|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 21, 2019 17:16:55 GMT 5
As for Elasmosaurus' head, I don't know how large it was in absolute terms, but come on. According to Blaze, it's about 40-50 cm long in absolute term, which is not that small actually, well, in absolute term at least. It's actually comparable in length to some of the big Bear skull that i know of such Kodiak, Polar, or Arctodus. I think it should be more than capable of disposing any animals weighing < 100 kg. Also, the neck vertebrate of Plesiosaur are quite massive and wouldn't it be anchored by large tendons and muscles as well? I doubt the Beaver's bite would do anything. A 4.5m nile crocodile would have the skull of similar size. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 21, 2019 20:03:11 GMT 5
Even if it were true that a bite to the neck from the beaver would be seriously injurious to the plesiosaur, something tells me that the beaver's objective of biting-the-neck-and-killing-it, probably its only real way to win against this far larger opponent, is much easier said than done. Elasmosaurus' skull and neck system, consisting of a very long neck and proportionately small head, seems to be quite well-suited for catching small, fast prey. I see no reason to think the beaver is any faster and more maneuverable than any of the relatively small prey Elasmosaurus would have hunted (if anything, the beaver was so much larger and probably not as swift as the small fish people like to imagine elasmosaurs going after). The flexibility of the elasmosaurid neck-> would help in actually keeping track of the beaver as well. As for Elasmosaurus' head, I don't know how large it was in absolute terms, but come on. If Elasmosaurus had a head as large as expected for an animal of its size this would be straight up overkill. Again, I don't really know just how big its skull is, but I doubt it was so small that it would be ineffective against an animal apparently weighing 125 kg at most (its skull and dental morphology-> would seem suitable enough against an animal so relatively small too). Yes, Elasmosaurus has an absurdly small head for its size, but a skull X units long and Y units wide that can probably fatally injure an animal weighing Z kg is just as effective against said animal whether the skull is attached onto a 100 kg animal, a 500 kg animal, or hell a 10,000 kg animal. Well, now for my reply to this post. Regarding the neck: I believe, despite the neck's flexibility, there are 2 caveats: -In what dimensions is it significantly flexible? If the beaver were to attack from either the side or from underneath, even head-on, I have my doubts about the head DETERRING the beaver from the neck; it may be able to reach the beaver and maintain a position, but unless it's (the neck) very flexible in all dimensions, such as directly downwards, to the side, etc, that's still a LOT of exposed neck. -To better gauge what an elasmosaur bite might do, I made this size chart:  I could be wrong but I don't see the elasmosaur having a very easy time landing a bite due to the beaver's bulk |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 21, 2019 21:32:08 GMT 5
Did you look at the webpage I linked to? It addresses this very question.  This is a visualization of cervical range of motion as estimated by Zammit et al. (2008)->. Range of motion figures are 94-176 o in the lateral plane, 87-155 o in the dorsal plane, and 75-177 o in the ventral plane. The variation is due to uncertainty in how thick the articular cartilage between each cervical is, but even the conservative estimates are suggestive of a substantially flexible neck. Good luck to the beaver in swimming around the elasmosaur and getting ahold of its neck. From the looks of it, that neck and head could keep track of the beaver wherever it tries to go. As for your second point, Verdugo has already pointed out the size of Elasmosaurus' skull. It's by no means large relative to its size, but apparently in absolute terms (which is key here, considering the elasmosaurid isn't fighting something anywhere near its own size), at 40-50 cm, it should be sufficient to kill a 90-125 kg animal. Unless Elasmosaurus had an exceptionally narrow gape I think it will be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 21, 2019 21:44:36 GMT 5
Ah, yes, it is indeed there. I was just a bit tired when I looked at the material for the first time.
Leaning towards the Elasmosaurus now, though certainly not a mismatch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 22, 2019 0:17:20 GMT 5
It's a spectacular mismatch. Albeit, an I teresting and creative one so props for that I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 22, 2019 3:46:15 GMT 5
How is it a mismatch? The beaver could certainly win at times by biting the neck, couldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 22, 2019 4:13:37 GMT 5
That's a bit like saying white rhino versus T. rex isn't a mismatch because the rhino has a chance to win if it were to gore one of T. rex's legs, forcing it to lose much of its stability and topple down.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2019 6:07:20 GMT 5
Am I the only one who's noticing the irony in that the person so vehemently claiming that this is not a mismatch is the same person who not so long ago claimed that "utahraptor vs smilodon" and "lion vs nile crocodile" were "complete mismatches".
Do you seriously want to tell me that a human-sized beaver has better chances against a multi-tonne plesiosaur than a lion twice that size has against a half-ton crocodile?
I think we really need to differentiate between one sided matchups (where a large majority can agree on which side wins, but the margin is not huge and there is still room for some debate, e. g. white shark vs saltie), regular mismatches (where it might not be totally physically impossible for either to kill the other, but there is no significant disagreement that the chances for one of them are very slim, e. g. this thread, or rhino vs T. rex) and total or complete mismatches (where there is literally no way one of the animals could ever pose a threat to the other, e. g. cookiecutter shark vs orca).
One-sided matchups may be ok to make, as there's always a chance the one-sidedness is just one's own personal perception, and there is no sure way to predict whether others have the same impression, if one can agree that others could still reasonably have a different opinion on the outcome that is (without automatically being biased fanboys or morons). The others, not really, as there is no real justification for their existence if there is no real argument to be made in favour of one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 22, 2019 6:19:42 GMT 5
theropodThe reason why I don't think this is a mismatch is due to the combination of a large, exposed vital area on the elasmosaur and the beaver's ability to end the fight with a single bite to the neck. Seriously, elasmosaurs are so much of unique combatants that I don't think we can use ANYTHING to compare matches with them to other fights, mismatches or not. Will respond to the other post when I have time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 22, 2019 18:25:46 GMT 5
That's a bit like saying white rhino versus T. rex isn't a mismatch because the rhino has a chance to win if it were to gore one of T. rex's legs, forcing it to lose much of its stability and topple down. Alright, now for my reply to this post. A white rhino is not comparable to a beaver, the same way Elasmosaurus is not comparable to T rex. The difference is that Tyrannosaurus rex does not have a large exposed vital area, as well as more weapons. Moreover, it's very difficult for the rhino to reach the vitals of the T rex, and it's on land, where you can't fight in all dimensions unlike underwater. This is by no means a mismatch. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 22, 2019 18:35:06 GMT 5
This is missing the point. The point was that a mismatch can still be a mismatch even if one combatant could hypothetically kill its enemy if it stood still.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 22, 2019 18:50:34 GMT 5
Surely this isn't a mismatch in a head on fight though? I do favor the Elasmosaurus 65/35, but surely it can't keep the beaver at bay 100% of the time, can it?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2019 19:32:17 GMT 5
It doesn’t un-become a mismatch just because you repeatedly say so (otherwise eland vs T. rex wouldn’t be a mismatch, we know at least one person who doesn’t think it is), if everyone else agrees it is a mismatch, then it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 22, 2019 19:39:28 GMT 5
The difference between eland/white rhino vs T rex and this matchup is because the eland and rhino have no realistic way to kill the dinosaur in a head-on fight before THEY get killed. Here, the beaver could certainly get around the head and bite the neck some of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2019 19:43:34 GMT 5
^If you want to believe that, fine…
But as long as you are the only person believing it, it’s still a mismatch.
Plus I think infinity blade already explained to you how a rhino might also have a chance against a T. rex based on the standards you are applying here.
|
|
