|
Post by theropod on Sept 6, 2019 1:24:00 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops certainly is one of the pairings that spring to mind immediately. Allosaurus and Stegosaurus is another that we have direct evidence for. Large individuals of both reached equivalent sizes to the former two.
In these two we have unequivocal evidence of some manner of predator-prey relationships. There is a bitten (and healed) horn and frill of Triceratops, and there are two thagomization-pathologies in Allosaurus individuals as well as a bitten neck plate of Stegosaurus.
Sauropods are the obvious candidate if we want to venture into the realm of speculation. Bite marks on sauropod material (especially from the Morrison Formation) aren’t uncommon (Matthew 1908, Jensen 1988, Hunt et al. 1994, Chure et al. 1998, Paik et al. 2011, Xing et al. 2012), but I’m not aware of any healed ones that would be clear evidence of predation rather than scavenging. However given the amount of biomass constituted by adult sauropods in some environments, the abundance of bite marks in the fossil record, and the morphological adaptations of theropods, it wouldn’t necessarily be parsimonious to not assume adult sauropods were sometimes preyed upon.
In none of these cases can we tell whether the predators operated as a group or solitarily. There is a certain tendency to assume solitary hunting as a default unless there is evidence for social hunting, but I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this assumption either.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 6, 2019 3:04:54 GMT 5
I wonder if we can make inferences about whether unhealed bite marks made by giant theropods on giant prey items were more likely the products of scavenging or successful predation. I've posted information about the energetic demands of multi-ton theropods in another thread->. Mega-theropods would not have been as capable of relying on scavenging to meet energetic demands as more intermediate-sized theropods. One of the studies I posted, focusing particularly on T. rex, estimated that it would have taken a ~5t T. rex, on average, over a year to find a 5t carcass, and five times longer to find a 25t one. Obviously mega-theropods could/would still scavenge if the ideal opportunity arose (i.e. a carcass that wasn't too far away from where they detected it), but the fact that it would apparently take so long on average says a lot about the viability of scavenging large carcasses. If this is true, I wonder if many giant theropod bite marks on other multi-ton dinosaurs could have been from, or thanks to, successful predation.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 6, 2019 15:33:16 GMT 5
Deinonychus bite marks on Tenontosaurus bones bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Vertebrate-Paleontology/volume-30/issue-4/02724634.2010.483535/A-Description-of-Deinonychus-antirrhopus-Bite-Marks-and-Estimates-of/10.1080/02724634.2010.483535.short
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 6, 2019 19:16:07 GMT 5
I wonder if we can make inferences about whether unhealed bite marks made by giant theropods on giant prey items were more likely the products of scavenging or successful predation. I've posted information about the energetic demands of multi-ton theropods in another thread->. Mega-theropods would not have been capable of relying on scavenging to meet energetic demands as more intermediate-sized theropods. One of the studies I posted, focusing particularly on T. rex, estimated that it would have taken a ~5t T. rex, on average, over a year to find a 5t carcass, and five times longer to find a 25t one. Obviously mega-theropods could/would still scavenge if the ideal opportunity arose (i.e. a carcass that wasn't too far away from where they detected it), but the fact that it would apparently take so long on average says a lot about the viability of scavenging large carcasses. If this is true, I wonder if many giant theropod bite marks on other multi-ton dinosaurs could have been from, or thanks to, successful predation. Indeed. And if it is true that huge sauropods were really common prey from mega-theropods, I understand how powerful they may have been when you see how powerful and resilient can be an egale... I wonder if, in some ways,they could represent the truly greatest predators of all time, overall more powerful in proportions to their size and preying bigger relatively bigger preys than Livyatan and Carcharocles...
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 7, 2019 15:59:25 GMT 5
Indeed. And if it is true that huge sauropods were really common prey from mega-theropods, I understand how powerful they may have been when you see how powerful and resilient can be an egale... I wonder if, in some ways,they could represent the truly greatest predators of all time, overall more powerful in proportions to their size and preying bigger relatively bigger preys than Livyatan and Carcharocles... Agreed. IMO big theropods are DEFINITELY up there
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Sept 8, 2019 0:25:59 GMT 5
What is the most epic (fossil) showdown known between a predator and its prey ? It has been said that the Neogene giant sharks and whales probably had spectacular battles but as of now, the few analysed cases usually involve a predator much larger than its prey, so not a very impressive feat. Purdy referd to predation on large whales but without any details, nor confirmation of a live attack. I mean either in case of size disparity, the prey being much larger than the predator, or in absolute size for both, huge predator and prey. I focuse on 1vs1 but can also count pack hunting against a large foe. The eagles impressive feats makes me think that the superpredatory theropods may have been some of the most powerful carnivorous fighters in the fossil record. Other than the well known interraction between Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops (basically 15-20 tonnes of raging muscles), is there something comparable from other theropods or mammals ? I think Livyatan or Megalodon preying on C. Chubutensis was a possible occurrence ..while not a parity 1v1 it still is a fascinating spectacle to imagine.
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Sept 8, 2019 0:29:01 GMT 5
I'm still not sure if C. chubutensis was essentially just a small/subadult C. megalodon or a different species.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 8, 2019 2:10:09 GMT 5
Firstly, the valid name is C. subauriculatus, created by Agassiz in 1839. C. chubutensis was named by Amhegino in 1906 (both under Carcharodon, which would now be more properly Carcharocles or Otodus). The two names seem to be universally considered to be synonyms, so the former clearly takes nomenclatural precedence over the latter. People may like C. chubutensis more for holding less potential for confusion with C. auriculatus, but it’s taxonomically wrong.
Secondly, if indeed the Otodus/Carcharocles species form an anagenetic lineage as Pimiento & Balk (2015) suggested, then they did not actually coexist, because C. subauriculatus would have directly evolved into C. megalodon. If this hypothesis is turned out to be correct, as some have hinted on this forum before, then it would be conceivable that the geologically younger records of C. subauriculatus could in fact be young megalodon individuals with lateral cusplets that have been misidentified as C. subauriculatus (although in that case, it would be questionable if the two species can even be differentiated at all on the basis of teeth). If they did coexist, then that would necessitate a split in the phylogeny somewhere, i.e. cladogenesis.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 8, 2019 15:36:48 GMT 5
Good wolf-bison interaction
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 12, 2019 14:10:55 GMT 5
Interesting mantis vs jumping spider
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 27, 2019 14:57:20 GMT 5
The story is obviously heavily edited, but the footage and the last sequence are absolutely worth posting here.
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Nov 8, 2019 12:25:14 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 2, 2019 7:19:56 GMT 5
Croc guts zebra
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 4, 2019 19:42:52 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Dec 4, 2019 19:43:33 GMT 5
Accidental repost of above.
|
|