Hello again!

First I'll start with a reply for reply I got from You. Here is the original topic: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers … p?id=13937

When I said at first time that "I'm not here to ask your opinion, I'm just telling mine", I meant it like not your exact opinion on the subject, and when I in the end asked "Did you got my point at all? If so, what do you say?", I was more likely asking your comments for my theory. As I read your comment, I realised myself, I had formed those sentences badly, but anyway I pretty much got the feedback I needed. So thank You.

And yes, I was simplifying things, but isn't that the idea if you try to create a theory that fits as well as possible for as many individuals or species as possible?

how would you like the idea, that maybe individuals are not thinking which way is riskier or something, but the thing is that each of them starts to seek for a free meal, and only when they become desperate enough, they'll go for a kill, and that the free meal means different things for different animals?

I explain forward... After eating, I guess most of the individuals rests for a while (that is just a guess and not so important in here), but after sometime starts to look for next meal. At first they are looking for a free meal. For smaller and less scary predators, free meal is a carcass that no other individual or group has noticed yet or are not around.
For bigger and scarier predator free meal is a carcass where there is (or is not) smaller and less scary predators around. So basically for the biggest individual around every dead animal is a free meal.

This idea leads us to the point, where some individuals sees free meals more often than the others, since the "definition of free meal" is different for each individual.

What did I mean by "becoming desperate enough"? Well, when you have been looking long enough the easiest meal and you get hungrier, you start to get frustrated and eventually realise that "it is time to go for a kill, since I can't find my food any easier". Of course individuals with better sense of smell, and better ability to walk long distances, don't get frustrated so easily, and can seek for the free meal longer than others. Plus, if you're more intelligent than others, you're more likely to save your energy and look for the free meal longer than others.

This leads us to the idea, that by certain characters, like the characters of T-rex, you do NOT HAVE TO hunt very often.

Am I right, or more likely do I remember right, that many animals today, and therefore most likely dinosaurs too, do/did this thing that the alpha takes part to hunting barely ever, but is always the first one to take a bite from the prey? I mean, that could explain my idea more fundamentally: when you are in the position of being the boss around, you don't have to hunt, others will do it for you.

And then, what would divide T-rex from for example Allosaurus which also was the apex predator of its time and place? Well, Allosaurus wasn't so well adapted at distance walking and didn't smell the free meal from so far, so it just got desperate sooner than T-rex, and therefor probably hunted more often.

And what is the difference between this and my original idea? I guess, that this idea is easier to understand, and it suits better for all individuals, since it bases more on the characters of individual, and not so much on the features of species.

Of course I know that you can't and don't want to give exact answer. It is hard to say, since we don't know these things so sure for even modern day animals. But for some reason, people (and I too) are quite passionate about these questions and looks for as educated guess as possible.

Ok, the reason why I'm in here this time, is to ask "by which means experts says that this and that species is the biggest of all"? I mean, we got different "TOP 10 biggest carnivores" lists, if we just change quantity. Still, I hear many times, when watching dinosaur lectures from YouTube that some experts says that T-rex was the biggest carnivorous dinosaur, although there were such species like Giganotosaurus that were longer than T-rex. It seems like all these "T-rex-fan-club-experts" uses weight as the mean, because therefor they can say that T-rex was the biggest, since we know that for example Giganotosaurus and other guys found may have been just overgrown individuals, and other individuals were possibly lighter than T-rex and because guessing weight is quite hard, but with T-rex there is so much more evidence, and we don't have to count Spinosaurus since it is so controversial species overall....

So which we should use, and/or what experts usually uses when people asks them which were the biggest ones? Is it different between carnivores and herbivores of probably different between sauropoda and ornitischia?

(And am I against T-rex for some reason? Yes, for me it seems to be overrated product of American film industry and its name)

Bonus question:
Does "olfaction bulb mass - body mass - ratio" really matter for your sense of smell, or is it only about the size of individuals olfaction bulb, no matter how big the individual itself was/is?

Sorry no one seems to know the answer to your question.