|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 23, 2013 18:45:30 GMT 5
I'll throw my two cents in. To remove prey bias I will propose a scenario. We have two 5 ton predators, one with a Tyrannosaur style crushing bite, and the other with a Carnosaur style slicing bite. Both will attack a 5 ton hadrosaur with one bite. In my opinion both will kill the hadrosaur, but the theropod with the crushing bite will succeed in killing the hadrosaur more quickly due to a greater chance of damage to vital internal structures. If your basing it off of possibility of delivering a fatal bite then wouldnt the predator with a slicing bite be the one to favour? while the predator with a crushing bite will need to get its bite into vital areas inorder to cause death, if the predator with a sliceing bite can get a substantial bite almost anywhere on its prey items body can kill it in a fairly short amount of time through blood loss. Couldn't the crusher just tear off a limb, in order to deliver a deadly shock (or break it, what would at least render it quite defenseless, when it is a large prey item)? |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 23, 2013 21:58:13 GMT 5
No, what you are talking about is an that happens when your brain doesn't know its body is damaged (Mauro20 on CF stated he once got stabbed and didn't know it till he looked at it). People have been shot and never realised till they collapsed. What you are saying is irrelevant unless you really think if I smashed your hand 10 times you wouldn't feel it everytime? Anomalies =/= irrelevant P.S. Children are less prone to bone breaking as such because their bones aren't fully fused. You dont understand what i meant by it being irrelevant, pain is not what makes one bite better than another, lethality does, I meant your guy's entire little debate doesnt really determine which bite is better. my arm didnt hurt until i straightened it, i was looking at my broken crooked arm and wasnt in pain, what your talking about doesnt even apply to what i was talking about. if it happens often under the same circumstances it isnt an anomaly. Anomalies =/= irrelevant? thats two negatives you just said anomalies are relevant, conflicting with the rest of your post. ps. why does that matter? why would it matter if my bones where less prone to breaking? I still broke both bones in my arm, not only does that have nothing to do with what we were talking about it also is completely pointless to bring it up. I'm debating pain, not lethality. if i were I wouldn't be arguing this with you because we'd both agree on the same thing. This shows people like to quote me without understanding my point yet again. DM said slicing was more painful, that was what I was addressing. It obviously wasn't crushed but your arm had something around a fracture which are 2 different things if it wasn't dangling about. Do you know what crushed means compared to broken? read my last post matter of fact i'll repeat what I said. "Unless you think you wouldn't feel me crushing your hand with a hammer?" < understand now? If a crocodile bit down on your arm it wouldn't fracture it like yours, it would smash it like it did with that wildebeest in that one video. That was my bad, when I post i like using the =/= thing. I'm debating pain, not lethality. if i were I wouldn't be arguing this with you because we'd both agree on the same thing. This shows people like to quote me without understanding my point yet again. DM said slicing was more painful, that was what I was addressing. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 23, 2013 22:00:17 GMT 5
If your basing it off of possibility of delivering a fatal bite then wouldnt the predator with a slicing bite be the one to favour? while the predator with a crushing bite will need to get its bite into vital areas inorder to cause death, if the predator with a sliceing bite can get a substantial bite almost anywhere on its prey items body can kill it in a fairly short amount of time through blood loss. Couldn't the crusher just tear off a limb, in order to deliver a deadly shock (or break it, what would at least render it quite defenseless, when it is a large prey item)? To be fare, animals with bone crunching bites normally attack the skull and facial region of prey (Wolves, crocodiles, hyenas) |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 23, 2013 23:26:05 GMT 5
I know that, but a biting the limb could work as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 24, 2013 1:09:48 GMT 5
You dont understand what i meant by it being irrelevant, pain is not what makes one bite better than another, lethality does, I meant your guy's entire little debate doesnt really determine which bite is better. my arm didnt hurt until i straightened it, i was looking at my broken crooked arm and wasnt in pain, what your talking about doesnt even apply to what i was talking about. if it happens often under the same circumstances it isnt an anomaly. Anomalies =/= irrelevant? thats two negatives you just said anomalies are relevant, conflicting with the rest of your post. ps. why does that matter? why would it matter if my bones where less prone to breaking? I still broke both bones in my arm, not only does that have nothing to do with what we were talking about it also is completely pointless to bring it up. I'm debating pain, not lethality. if i were I wouldn't be arguing this with you because we'd both agree on the same thing. This shows people like to quote me without understanding my point yet again. DM said slicing was more painful, that was what I was addressing. It obviously wasn't crushed but your arm had something around a fracture which are 2 different things if it wasn't dangling about. Do you know what crushed means compared to broken? read my last post matter of fact i'll repeat what I said. "Unless you think you wouldn't feel me crushing your hand with a hammer?" < understand now? If a crocodile bit down on your arm it wouldn't fracture it like yours, it would smash it like it did with that wildebeest in that one video. That was my bad, when I post i like using the =/= thing. I'm debating pain, not lethality. if i were I wouldn't be arguing this with you because we'd both agree on the same thing. This shows people like to quote me without understanding my point yet again. DM said slicing was more painful, that was what I was addressing. Im not saying your not debating pain you tard, i am saying debating pain is pointless. both the bones in my arm were broken, crushed no but the bones were no longer attached to each other and i felt almost nothing until I straighten it out however on the opposite side of things when i was of a similar age I scraped my knee and cried, this fact conflicts directly with you saying that cuts are generally less painful then injuries associated with crushing, like broken bones. Injuries associated with either are not always more painful than the other even if severity is similar. hence debating pain is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 24, 2013 1:12:17 GMT 5
If your basing it off of possibility of delivering a fatal bite then wouldnt the predator with a slicing bite be the one to favour? while the predator with a crushing bite will need to get its bite into vital areas inorder to cause death, if the predator with a sliceing bite can get a substantial bite almost anywhere on its prey items body can kill it in a fairly short amount of time through blood loss. Couldn't the crusher just tear off a limb, in order to deliver a deadly shock (or break it, what would at least render it quite defenseless, when it is a large prey item)? Just tear off a limb? this isnt ripping up paper, removal of limbs isnt something that happens every other day |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 24, 2013 1:35:00 GMT 5
In the first part I was more talking of a small prey (as the part in brackets shows). For larger prey, it could break a limb, what could as well cause a deadly shock.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 24, 2013 1:42:31 GMT 5
In the first part I was more talking of a small prey (as the part in brackets shows). For larger prey, it could break a limb, what could as well cause a deadly shock. even with small prey it is not a common occurrence. lots of animals keep kicking awhile after a broken limb, Its far less likely to cause shock than the rapid loss caused by the bite of a predator like a white shark or ora |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 24, 2013 2:09:35 GMT 5
I stay on the position I have mentioned at times (and I see most agree with this and even the others probably have the right thoughts in mind, at least in a scenario were they actually give toughts to this matter); At comparable jaw size (which can be tricky indeed to properly compare due to big variations in shape, function etc.) both have pros and cons and overally the same potency.
slicing's main advantage among macrophagous predators is in gigantophagy, that of crushing in durophagy. There are
other reasons, eg. evolutionary ones, favouring their occurrence independently of these factors (eg polyphyodonty, diphyodonty etc.).
I think on a similar-sized, unarmoured, "neutral" prey item (or each other, since I know everyone, including myself, is also having that in mind), both would work with comparable effectiveness.
That being said every animal is different, every jaw works slightly different (and there won't be two that are EXACTLY equal anywhere, in any situation, but often this is the only objective thing to assume), and a vast majority of other factors influences hunting or fighting efficiency. Also, theres no such a thing as a 100% slicer/crusher.
As for the pain, it's difficult to say and entirely dependant on the situation. I think depending on the region, speed and relative size and power of the bite both can be very painful, or not, but in the majority of cases I'd envision a bite from an anmal rather on the crusher-side would be more painful, albeit not more devastating. Pain isn't very important for most animals tough, since the majority can endure much more than a human can.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 6, 2013 21:44:43 GMT 5
In the first part I was more talking of a small prey (as the part in brackets shows). For larger prey, it could break a limb, what could as well cause a deadly shock. Shock as a medical condiditon can be circulatory or spinal in nature. Merely breaking a limb would not cause either, to cause it by traumatic injury either tremendous blood loss, causing hypovolemic (eg by a lacerated major arteria or vein such as the carotid or jugular) or damage to nerves, causing neurogenic/spinal (eg. by severed spinal chord or vagus nerve) shock. I presume both slicing and crushing bites have the capability of causing both types each, but with very different efficiency; a proficient crusher will much more easily damage the spinal chord protected by neural arches when crushing the vertebral collumn, a proficient slicer will much more easily damage major blood vessels (which includes the vagus sheath) when tearing through soft tissues. Massive damage to internal organs would have the same consequences and could also be caused by both, again depending on the target with varying efficiency. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 6, 2013 23:27:53 GMT 5
That's true, but it could at least render the prey item defenseless, because with a broken limb it couldn't run away and defense will be very hard, so the predator could start another attack on a vital part of the body.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 7, 2013 0:00:53 GMT 5
Indeed. Bites of different kinds cause injury and death via different strategies.
Even if one bite cannot kill as easily or as quickly, that doesn't mean it is inferior (and of course I didn't want to say that).
I'm often saying the same about slicing bites. It doesn't matter whether an animal with a broken neck dies a few seconds or minutes faster than one with a cut throat or a massive chunk ripped out of its belly--it certainly won't fight back effectively after the bite, so the result is a dead animal being eaten...
Added to that, an animal with broken leg or cut tendons will very likely die anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 7, 2014 1:31:32 GMT 5
What I think is important is to properly define slicing and crushing when discussing it:
"Slicing" vs "crushing" depends on how sharp vs blunt the application of force is, that is basically it.
It is noteworthy all macropredators tend to apply force over relatively small areas (compared to certain molluscivores or herbivores with very broad, truly blunt chewing surfaces), i.e. they all tend to have rather pointy sharp teeth. So in general that condition seems to be favourable for predation.
However that is not equally developed in all. So the "crushers" we most commonly discuss are applying "blunt" force for carnivore standards, not overall.
Here slicers tend to have reduced adductor-driven bite force and emphasis on drawing force (by the use of the teeth as megaserrations), because strong bite force would often just serve to break the teeth, while crushers tend to have emphasis on adductor force, because the blunter the force, the more necessary it becomes to secure the bitten part savely within the oral cavity to avoid just pushing it away or sliding over it with the teeth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jun 7, 2014 2:41:36 GMT 5
Depending on the type of prey the predator specializes in, it could go either way. This seems opinionated at best.
Larger vertebrates would be subdued best with sharply-edged "slicing" teeth, while smaller and "tougher-skinned" prey items such as mollusks and turtles would be incapacitated best with blunter, crushing bites. Whereas smaller vertebrates such as fish are best taken if the predator possesses very finely-pointed but yet conical dentition.
It really depends on the size and type of prey animal
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on May 27, 2015 20:16:18 GMT 5
Wont be seeing a slicing bite pulling that off.
|
|
