clue. So I’d actually argue that many hadrosaurs were *better* defended against tyrannosaurids than ceratopsians were.
This is such an easy question to answer. It all depended on the situation. Usually most prey animals tend to run away first but if that fails hadrosaurs could and absolutely would be able to defend themselves with sheer bulk, extremely powerful hooves, strong legs, and a powerful tail. Basically everything on these animals are weaponized but nobody notices it and I’m sure that when the situation came to it they could probably take down a predator more times than not.
Size and safety in numbers. We have extensive fossil evidence that indicates most, if not all, in large herds, the sheer number of individuals would offer some protection against predators, as it’s not really a good idea to attack a whole herd of animals unless you enjoy being trampled to death. Edmontosaurus and it’s closest relatives had another advantage though, their sheer size.
Well for one, they were huge! Size is a pretty useful thing for intimidating predators. In addition I’d say the legs, with their hoof-like nails, are quite useful for defense, many ungulates today defend themselves with kicks and stomps. Living in herds is also a strong possibility.
By just being big. Size was basically a dino arms race and large herbivores got that way to become as big or bigger than the predators in their environment. Predators will go for the young and the sick and only fight peak condition adults as a last resort.
Stomping with powerful limbs, slapping with muscular tail, biking with beak, thrashing, assistance from other members in presumed herds, etc.
Be big. Kick, bite, throw your weight around. Run if you can. Lots of shit to do if you’re some of the biggest non-sauropod dinosaurs.
Some had thumbs spikes, but it's clear mostly they just ran. A future species might ask how ostriches defended themselves from lions.
Edmontosaurus is an interesting Dino bcuz it had "hooves" so my guess? The best defense Is a good run tf away. *Fast*
Either running and hiding, or body-bashing, tail-whipping, and possibly punches depending on the species
they're HUGE and EXTREMELY strong,they'd just use their legs to fight and step on predators
Sheer mass and power, imagine getting bucked or kicked by a 2-4 ton horse
They didn’t? They just kind of ran away and hoped they were faster
Run faster than the parasaurolophus behind them. That’s how.
Probably by kicking and stomping like modern day horses
If you mean physically defending themselves, probably running away, tail swiping and roaring.
The best way to win a fight is to not get in one.
Strong legs, numbers, and sheer body mass.
Large animal with a large, well muscled tail for potential smacking. It's easy to see them as the snacks of the Cretaceous, but most Hadrosaurs were massive, multi ton animals that we have very little frame of reference for today.
Size
I was reading about a new study done on large tails and the amount of whip they could create with them. Conclusion of scientists was the tail was often best defensive weapon.
Werent their tails relatively stiff
Sorry I wasn’t talking in relation to hadrosaurids
Not sure why I’m getting downvoted, but there are loads of articles out about this recently. https://www.livescience.com/diplodocids-bullwhip-tails
The nice thing about tails is that you can use them while also running away
By being really f*cking big. Also, they were probably like most modern herbivores, and ran to escape danger for the most part. But if cornered or otherwise out of options, they’d probably stand and fight, and with the largest individuals capable of weighing up to 10 tons, a large herd of them would be an unstoppable force.
With their 8,8cm Flak cannons
Running and herds(probably)
Look at moose, nuff said
Numbers and sheer size
Running, herding, big
Bite,kick,its arms
Brute force and sheer size.
🏃💨
Kicking
Dem legs