pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on Apr 9, 2014 1:29:18 GMT 5
So was the Cassowary until the introduction of feral dogs. I simply used them as examples since these birds do not exist anymore and a cassowary is a pretty uncanny match. There is also no way these birds have bigger bites than tigers. Tigers jaws are surrounded by massive facial muscles. They have huge Temporalis and masseter muscles. A tiger also has a much more compact jaw bone and denser skull. The longer beak will loose bite force because of the weight needing to be distributed through out the total length. I am unfamiliar with the morphology of this bird, but you would have to show me some huge measurements of where the muscle size would be on these birds. I was referring to bite size, not btie froce. THe bite force is fairly irrelevant to how much damage the bite does. That of Kelenken would be extremely damaging due to the sheer size of that beak. Tigers and lions both "bob and weave" lions tend to move their heads out of the way and hop off to sides while tigers tend to move their entire body out of the way and also change levels of their head height. Sometimes fighting on two legs, 3 or 4 and sometimes fighting from bottom or above. The reason I stated bite force is because for this bird to have a shot it is going to have to immobilize the tiger and if its bite is not strong enough to keep the tiger pinned the tiger will be able to escape and assault from close distance which would favor the cat. I know the beak is larger but I would like to know what it weighs, I'd be curious what type of mass they would need to immobilize larger prey with out having the fangs to keep a animal in its grasp. That is also why I think this animal probably hunted smaller prey, because its morphology to mean seems like it would not be able to keep a larger prey item in its grasps. We know that bovine today are extremely durable and can take absurd amounts of punishment and pretty much the only quick way to take out a large bovine is by the throat. Since this bird would obviously not kill like that, I wonder if it would need to go after smaller less durable prey. I would assume that large prey back then would of had to evolve the same way large prey does now, and that is with durability and mass.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 9, 2014 1:46:18 GMT 5
Lots of animals do and did perfectly fine subduing large, durable prey, without having the need for a prolonged grasp. This includes most predatory theropods, many lizards, many sharks and sabre-toothed feliforms. Actually, these animals are the ones that are most well-suited for killing giant prey, because they don’t have the same need for precision and control over their prey.
Why do you think cats need to grapple and hand onto their prey that long? Because they rely on a precision bite either to the throat or spine, which has to be placed quite exactly. An animal with large jaws built rather to deliver trauma and exanguination is not affected by this restriction, they just need to score a hit and that’s it. Another animal might not be subdued quickly by a lion or tiger when bit somewhere (talking about a large animal of course), but that doesn’t mean it would still pose a threath if it was bit by a Kelenken or an animal with comparable hunting style.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Apr 9, 2014 1:47:09 GMT 5
I recall this bird being 250 kilos or so.
Biting is also not the only thing it can do with its head.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 9, 2014 1:48:52 GMT 5
250kg sounds fairly conservative still.
|
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on Apr 9, 2014 2:24:15 GMT 5
Lots of animals do and did perfectly fine subduing large, durable prey, without having the need for a prolonged grasp. This includes most predatory theropods, many lizards, many sharks and sabre-toothed feliforms. Actually, these animals are the ones that are most well-suited for killing giant prey, because they don’t have the same need for precision and control over their prey. Why do you think cats need to grapple and hand onto their prey that long? Because they rely on a precision bite either to the throat or spine, which has to be placed quite exactly. An animal with large jaws built rather to deliver trauma and exanguination is not affected by this restriction, they just need to score a hit and that’s it. Another animal might not be subdued quickly by a lion or tiger when bit somewhere (talking about a large animal of course), but that doesn’t mean it would still pose a threath if it was bit by a Kelenken or an animal with comparable hunting style. A shark has a completely different set of jaws and teeth with a far larger gape in its mouth compared to a theropod. Sabre toothed cats actually had large gapes as well but very fragile teeth for their length so it is thought that they probably hunted smaller prey or in packs. A gws shark actually hunts relatively small prey if you think about it. A GWS never dares to take on any animal larger than itself, but a lion or tiger has no problem taking on and killing a animal double or triple its own size. Lastly, this bird has no teeth. Its beak can only do damage from the force of its bite or in a stabbing motion which it would have to get extremely lucky to penetrate the thick muscular hide of a lion or tiger and then reach a vulnerable organ. Cats also hang on to their prey to were it down, a lion will grasp on to the hind quarters of a elephant, hippo, rhino, buffalo etc.. and bite at its rump and gentiles until the prey is exhausted. This bird is not nearly big enough to support its own weight while the tiger is on its back. Its weapons are not up to par with the tiger, its mobility is not either. This still has the makings to be a completely one sided fight to me. You actually made me realize just how amazing a hunter big cats are. Think of every other predator alive, the only one who hunts larger prey than itself is the Polar bear when taking on a walrus. You can't find a single account or video evidence of a croc taking on a adult cape buffalo, let alone a hippo, elephant or rhino. The ones that have tried (easy to find on youtube) get tossed around and that is because they do not have the grappling to go a long with the bite. Komodo dragon take on larger prey but death doesn't come by its attack, it comes by infection. Completely different scenario. So long story short, there is no reason to think this bird would be able to compete against or fight a Tiger successful. It just seems far to impractical.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Apr 9, 2014 2:59:47 GMT 5
Kelenken doesn't need teeth. Instead, it had sharp edges in its beak that could cut through flesh in feeding.
As I said before, the neck muscles driving the beak downward were pretty strong in that regard. Looking at the size comparison on page 1, I wouldn't be surprised if the bird's beak strikes could make deep, severe wound. I even recall theropod saying this on Carnivora "In all honesty, to me it appears the resulting wound could be about as long as the cats thorax is deep", and I wouldn't be surprised if the bird got close to doing this. I don't see how the theropod will have issues turning around whenever the tiger tries to outflank it, and when it attempts to grapple the bird, I don't see much happening to it other than getting kicked or struck.
I still remain unconvinced that this is a one-sided fight.
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Apr 9, 2014 5:50:03 GMT 5
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1445224/Giant-crocodiles-prey-on-cows-and-dogs.htmlOh and before someone discredits these predatations as unimpressive due to the fact the cattle were domesticated here is a video of a cow lifting a car. Video of a crocodile nearly drowning an adult buffalo. Also hippos, rhinos, and elephants are generally immune to predation and only in very rare scenarios are they killed by predators as adults. As for my take on this match, I think that the terror bird would hold the advantage as its height and large size would most likely make the tiger go on the defensive.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 9, 2014 14:33:14 GMT 5
They both have very large gapes (at least when talking about carnosaurs). That you cannot directly compare the very different anatomies of an elasmobranch and a reptile should be obvious, but they can be analogous in function; dealing huge, traumatic injuries by cutting soft tissue. That would be completely new to me. Afaik machairodontids and analogous animals were built to tackle and kill large prey, their teeth are an adaption to do so quickly and efficiently (contrary to wrestling matches lasting minites while clamping down on the throat of an animal). There is a video of a tiger shark feeding on a blue whale, and great white sharks, while, like every animal, they mostly feed on prey smaller than themselves, are known to take elephant seals and whale calves larger than themselves. It does not need teeth, it has a keratinous, sharp-edged beak that fulfills the same purpose. You surely don’t try to imply an animal cannot have deadly jaws just because it doesn't have teeth. Look at snapping turtles, or placoderms! So? If they had jaws like a shark or even a canid, built for delivering large amounts of mechanical damage, they would not need to do that, they could do just fine with their jaws alone. You must be kidding me. Ever heard of monitor lizards, birds of prey, sharks or canids? They all prey on larger animals regularly. I fully acknowledge that crocodiles are not large-prey-specialists. That's entirely beside the point tough, crocodiles are not a prime example of macrophagy among non-felines. Only in animals bigger than themselves by an enourmous degree (like 10 times or so in the case of water buffalo), and even those they manage to incapacitate quite quickly in many cases. In the cases where lions take down elephants that’s always involving a pride, and it is always a struggle and a long process of wearing it down. What komodo dragons do seems more effective to me, and there can hardly be a doubt about the efficiency of their bites in this regard. This bird is not nearly big enough to support its own weight while the tiger is on its back. Its weapons are not up to par with the tiger, its mobility is not either. This still has the makings to be a completely one sided fight to me. [...] So long story short, there is no reason to think this bird would be able to compete against or fight a Tiger successful. It just seems far to impractical. If you want to believe that, I won't stand in your way. But you have to understand that seems hilarious to anyone who has seen the fossils of Kelenken and the comparison posted earlier.
|
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on Apr 10, 2014 22:23:59 GMT 5
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1445224/Giant-crocodiles-prey-on-cows-and-dogs.htmlOh and before someone discredits these predatations as unimpressive due to the fact the cattle were domesticated here is a video of a cow lifting a car. Video of a crocodile nearly drowning an adult buffalo. Also hippos, rhinos, and elephants are generally immune to predation and only in very rare scenarios are they killed by predators as adults. As for my take on this match, I think that the terror bird would hold the advantage as its height and large size would most likely make the tiger go on the defensive. That is a young buffalo, not a adult and still is not killed. I can show numerous vids of crocs being overpowered by buffalo, hippos and elephant. Then the biggest difference between a hawk defeating a wolf and this bird is this, the hawk can fly! That is a completely different scenario than being forced to fight on the same level as a big cat, which again is far more formidable than a canid.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 10, 2014 22:35:18 GMT 5
A big cat is not "far more formidable than a canid", and while flight is certainly advantageous, it is also a payoff with factors such as bulk, body size, and strenght. A volant, predatory bird could not support a head and neck like that of a Kelenken, because volant animals have to reduce weight and such a weaponery would severely impair ("make impossible" in any bird we know of) its ability to fly.
Needless to say, Kelenken can still make use of its ability to attack and dominate almost any prey from above, simply due to its impressive height.
|
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on Apr 10, 2014 22:37:04 GMT 5
They both have very large gapes (at least when talking about carnosaurs). That you cannot directly compare the very different anatomies of an elasmobranch and a reptile should be obvious, but they can be analogous in function; dealing huge, traumatic injuries by cutting soft tissue. That would be completely new to me. Afaik machairodontids and analogous animals were built to tackle and kill large prey, their teeth are an adaption to do so quickly and efficiently (contrary to wrestling matches lasting minites while clamping down on the throat of an animal). There is a video of a tiger shark feeding on a blue whale, and great white sharks, while, like every animal, they mostly feed on prey smaller than themselves, are known to take elephant seals and whale calves larger than themselves. It does not need teeth, it has a keratinous, sharp-edged beak that fulfills the same purpose. You surely don’t try to imply an animal cannot have deadly jaws just because it doesn't have teeth. Look at snapping turtles, or placoderms! So? If they had jaws like a shark or even a canid, built for delivering large amounts of mechanical damage, they would not need to do that, they could do just fine with their jaws alone. You must be kidding me. Ever heard of monitor lizards, birds of prey, sharks or canids? They all prey on larger animals regularly. I fully acknowledge that crocodiles are not large-prey-specialists. That's entirely beside the point tough, crocodiles are not a prime example of macrophagy among non-felines. Only in animals bigger than themselves by an enourmous degree (like 10 times or so in the case of water buffalo), and even those they manage to incapacitate quite quickly in many cases. In the cases where lions take down elephants that’s always involving a pride, and it is always a struggle and a long process of wearing it down. What komodo dragons do seems more effective to me, and there can hardly be a doubt about the efficiency of their bites in this regard. This bird is not nearly big enough to support its own weight while the tiger is on its back. Its weapons are not up to par with the tiger, its mobility is not either. This still has the makings to be a completely one sided fight to me. [...] So long story short, there is no reason to think this bird would be able to compete against or fight a Tiger successful. It just seems far to impractical. If you want to believe that, I won't stand in your way. But you have to understand that seems hilarious to anyone who has seen the fossils of Kelenken and the comparison posted earlier. A tiger shark feeding on a blue whale? Come on man. Whales get fed on by sharks all the time when they are dying or already dead. Do you know what a tiger shark would look like next to a blue whale?? Come on now, that is absurd. And even so, a shark may be able to swim around and take bites out of a whale but that is because there is such a massive size difference it would be like a bee sting to a lion. At the end of the day, you cannot post a single video of any of the animals I named taking on larger prey. That is the most telling thing, but I can post tons of accounts of big cats killing much larger prey than themselves. I understand you guys like reptiles and prehistoric dinos, therapods etc.... but instead of trying to find one random example to disprove what I am saying, why don't you just find actual accounts or videos of successful attacks on much larger prey.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 10, 2014 22:43:18 GMT 5
There are 127 reported cases of golden eagles preying on mule deer in North America alone, as well as 21 on pronghorn and 23 on caribou, overall 130 cases of sheep and goat and 4 calves from cattle (which is probably not quite complete). There are also reports of adult red and roe deer being taken. We know they can kill adult reindeer and mule deer and that doesn’t even seem to be a freak ocurrence. In terms of predator/prey ratio, that’s by quite a margin the most impressive I know of among extant macrofauna. Funny, it’s from a reptile, not a cat!
btw the biggest prey item recorded for a golden eagle was a 230kg calf.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Apr 10, 2014 22:47:27 GMT 5
If you want videos, why not watching all these komodo dragon vs buffalo videos? Coherentsheaf posted that video often enough: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY5FMIrj27Q&feature=player_embeddedYou can also see that it wasn't the venom, but the mechanical advantage that allowed the komodo dragon to kill its prey.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Apr 10, 2014 22:51:30 GMT 5
At the end of the day, you cannot post a single video of any of the animals I named taking on larger prey. That is the most telling thing, but I can post tons of accounts of big cats killing much larger prey than themselves. I understand you guys like reptiles and prehistoric dinos, therapods etc.... but instead of trying to find one random example to disprove what I am saying, why don't you just find actual accounts or videos of successful attacks on much larger prey. That’s just hilarious, there are more videos of komodo dragons preying on buffalo than I could post here. I don’t think I have to do your reseach for you, since this is ridiculously obvious, just go to youtube and type "komodo dragon hunting deer" or "komodo dragon hunting buffalo" for example. Creature already gave you a nice one, that water buffalo had grave trouble walking after a nip at the foot and one at the face from the ora. We guys "like reptiles and prehistoric dinos, therapods etc."? I think that line proves how little thought you actually give to them. But let’s not get personal here. at the end of the day, it is the evidence that counts, and the evidence is, that single wolves have killed adult bison and muskox, just like single lions have killed buffalo, that single komodo dragons FREQUENTLY kill water buffalo and other large "ungulates", and that single eagles preying on mammals that outweigh them by orders of magnitude is not a rarity. So, do sharks, after all, actually prey on stuff larger than themselves? Case closed! You are contradicting yourself. The tiger shark took big chunks of that blue whale, which certainly did contribute to its subsequent death!
|
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on Apr 10, 2014 23:17:20 GMT 5
Once again, komoda dragons do not hunt like the predators listed. They kill by infection. Huge difference. Once again, NO SHARK is preying on a blue whale adult. NONE. No shark is preying on any whale adult for that matter. What does the largest predatory shark today eat..... Sea Lions, seals and fish. All of which are much smaller than itself. What do Tiger sharks prey on.... Turtles, seals, birds, fish....etc... once again, all much smaller than itself.
And once again about Eagles, THEY CAN FLY. Why are you guys trying to name kamodo dragons and eagles? Neither of which hunt like the two animals mentioned nor kill the same way. If you want to use example you must use apples to apples.
|
|