Triceratops spp. vs. American Mastodon

[Infinity Blade]

Triceratops spp.

© @ Nathan E. Rogers->

Suborder: Ceratopsia
Family: Chasmosauridae
Length: ~8.6 to ~9.2 meters for the largest known specimen (see this post-> for details)
Mass: ~9.5 to ~10.8 tonnes for the largest known specimen (see this post-> for details)
Diet: Plants
Age and location: Maastrichtian western North America (~68 to 66 million years ago)
Weapons: Horns, beak

American Mastodon - Mammut americanum

© @ Julio Lacerda->

Order: Proboscidea
Family: Mammutidae
Height: Average of 2.75 to 3.05 meters at the shoulder for males; very large individual ~3.25 meters tall (Larramendi, 2015)
Mass: Average of 6.8 to 9.2 tonnes for males; very large individual ~11 tonnes known (Larramendi, 2015)
Diet: Plants
Age and Location: Pleistocene North America (until ~11,000 years ago)
Weapons: Tusks

[elosha11]

First, I like your size comparison screen image above your deviantart. Is it meant to be very accurate, some of the cats for instance look way too small. Purussaurus brasiliensis (if that's what it is) should be significantly larger. However, the scale does again demonstrate just how monstrous Megalodon was compared to other large land predators.

On to the contest. They are equal size, Mastondon perhaps slightly larger. Triceratops however, is lower to the ground which might make it more stable and help it gore the mastodon's belly or at least slash its legs. Meanwhile in a front attack the mastodon would have a harder time getting past the dino's frill. As an analogy, elephants don't usually have trouble with rhino horns slashing them from below. They dominate and even kill rhinos occasionally, although I'm sure rhinos are dangerous to provoke. However, unlike this contest, rhinos are obviously much smaller and can simply be overwhelmed by the elephant's weight advantage.

I think the mastodon is probably faster, marginally more agile, and likely much smarter, though I don't know what good that would do. If it could ram Triceratops from the side or behind it might do great damage either with its tusk or the sheer momentum. However, Triceratops was probably quite proficient in turning to face a foe with its armored head, as it would have been adapted to that defensive strategy from long experience with T-rex. Plus Triceratops may have had overall more experience facing large dangerous foes of equivalent size, since it clearly battled Tyrannosaurus rex and perhaps other theropods. So Triceratops may have been more effective in implementing its fighting strategy than a mastodon.

I'd give Triceratops a slight advantage in a normal confrontation that is not necessarily to death (i.e. one animal can give up if wounded, tired or intimidated). But I think it would be more effective deterring the elephant attack than actively attacking and killing the elephant. It's 50/50 or a very small edge to Triceratops in a fight to the death.

[Infinity Blade]

First, I like your size comparison screen image above your deviantart. Is it meant to be very accurate, some of the cats for instance look way too small. Purussaurus brasiliensis (if that's what it is) should be significantly larger. However, the scale does again demonstrate just how monstrous Megalodon was compared to other large land predators.

Thanks! The cats look normal sized to me, especially when you compare them to the human silhouette. The crocodilian is Deinosuchus.

Note that ceratopsians like Triceratops were about as anatomically adapted for speed as rhinos, which in turn are more cursorial than proboscideans. Considering that the mastodon's limbs are seemingly more muscular and stockier than a modern elephant's, I don't know if it would, if anything, be faster or slower than an elephant (when it comes to fast running, muscle power helps, but stockier limb proportions hurt). At any rate though, I kind of doubt it would match the ceratopsid in speed. The mastodon also looks to have a longer torso and abdomen with a higher center of gravity (the Triceratops seems to be barely over 2m tall at the shoulders while the mastodon is over 3), so maybe the ceratopsid could also have an edge in agility. With all this said, it's most likely that both opponents will probably be doing something like locking their weapons and wrestling, so advantages in mobility take a clear backseat to advantages that help with weapon locking and wrestling.

I don't think I see predator experience really helping out in a fight with another herbivore.

---

So, here's my two cents on it.

A post by theropod-> suggests that the largest known Triceratops specimen could weigh some 9.5 to 10.8 tonnes, depending on how big its skull actually was. This is admittedly a particularly large individual, but I'm not sure how large your typical specimen would be. But as I've now edited into the OP, the average male American mastodon was more in the range of 6.8 to 9.2 tonnes, with the 11 tonne individual being considered a "very large" individual according to Asier Larramendi (FWIW he estimates individuals that large composing <0.1% of the total population). If I had to guess, your typical adult Triceratops could easily weigh that much, certainly at the lower end of that range.

Assuming a specimen of USNM 4276's dimensions, and a bull mastodon at the same mass, this would be an interesting fight. The best reference I currently have with regards to visuals is a size comparison made by Carnivorous vulgaris->. We may be able to gather a few things, with one caveat regarding the size comparison.

1.) Despite what Carnivorous vulgaris' size comparion shows, Triceratops was much bulkier than Greg Paul’s top view (which was based on a subadult) suggests (this being the aforementioned caveat). This is what the specimen Dirk looks like.

Keep in mind that Dirk is also a subadult. An 8 meter Triceratops would have a ribcage that's 2 meters wide, and a 9 meter Triceratops would have a ribcage that's 2.3 meters wide. To put this into perspective, the femur length in an American mastodon is ~58% that of maximum pelvis breadth (which is comparable to the width of the ribcage). In an 11 tonne mastodon with a 1,216 mm femur, that's a pelvis about 2 meters wide (Larramendi, 2015).

2.) The Triceratops seems to have shorter, thicker limb bones.

3.) The Triceratops seems to have much more massive vertebral centra.

4.) Both have long neural spines on their vertebrae, but Triceratops' seem to be thicker, and so probably able to have stronger muscles anchored onto them.

5.) The Triceratops clearly has much more room for thigh musculature (compare the length of its ilium to the mastodon's), and I'd imagine stronger shank muscles (the cnemial crest is well-developed in Triceratops, while it's not in proboscideans).

6.) Both seem to have well developed olecranons (contrast the mastodon with modern elephants in this regard, in which the olecranon is reduced), thus giving the triceps (forelimb extensors) great leverage when moving the animal forward in a struggle.

7.) Not obvious based on the comparison, but I found the following information to be quite interesting. According to Farlow (1990)->, Triceratops' horn cores are actually as thick relative to total body mass as the tusks of an African elephant, a mammoth, and an American mastodon (this is to say nothing of how Triceratops horn cores were further strengthened by the keratinous sheath, any differences in mechanical properties between bone and ivory, and the fact that proboscidean tusks are really hollow and thin-walled at their bases). However, Triceratops and other large ceratopsians' brow horns were actually thicker for their length (or reach) than proboscidean tusks. Figure 2 of Farlow (1990) plots horn or tusk basal area against horn or tusk "reach". Reach in this context refers to the straight line distance between the medial inside point at the base of either the horn or tusk and the point of the horn or tusk farthest from the aforementioned part of the part of the base. This is ignoring the actual curvature of the horn or tusk. What Farlow found was that, while proboscidean tusks continued the trend seen in antelope horns, the brow horns of Triceratops and other large ceratopsians plotted above this trend. This makes them relatively short, thick instruments, making them better able to withstand the high forces of wrestling than the tusks of proboscideans and the horns of antelope.



While this does make Triceratops horn cores somewhat shorter (or have less reach) relative to body mass than the tusks of elephants, mammoths, and mastodons (note where the Trike horn with the highest basal area and the mastodon tusk with the highest basal area plot; they have similar basal areas, but the mastodon tusk's length/reach is at ~3.5, while the Trike's horn length/reach is at ~2.8 or so), this is just the horn core. Keep in mind that ceratopsian horns would have been covered in keratin in life, making them both longer and thicker. Triceratops would therefore probably still enjoy the advantages of having stronger, more robust goring weapons while not suffering from any significant reach disadvantage.

Assuming both weigh the same, I still think Triceratops would come out on top. The mastodon's probably the best proboscidean matchup for a Triceratops at similar weights, but even then I think the ceratopsian is too much. Two final caveats to note are that a) the mastodon's tusk tips must point either upward or forward, and not inward towards each other mammoth-style (like they do in Asier Larramendi's skeletal), to have a good chance of injuring the Triceratops, and b) if the mastodon has a substantial weight advantage, it wins.

[elosha11]

Good points overall about the comparative speeds of the animals. Here's a well researched article documenting elephant's normal max speed at 15 mph (with about three individuals tested exceeding that speed, although it doesn't say by how much). web.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/03/elephants49.html. So that may be a rough proxy for the mastodon.

As for the Triceratops, you're correct that some researchers have compared their possible top speed to that of rhinos. From the fossilguy website:

Speed:
How fast could Triceratops Dinosaur Run? - Triceratops and Ceratopsid Locomotion

Skeletal reconstructions of Ceratopsid Dinosaurs in many museums (including the ones pictured in this article, the Carnegie Museum, and the Chicago Filed Museum) show Triceratops with a sprawling lizard like posture. These dinosaurs should have a more mammal like posture, with the front legs underneath the animal, and not splayed out to the side. The lizard like posture comes from errors when mounting the rib and vertebra of ceratopsids.

Evidence supporting the above statements come from analysis of Triceratops and other Ceratopsian trackways. Paul and Christiansen published a paper in 2000 in which they studied the pedal impressions in trackways and analyzed the placement and angles of the hands and feet. From this information, they determined they have an elephant like forelimb posture. A mammal like posture enables Ceratopsids to run MUCH faster than the reptile like posture. Paul and Christiansen then indicate the maximum running speed of the largest Ceratopsids to be "broadly similar to that of rhinos." By the way, The Black Rhinoceros can run at speeds around 55 km/hr, or 34 miles per hour! That's pretty darn fast! www.fossilguy.com/gallery/vert/dinosaur/triceratops/triceratops.htm


BTW, if Triceratops really could attain speed of 30 mph or more, that may say something for just how fast Tyrannosaurus may have been to engage them in chase or ambush scenarios.

I'm not sure if the dino's lower height and more stocky build would give it greater agility (wouldn't take much to be more agile than the mastodon), but I do think it's lower height, coupled with it's equal weight might give it more balance than the mastodon, and less likelihood to being knocked over. But on the other hand, maybe the mastodon could, in certain scenarios/positions (especially an attack from the side or rear), use it's greater height to use its weight more effectively, and kind of smother/pin the lower to the ground Triceratops. I could see advantages either way. I'm trying to think of a modern fight between large herbivores where the weight is equal but one is significantly taller. Any ideas?

[Infinity Blade]

I'm not completely sure if rhinos can actually reach ~50-55 km/h or so, though. Greg Paul once claimed a galloping speed of ~40 km/h for rhinos in Tyrannosaurus rex, the Tyrant King p. 324 (link). But yeah, I'd expect that no matter their actual speed, the similarly fast rhinos and ceratopsids should both be surpassed in this regard by Tyrannosaurus, which was arguably even more specialized for fast running than either of them (this is why I'm skeptical of all those speed estimates for Tyrannosaurus that estimate a top speed barely over or even less than that of an elephant).

Similar massed modern herbivores where one is significantly taller? I think giraffes and rhinos fit that bill, but obviously that's not comparable to this fight.

[Saurischian]

I think this would greatly depends on the figthing style of Triceratops horridus.If it,in intraspecific conflicts,used a figthing strategy similar to that of large proboscideans(what is basically tusk/horn interlocking and/or opponent pushing),and if the mastodon used the same strategy,I would say the dinosaur's lower and more stable build together with the bony frill should give it the edge,mainly because it would a)make it harder for the proboscidean to do siginificant damage with its tusks to the limbs and torso of the dinosaur and b)the lower center of gravity of the ceratopsian would possibly make it harder to be overpowered during a serious pushing contest.Triceratops,by reasons already stated in this topic,also seems to have an agility advantage,but I don't think it would be of a great use in such fight.

[An Goldish Jade]

Triceratops would win in a face to face combat.

[Deleted]

I agree with what Gold J said.

[dinosauria101]

I favor Triceratops rather comfortably, it's larger, its weapons are far better for goring and it's more powerfully built. In fact, the mastodon has absolutely no real way of winning the fight, due to inward curving tusks

EDIT 01/01/2020: Contrary to what some of the other posts here may indicate, I have good reason to think Triceratops was SIGNIFICANTLY larger here.
As was previously stated, the earlier GDI gives a Triceratops with a 2.5 meter skull and total length of 8.26 meters a mass of about 10.5 tonnes, and I'd in fact argue it would be closer to 11 tonnes given that the parts of the head in red are excluded and that there is very little soft tissue on the legs, tail, and chest, as I did earlier. And that's not the biggest Trike - the largest specimens would have skulls of 2.7 meters. Scaling to this increases mass by about 26%, and thus scaling that Triceratops to specimens such as AMNH 5040 and UCMP 128561 gives a mass of 13.85 tonnes when scaled from a more realistic weight of 11 tonnes from the hyperlinked GDI. HOWEVER, these mass estimates are still probably undersized at least a little bit. The width of the top view of the hyperlinked GDI is about 3/4 of the length of the skull, which would give us about ~185 cm width for the top view. The thing is, a smaller specimen of Triceratops called Kelsey, at 6-7 meters, is also 185 cm wide in top view (link). Thus, this 8.26 meter Triceratops has the width of a 6-7 meter one and is therefore almost certainly underestimated in terms of mass. If we choose to go by direct scaling from Kelsey, this specimen would have a width of about 235 cm top view, and is probably undersized width wise at 11 tonnes by about 27 percent. As for the largest Triceratops specimens, the same would apply; they are just under 200 cm (199.8) wide directly scaling from the GDI as-is, but this also appears to be an underestimate as scaling from Kelsey would give us about 253 cm for the top view-width of these specimens. Note that this is by no means to be taken as 100% factual or set in stone whatsoever as it is, just like every other mass estimate for every extinct animal, an educated guess. However, it is entirely possible and on the table that the largest specimens of Triceratops could have exceeded 13.85 tonnes quite substantially, and even smaller ones could well have been over 11 tonnes by quite a bit, quite a lot more than the 9.5 to 10.8 tonnes that's given in the OP.

[rock]

triceratops wins rather pretty easily . he has far better weapons and is heavier . he can easily kill the mastodon if he gores him with his tusks

[dinosauria101]

One year bump.

I stand by my point of Triceratops winning this solidly, contrary to what SOME PEOPLE have said elsewhere. It is larger, more robust, more durable, significantly better armed, and the mastodon doesn't have much of a realistic way to kill it, period.

[Infinity Blade]

and the mastodon doesn't have much of a realistic way to kill it, period.

At least this one would.

Several skulls had puncture wounds that could have been inflicted by a tusk. To double-check the feasibility of tusk warfare, Fisher created computer models of the skulls. The models showed that by jutting its head upward, one animal would have thrust its upcurved tusks into its opponent's cheek, where Fisher saw the damage. Such a deep wound could have been fatal, Fisher explains, because the tusk that made it would have punched through some 50 centimeters of muscles used for chewing. Even if the animal survived the trauma, it would likely have starved. “The adult males sometimes did fight to the death,” Fisher concludes.

science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5648/news-summaries

[dinosauria101]

Yep, I've seen that account.

Wouldn't the disparity in the builds/skulls of the 2 animals kinda minimize/nullify that, though? That's an impression I've been getting from every size comp of this I've seen.

[Infinity Blade]

Wouldn't the disparity in the builds/skulls of the 2 animals kinda minimize/nullify that, though?

You said "...the mastodon doesn't have much of a realistic way to kill [Triceratops]...". All I did here was prove that statement incorrect. Any advantages the Triceratops may have in build (and there isn't really anything about the ceratopsian's skull that would prevent a mastodon tusk from potentially driving itself through it) are rather irrelevant to disproving that claim (and in fact, I'm still not fully confident that both weigh the same on at least on average): the point is that at least some mastodons would, in fact, have a way to physically kill a Triceratops.

[dinosauria101]

I meant head on wrestling as is commonly depicted among mastodons; it might work on a MASTODON which the shape of the skull actually allows it to gore, but the head of Triceratops is differently structured therefore invalidating that. Could be incorrect but what I'm seeing is a disparity in skull morphology as a goring blockade - maybe this size comparison can help to illustrate what I mean (largest mastodon vs USNM 4276, as well as a top view of 2 mastodons to show the disparity; skeletals are by GetAwayTrike and Larramendi while Trike top view is GSP):

Alternatively, maybe it would be better to say the mastodon can kill other mastodons but the strategy won't really work on a Triceratops.
So rephrased: The mastodon's weapons, while they may work on other mastodons, won't work too well here

Average for Trike AFAIK is uncertain (I'd back the ceratopsian even at some size disadvantage), but at max it might have a decent mass advantage at up to 14 tonnes vs just 11 tonnes.