|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 27, 2016 7:51:09 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 27, 2016 14:21:56 GMT 5
Sounds fairly reasonable, the square-cube law argument is akin to what broly typically points out in sauropod-related matchups (and it is also the reason why we usually don't pit theropods against 10 times larger sauropods).
I'm not sure if I'd rule out the flesh grazing. It is not as easy as in the water, but if you have enough theropods around a single sauropod with some close to its neck and tail (so that it doesn't use them against the others), it may still work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 27, 2016 15:28:49 GMT 5
Initially, he's comparing carnosaurs to cats (and eventually flesh grazing odontocetes) and why this doesn't work. The only thing this demonstrates is that carnosaurs wouldn't have killed larger prey like them. It's not as if leaping and holding like a cat and attacking in a three dimensional environment like a toothed whale are the only ways you can successfully prey upon a larger animal (actually, I don't even believe in the supposed "advantages" of attacking in a three dimensional marine environment; link 1, link 2). A carnosaur may not have the grappling ability of a cat or its leaping ability (although, I don't think it's too far fetched that they may get a bit "on" their large prey), but in exchange its killing apparatus is far better at creating mechanical damage on a variety of body parts, especially to a large animal. Cats certainly aren't as big-headed as carnosaurs, nor do they have long toothrows of serrated blade-like teeth or jaw joints that permit them to open their mouths as wide of an angle as carnosaurs do. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 27, 2016 15:50:32 GMT 5
Yup, we unfortunately have no large, bipedal komodo dragons which we could use as analogies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 27, 2016 16:26:07 GMT 5
Was that meant to be a point supporting or going against mine?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 27, 2016 17:50:54 GMT 5
A supporting point, as you basically said we have no good living analogies for carnosaurs (if I understood you correctly).
|
|
|
|
Post by spartan on May 27, 2016 18:37:18 GMT 5
"Only a certain montane-climate predator (which I sadly forgot the name of... something with a V?) and early humans employ this strategy. Both species have ludicrous stamina, which is not seen in the currently-living 10,000 species of theropod nor estimated to have existed in extinct ones."
Ostriches have ridiculous stamina, too. One of the very few animals that can even outrun humans in heat as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 27, 2016 18:38:02 GMT 5
^^Well, we have no entirely perfect analogues, yes, but I was also referring to how some modern predators under roughly similar conditions to those that carnosaurs were under can still successfully kill much larger animals (oras, canids, hyaenids).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2016 21:11:07 GMT 5
Giant petrels are the closest living analogues to carcharodontosaurids. As for creatures like Allosaurus (which, as Nash brought up in a blog post, saws through bone and actually eats more bones than tyrannosaurs), the closest analogue is the tiger shark, but it's aquatic and thus still a problematic comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 28, 2016 0:12:59 GMT 5
Not really on topic, but I don't agree that it would have been eating more bones than tyrannosaurs. I have a feeling it's merely a sample size issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 28, 2016 0:19:57 GMT 5
@broly
Well, petrels technically still enjoy the 3D advantage and are hence it is dubious if they are really comparable to carcharodontosaurids in terms of hunting style.
|
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on May 28, 2016 1:29:42 GMT 5
Not exactly disagreeing with the conclusion, but I just thought I'd throw out my input on the matter.
I think cats are just a bad analogy for carnosaurs all-together. A carnosaur would probably be utilizing a different strategy from cats anyway, not leaping onto prey or grappling them with their forelimbs. Nor would I think orcas would be an analogy either just simply being aquatic as opposed to the obviously terrestrial carnosaurs.
Komodo dragons would be the best extant analogy (not perfect, but better than anything else extant I can think of) for carnosaurs IMO. They have similar dentition, and Komodos being terrestrial don't have a 3D field of attack just like carnosaurs don't. In fact, to be honest, for some time I actually had pictured in my mind of carnosaurs hunting sauropods (the latter not being magnitudely bigger) as being somewhat akin to Komodos and buffalo. Eventually killing through shock and bloodloss.
I'm just mainly surprised that the post never brought up Komodo dragons as an analogy, nor addressed the dentition of carnosaurs. I actually agree on the conclusion somewhat, I don't see Allosaurus tackling things like Brachiosaurus, but I can see Saurophaganax taking Diplodocus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on May 28, 2016 4:18:24 GMT 5
I don't see why they couldn't employ a strategy akin to Ora, especially if they form similar alliances of convenience, if many of them were to take turn harassing and biting tge same sauropod over a period of days it wouldn't be long before its fate was simply a forgone conclusion, particularly if they also employ a strategy of crippling the animals mobility much like an Ora.
It's not the most glorious of strategies or a quick one but it would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 16, 2016 17:34:23 GMT 5
One thing I think should be noted about the orca analogy is that while these odontocetes are able to move three-dimensionally, I think the large whales they may go after are more mobile than giant sauropods were in exchange. Maybe it evens out?
|
|
