|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 6, 2019 17:18:18 GMT 5
Asian Straight-tusked Elephant - Palaeoloxodon namadicus  prehistoric-fauna.com/image/cache/data/Palaeoloxodon-namadicus-738x591.JPGOrder: Proboscidea Family: Elephantidae Height: Estimated to be ~500 cm tall as an adult Mass: Estimated to be ~22 tonnes as an adult Age and location: Pleistocene of India Diet: Plants Killing apparatus: Tusks Potentially the largest land mammal ever. Hunted by early people for food. Purussaurus brasiliensis (float of 3)  upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Purussaurus_BW.jpgOrder: Crocodyliformes Family: Alligatoridae Length: 10.3 meters Mass: 6.2 tonnes Age and Location: Miocene epoch, 13.8 to 11.8 million years ago, Colombia Killing apparatus: Crushing jaws Was one of the largest species of crocodilian. Had a very strong bite proportionately. NOTE: We can discuss this in all terrains |
|
|
|
Post by 6f5e4d on Dec 6, 2019 20:20:48 GMT 5
All three Purussaurus could overwhelm this Palaeoloxodon, having the strong jaws to do so, so the float wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 6, 2019 20:22:22 GMT 5
I agree - they have very powerful jaws and deadly bites as well as numbers, so they could likely pull it off.
If they can manage to tear off the trunk, even better
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 6, 2019 21:05:58 GMT 5
I can’t help but notice that you usually decisively favour bigger animals over groups of smaller animals when the bigger animal is larger than the smaller animals combined and easily capable of killing one. Usually, but not here…weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 6, 2019 21:14:51 GMT 5
I can’t help but notice that you usually decisively favour bigger animals over groups of smaller animals when the bigger animal is larger than the smaller animals combined and easily capable of killing one. That is when the morphology of the big animal is similar to or more formidable than the smaller ones. You are correct that I often lean a bit towards a big opponent against a group of smaller ones if the number advantage isn't too extreme, but (and this is a big but) it heavily depends on the nature of the opponents. For instance, I wouldn't back an 11 tonne Paraceratherium over 3 3.8 tonne Daspletosaurus because the rhino is an inferior parity fighter to the tyrannosaurids, and it's similar here - I would back Purussaurus pretty strongly over Palaeoloxodon namadicus at parity (70/30 about) and the mass disparity is not that great here, plus the elephant would not have a very easy time catching and killing the caimans due to how slow and unagile it is. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 6, 2019 22:15:58 GMT 5
An "inferior parity fighter" doesn’t necessarily translate into inferior at killing something way smaller, you realize that I hope (otherwise adaptations for small prey in a predator would look the same as adaptations for large prey).
By your logic, because a fox isn’t as "formidable at parity" as a wolf, it would be inferior at killing mice?
And a multi-tonne crocodilian being more agile than an elephant? On land? Very unlikely. You know there are certain problems moving a large body on land without parasagittal stance, right? And that there is already a sharp drop in terrestrial mobility as extant crocs grow large (e.g. only small ones can gallop)? A 5t+ Purrussaurus would have been extremely slow and unagile on land.
Irrelevant analogy, the combined mass of the Daspletosaurus in that example is heavier than 11 t.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 6, 2019 22:30:25 GMT 5
1: An "inferior parity fighter" doesn’t necessarily translate into inferior at killing something way smaller, you realize that I hope (otherwise adaptations for small prey in a predator would look the same as adaptations for large prey). By your logic, because a fox isn’t as "formidable at parity" as a wolf, it would be inferior at killing mice? 2: And a multi-tonne crocodilian being more agile than an elephant? On land? Very unlikely. You know there are certain problems moving a large body on land without parasagittal stance, right? And that there is already a sharp drop in terrestrial mobility as extant crocs grow large (e.g. only small ones can gallop)? A 5t+ Purrussaurus would have been extremely slow and unagile on land. 3: Irrelevant analogy, the combined mass of the Daspletosaurus in that example is heavier than 11 t. 1: That is true, I wouldn't rank a 6.2 tonne caiman over a 22 tonne elephant. However, there are 3 here, and that is one of the reasons why I think they are overall superior to the elephant. 2: I never said either animal was agile. But it's pretty obvious a 22 tonne animal (assuming neither is cursorial) would have a lot more trouble catching and killing a 6.2 tonne animal than the 6.2 tonne animal, or one of its 2 comrades, would have landing some bites on the big animal 3: Well, it's fairly close. But if you insist, we can use a more apples-to-apples-comparison. I wouldn't back a hypothetical 22 tonne terrestrial Spinosaurus over 3 6.2 tonne Mapusaurus because it is an inferior parity fighter to them |
|
