-
x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends
Kidzworld Logo

Dinosaur: Book Review :: What Is A Dinosaur?

The term “dinosaur” means “terrible lizard,” but the truth is that not all dinosaurs were gigantic, ferocious, bloodthirsty creatures. While many were large, some were actually quite small; while many were meat-eaters, some survived solely on vegetation. Here are some other facts about dinosaurs that may challenge the image you have in your mind.

Brains

Never judge a dinosaur's intelligence by his size. Dinosaurs like the Troodon had the largest-sized brain in relation to their body weight, while some giant herbivores, despite their enormous size, had brains no bigger than the size of a plum.

Feet & Legs

The big carnivores and the raptors had sharp talons on their feet for slashing and ripping at flesh, while the giant herbivores had feet similar to an elephant’s. And, despite their enormous size, they were able to walk along as quietly as elephants do today.


All dinosaurs' legs extended directly beneath their bodies, instead of sprawling out to either side like modern-day reptiles’ legs. This design allows some dinos to become truly massive, with pillar-like legs supporting their weight. It also gave other dinosaurs great speed and agility.


Most dinosaurs could walk and run on their two back legs, using their tail for balance.


Eggs

Dinosaurs, like reptiles today, laid eggs, and it seems like they were pretty good parents, too. Nests have been found with eggshells crushed into bits, as if the baby dinosaurs had stayed there for some time, being fed and looked after.


Weight & Height

  • The largest herbivore was the Argentinosaurus. It weighed between 80 and 100 tons, which is the same as 13 elephants.
  • The largest carnivore was the Spinosaurus. It weighed about four tons, which is the same as 16 polar bears.
  • The tallest herbivore was the Sauroposeidon. It measured 56 feet, which is as tall as three giraffes.
  • The smallest carnivore was the Microraptor. It measured just 21 inches, which is as tall as one brown rat.

  • Teeth

  • Iguanodon: Curved teeth for grinding down plant matter.
  • Tyrannosaurus rex: Strong and sharp teeth for shattering bones.
  • Diplodocus: Pencil-shaped teeth for stripping foliage.
  • Stegosaurus: Leaf-shaped teeth for chewing plants.
  • Deinonychus: Serrated teeth for tearing flesh.

  • Related stories:

  • Tyrannosaurus Rex
  • Utahraptor – One Mean Looking Dino!
  • In The Footsteps Of Dinos
  • What Did Dinos Really Look Like?

  • 0 Comments

    Related Stories

    While dinosaurs ruled the land, the oceans of the world were filled with incredible species of th...
    F992546951031

    Who Would Kick T-Rex's Butt?

    • Superman, duh.
    • Batman, of course.
    • The Incredible Hulk, any day.
    • No one. T-Rex rules.

    Random In The Forums

    -Gwen9--
    -Gwen9-- posted in New Users:
    I commented Jordan about it. I found it a great idea. 
    reply 9 minutes
    Black_Rose_19
    Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
    Haha, I guess after looking at your facts, you win. I still am pretty bad at this, so I'm quick to give up, but you've actually successfully changed my opinion on this, so props to you. Well, that's what I get for messing with the master.
    reply 10 minutes
    naruto200
    naruto200 posted in New Users:
    Yeah, i'm not blaming you for that. Just, they might find it annoying. But kw should make a tutorial video for kw though. That would be so appreciated by new users.
    reply 19 minutes
    -Gwen9--
    -Gwen9-- posted in New Users:
    I don't mean for it to be spread out into posts, but there is a character limit. 
    reply 26 minutes
    AlphaT
    AlphaT posted in Debating:
    "Black_Rose_19" wrote:I originally got this story from a source that most people wouldn't exactly call credible , a comedy/politics TV show, but after checking their sources, I believe I have a strong case with decently strong sources.  I hope so. I'm using the same source that John used for debate's sake.  "Black_Rose_19" wrote:You are incorrect when you said you'd only have to pay for labor and materials, as several other factors come into play. Factors...such as? "Black_Rose_19" wrote: Also, where I said 1000 feet, I very much apologize, more like 1000 miles. It should cost about 10 billion for the concrete panels, and although concrete is cheap, it's not dirt cheap, and 1000 miles of concrete will add up to a pretty good amount.  It's okay, I adjusted ## ####### to miles, but somehow still said feet. The same estimate I gave is found in the article, which is around eight million cubic yards of concrete. This would total out to roughly thirty two billion pounds of concrete, which totals out to 533 million bags of concrete, each weighing sixty pounds. The average cost of a sixty pound bag of concrete is $2.83, which we them multiply by 533 million to get 1.5 billion.  This is where I messed up. I used the standard price of unmixed concrete, when I needed to use the standard price of precast slabs. Oliver's source does the rest:  "A cement manufacturer said prices are now running $85 to $90 a cubic yard, so that works out to about $700 million just for the concrete" However, in an update, they nixed the math all together and went with an anonymous economist's unevidenced estimate:  "He worked through some of the math, though he did not want to be identified publicly. Roughly, he said a wall of this type would cost at least $25 billion" This is what John Oliver used on his show. As the unknown economist cites no reason for us to think that the cost would be anywhere near his estimate, I see no reason to think his estimate is valid.  So, effectively, we've reduced the cost from 3 billion to 700 million. Let's the keep the billion dollar safe fund though. Total so far: 1.7 Billion "Black_Rose_19" wrote:Next it should cost 5-6 billion dollars for steel columns to hold the panels, including labor. Really? Including labor? Fine with me. I'm honestly not sure how much steel would be needed for each panel, so I'll defer to this estimate.  Total Cost so far: 6.7 Billion "Black_Rose_19" wrote:Add another billion for concrete footing and foundations, and that's sixteen billion dollars. The Washington Post article included foundation in their total assessment of the concrete required. "Black_Rose_19" wrote:But, transport is required to inaccessible areas. It will cost about another 2 billion dollars to build roads that will allow 20 ton trucks to carry materials to the wall. At ten million dollars per mile, a road spanning the entire length of the wall would require ten billion dollars. Why do you think a fifth of this cost would be required?  The average cost of a road which would allow such transport is 5 million per mile. Let's overestimate the length that would be required to two hundred miles. That gets you to 1 billion.  Total cost so far: 7.7 Billion "Black_Rose_19" wrote:We also need engineering, design, and management, which brings us up to the magic number of 25 billion dollars, on average considering all factors. The Congressional Budget office also says that wall management costs will exceed the original cost to build the wall in as little as seven years. From your previous estimate of eighteen billion, I'll assume that you're factoring in seven billion dollars worth of engineering, design, and management? Why do you think it'll cost that much? To pay every engineer, designer, and manager who would ever work on the wall...I'd put aside about 1.5 billion. Total cost: 9.2 Billion Well what do you know. About a sixth of the annual trade deficit with Mexico, and almost a third of your original estimate.  "Black_Rose_19" wrote:With the Mexico paying for it part, as John Oliver, the host of this show, says, "People don't exactly love it when you make them pay for [expletive] they don't want." The current Mexican treasury secretary states, "Mexico, under no circumstance, is going to pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing." 2 former Mexican presidents that only recently left office also say, in a nutshell, that Mexico will never pay for the wall.  They won't love it, but they will pay for it. If they refuse, Trump plans to put a 35% tariff on all Mexican import. In other words, every company in Mexico will have to pay 35% the value of whatever they're bringing into The United States. Mexico will lose more money paying this tariff than they would by financing the wall, so either way the United States gets the money it needs to build the wall from Mexico. 
    reply 39 minutes