|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 2, 2024 21:45:38 GMT 5
Quote; "Warm-bloodedness" is a vague term, for example. "Homeothermy", "tachymetabolism", and "endothermy" are more specific. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bull crap "Fake Professor". If you lack the common horse sense to know the difference between "lizard cold-blooded" and "bird warm-blooded", then you're lost in this meaningless debate. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Also, when making statements like "T. rex had stronger jaws", it's best to provide numbers with references, as different studies can, depending on their methods, get different results. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So "Fake Professor", you have never researched this topic but you want me to research it for you? My post was neither a personal attack against you nor against your positions, but against the way you communicate your positions. I tried to explain why clear language and sources are more suitable for a forum with a scientific focus than "common horse sense", but it seems like I need to try harder. As pedantic as it sounds, there's a well-known phenomenon called the Dunning-Kruger effect. In simple words, people who think they know a lot about a topic tend to know much less than they think they know, making humility a virtue.
You seem to think of evolution as a goal-directed process, i.e. "lizards became dinosaurs, dinosaurs became birds, T. rex is closer to birds than Giganotosaurus, so T. rex is more warm-blooded". This is not how evolution works. For starters, many large dinosaurs had metabolic features that you'll neither find in birds nor in most lizards (key word: gigantothermy).
Here's your homework for tomorrow:
Also, like theropod said, I suggest arguing in good faith, since I fear you are not the one with administrative power here. |
|
|
|
Post by razor45dino on Sept 3, 2024 8:38:48 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 3, 2024 17:37:44 GMT 5
Yes. I think the popularity of arguments exalting binocular vision among vehement proponents of Tyrannosaurus exceptionalism are based on an incomplete understanding of its use and importance. Some accipitrids have a similar or smaller field of binocular overlap (20°, Martin & Katzir 1999) to allosauroids ( Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, Stevens 2006). So do herons (Martin & Katzir 1994). I think the idea many people have about non-tyrannosaurid theropods alleged "lack of binocular vision", based on their narrower binocular visual fields, surmising that this would somehow have made them "clumsy" or "imprecise", is a soundly mistaken one that can’t really be reconciled with the successful and accurate predators with similar or even narrower binocular visual fields that exist today. Not just accipitrids or herons, but also most other reptilian predators. And yes, it’s quite likely that the binocular vision in T. rex was primarily a byproduct of the posterior widening of the skull. It’s unlikely to be a coincidence that this feature is found in this particular taxon. But viewed through a certain lens, any feature of this particular species tends to get interpreted as a uniquely advantageous superpower that every other theropod was just somehow too primitive and inferior to have involved, while every feature found in those other theropods tends to get interpreted as just one more way in which they were inferior and primitive. People tend to assume wide binocular visual fields are very advantageous for active predators because most mammalian predators tend to have them, but this is a circular argument. We could just as well look at theropods, determine that most predatory theropods had narrow skulls and narrow binocular fields, and conclude the opposite. -- Martin, G.R. and Katzir, G. 1994. Visual fields and eye movements in herons (Ardeidae). Brain, Behavior and Evolution 44 (2): 74–85. Martin, G.R. and Katzir, G. 1999. Visual fields in Short-toed Eagles, Circaetus gallicus (Accipitridae), and the function of binocularity in birds. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 53 (2): 55–66. Stevens, K.A. 2006. Binocular vision in theropod dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26 (2): 321–330. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 3, 2024 18:53:51 GMT 5
We're looking at you "carnosaurs were scavengers" guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 3, 2024 20:05:44 GMT 5
There was a conversation on the Discord not too long ago about the following statement someone made on this topic. Would you say this is an example of what you are talking about?
Although I don't care to really discuss this topic anymore, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between the 'uniquely advantageous superpowers' thing you are talking about and the verdict from this person that Giganotosaurus only has one advantage and T. rex wins the vast majority of times (instead of just a small majority) because of its listed features.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 3, 2024 22:41:07 GMT 5
There was a conversation on the Discord not too long ago about the following statement someone made on this topic. Would you say this is an example of what you are talking about? Although I don't care to really discuss this topic anymore, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between the 'uniquely advantageous superpowers' thing you are talking about and the verdict from this person that Giganotosaurus only has one advantage and T. rex wins the vast majority of times (instead of just a small majority) because of its listed features. Tyrannosaurus does seem to have an advantage if we look at most of the major quantifiable metrics. There has been a lot of research on tyrannosaurus mobility and current studies suggest it was the fastest and most agile of the megatheropods. There is also no denying it had the most powerful bite. We know that giganotsaurus had a larger gape and sharper teeth but the latter advantage hasn't been quantified and it is hard to say whether sharper teeth trumps a stronger bite, especially, since tyrannosauurs also had serrated teeth as well. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 3, 2024 22:49:06 GMT 5
There was a conversation on the Discord not too long ago about the following statement someone made on this topic. Would you say this is an example of what you are talking about? It would certainly qualify as an example of the kind of "T.rex-focused" confirmation bias I was alluding to, yes. They expect that every newly examined feature of T. rex is something that made it "better" than other theropods, so of course that is exactly how they end up interpreting it. They don’t appear to ask themselves why other groups of large theropods don’t have those same features if they were so amazing, even though they would have had a hundred million years to evolve them. That is because it is given vastly more chances. But 4 out of 5 popular attempts to "upsize" T. rex have failed miserably (which should go to show how badly people want to upsize it). Seeing how people keep looking really hard for ways to "upsize" T. rex, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that once in a while, and with dozens of specimens to work with, and what is likely more scientific attention than all non-coelurosaurian theropods receive when combined, one is successful in "upsizing" the known maximum size by 2% or so. The average size (something that is strictly being ignored when it doesn’t fit the expected picture) is still lower than that of Giganotosaurus, using the most current information and considering all perceived "downsizings" of the latter.  We're looking at you "carnosaurs were scavengers" guy. You mean the "Carnosaurs had few predatory specializations"-guy? lmao |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 3, 2024 23:05:14 GMT 5
There was a conversation on the Discord not too long ago about the following statement someone made on this topic. Would you say this is an example of what you are talking about? It would certainly qualify as an example of the kind of "T.rex-focused" confirmation bias I was alluding to, yes. They expect that every newly examined feature of T. rex is something that made it "better" than other theropods, so of course that is exactly how they end up interpreting it. They don’t appear to ask themselves why other theropods don’T Thank you for answering my question. Did you intend to say more but submit the comment before you typed it? I get that impression from "They don’t appear to ask themselves why other theropods don’T": they don't ask themselves why other theropods don't what? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 4, 2024 0:00:38 GMT 5
There was a conversation on the Discord not too long ago about the following statement someone made on this topic. Would you say this is an example of what you are talking about? Although I don't care to really discuss this topic anymore, I couldn't help but draw a parallel between the 'uniquely advantageous superpowers' thing you are talking about and the verdict from this person that Giganotosaurus only has one advantage and T. rex wins the vast majority of times (instead of just a small majority) because of its listed features. Tyrannosaurus does seem to have an advantage if we look at most of the major quantifiable metrics. There has been a lot of research on tyrannosaurus mobility and current studies suggest it was the fastest and most agile of the megatheropods. There is also no denying it had the most powerful bite. We know that giganotsaurus had a larger gape and sharper teeth but the latter advantage hasn't been quantified and it is hard to say whether sharper teeth trumps a stronger bite, especially, since tyrannosauurs also had serrated teeth as well. Not that I'm disputing what you are saying - I am not qualified to pass any judgement on it - but even if the things you are saying are true, are these really enough to overcome the fact that Giganotosaurus would have been much bigger than T. rex? I think this is worth pointing out since theropod mentioned size in the answer to my question. As shown in theropod's comment, the average femur circumference of both is slightly larger in Giganotosaurus. I think that would give it an even bigger size advantage than 6.3 tons vs 6.8 tons, if this Discord quote from Spinoinwonderland is anything to go by: If Giganotosaurus has a thinner femur circumference than Tyrannosaurus even at a bigger size, I think it having a larger femur circumference would give it a VERY big size advantage. But, this is just to point out something from the answer that you might ought to know: I don't want to be commenting here any further now that I got the answer to my question. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 4, 2024 0:44:01 GMT 5
Not what I’d call "very big", but probably enough to be noticeable (I mean of course p=0.25 isn’t significant, but at least it is a pretty clear tendency, and as clear as you can reasonably expect to get as long as there are so few specimens of one of them; it means that there’s a 75% chance that Giganotosaurus is indeed the bigger animal. You would not expect there to be a significant difference with so few specimens, unless the size difference was actually absurdly huge, which nobody is hypothesizing). Femur circumference does likely underestimate the mass difference, since volumetric models have demonstrated time and again that Allosauroids tend to be relatively underestimated based on their femur circumferences when compared to tyrannosauroids (plausibly to do with both differences in locomotion, and differences in bone compactness). There’s a caveat to that though, and it is that volumetric models (especially recent ones) have heavily focused on large, robust specimens like Sue or Scotty, so it could be that while they tend to be less underestimated by stylopodial regressions than other theropods (basing this on recent volumetric models that have tended to result in higher mass estimates than stylopodial regressions for the same specimens), the smaller, more gracile specimens may get affected to the same degree that Allosauroids do. Both affect the average in the end though. Even a half-ton size difference at 6-7 t body masses isn’t exactly irrelevant, especially as it is between averages and not just extremes. Small shifts in averages result in considerably larger shifts to the frequency of specific extreme sizes. Consider a a visual example from climate communication:  On the other hand, in 2013 the (entirely insignificant) 200 kg difference between the volumetric estimates for the then largest known individuals was quite sufficient for many (if not most) people to jump at the opportunity to proclaim T. rex the largest theropod once again, a statement you’ll still commonly find repeated online (along the lines of "T. rex was the largest terrestrial predator ever" or the like). So you’ll see why I get the strong impression that many people keep applying double standards when it comes to T. rex. Like, I get that one might not see any reason to care for a (minor and insignificant) difference in sizes between two broadly similar-sized (=clearly overlapping in size ranges) giant theropods. But when many people will happily jump at any minor feature or difference so long as it seems to fit the "Tyrannosaurus exceptionalism"-narrative, or marvel at equally minor and insignificant differences in other regards (such as brain size or binocular vision), one gets the impression that that’s not what happening here. Besides, it is sort of in the nature of threads like this one on boards like this one that people do care about such details…at least when it fits the picture they prefer to see. We can of course absolutely say that we think the difference doesn’t matter to us, but then we should be honest and not just do that when the difference happens to be one that does not favor the tyrannosaur. What’s often happening is counting the wins (for T. rex) but not the misses – and eventually that’s what maintains the status quo, with T. rex as the quintessential "best, most special, most interesting dinosaur" that has to keep featuring everywhere forever (I guess my criticisms of how every single paleo documentary always has to have T. rex in it is well known at this point) and take focus away from hundreds of other taxa that never get the attention they would deserve for their own unique and special features. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 4, 2024 1:57:04 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus does seem to have an advantage if we look at most of the major quantifiable metrics. There has been a lot of research on tyrannosaurus mobility and current studies suggest it was the fastest and most agile of the megatheropods. There is also no denying it had the most powerful bite. We know that giganotsaurus had a larger gape and sharper teeth but the latter advantage hasn't been quantified and it is hard to say whether sharper teeth trumps a stronger bite, especially, since tyrannosauurs also had serrated teeth as well. Not that I'm disputing what you are saying - I am not qualified to pass any judgement on it - but even if the things you are saying are true, are these really enough to overcome the fact that Giganotosaurus would have been much bigger than T. rex? I think this is worth pointing out since theropod mentioned size in the answer to my question. As shown in theropod's comment, the average femur circumference of both is slightly larger in Giganotosaurus. I think that would give it an even bigger size advantage than 6.3 tons vs 6.8 tons, if this Discord quote from Spinoinwonderland is anything to go by: If Giganotosaurus has a thinner femur circumference than Tyrannosaurus even at a bigger size, I think it having a larger femur circumference would give it a VERY big size advantage. But, this is just to point out something from the answer that you might ought to know: I don't want to be commenting here any further now that I got the answer to my question. Hope this helps. I don't think there is enough information to determine whether one animal is significantly larger, especially since some animal populations can have drastically different mean weights. Polar bears for instance, have highly variable weights despite the fact they aren't any different subspecies. In addition, larger amounts of publication doesn't isn't always a postive in these AVA match ups. There has recently been a study that indicates that researchers have a real problem with pushing out inflated weight figures for megafauna, and there is often a bias against revising estimates that might make them smaller. x.com/ausar_the/status/1830757788068274231onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.70218I think there is enough info on tyrannosaurus to conclude that tyrannosaurus' weight estimates aren't very inflated. I am not super knowledgeable on the state of gigantosaurus remains, but given how there are only two specimens it is there may be a higher chance thar some size inflation is going on.'' Personally, I think its best to assume the animals are similar in body mass since they both seem to be as big as a theropod gets. A near 50/50 verdict, is probably the safest opinion on the topic but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with heavily favoring one animal, provided they don't go to far and their arguments are supported by research. For instance, I like snakes but it's kind of impossible to deny that big cats seem to dominate them in face to face conflicts. Not saying the tyrannosaurus vs gigantosaurus fight is lopsided in any direction, but I do think we have enough data for people to argue that tyrannosaurus currently does seem to have noticeable advantages over gigantosaurus. Perhaps a more fair comparison would be the American lion vs a similar sized smilodon. Is it fanboyism to suggest that a smilodon does have a pretty significant advantage due to its superior grappling abilities? Personally, I don't think so. Ironically, I do favor the tyrannosaurus despite the fact that it's a bit more similar to the American lion than smilodon this case, and that's primarily because its advantages seems give it more tactical flexibility. The gigantosaurus' main advantages is its greater gape which may help it engulf the trex's jaws in its mouth or get a better grip on a less ideal target like the flanks, but I suspect that megatheropods would naturally be cautious whilst fighting other similar sized theropods and a lot of circling and positioning would occur. Crocodilians for instance, are known to bite each others jaws off, but most video confrontations indicate they try to avoid sticking each others mouths in each other's jaws since their is a high risk of mutual damage. A tyrannosaurus' more cursorial adaptations and higher ability would be beneficial for a lengthy positioning contest. In addition, from what I understand, carnosaur primarily inflict damage by biting and then pulling, which suggest that they are less inclined to maintain a grip than a tyrannosaurus. Videos of komodos indicate that these attacks can quickly inflict debilitating injuries, but given that Stan survived getting bit on the back of the head and neck, its possible that a tyrannosaurus would still be in fighting shape if a gigantosaurus ripped off a section of its flank or facial tissue. If a tyrannosaurus, however, gained a dominant position during the "face biting" contest I don't think it would be as inclined to let go, and even if it did lose its grip it would likely break a jaw bone which is more likely to compromise biting ability than tissue loss. Also, I don't know how pertinent this is, but tyrannosaurus' head looks like it would be more effective for headbutting than vice versa. Of course another advantage the giga has its longer arms, but honestly I don't see that being a big factor. If the giga is close enough to grab the rex with its arms, it would have already been close enough to bite a few seconds earlier, and the jaws are going to be the main factor in this fight. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Sept 4, 2024 3:58:04 GMT 5
Not that I'm disputing what you are saying - I am not qualified to pass any judgement on it - but even if the things you are saying are true, are these really enough to overcome the fact that Giganotosaurus would have been much bigger than T. rex? I think this is worth pointing out since theropod mentioned size in the answer to my question. As shown in theropod's comment, the average femur circumference of both is slightly larger in Giganotosaurus. I think that would give it an even bigger size advantage than 6.3 tons vs 6.8 tons, if this Discord quote from Spinoinwonderland is anything to go by: If Giganotosaurus has a thinner femur circumference than Tyrannosaurus even at a bigger size, I think it having a larger femur circumference would give it a VERY big size advantage. But, this is just to point out something from the answer that you might ought to know: I don't want to be commenting here any further now that I got the answer to my question. Hope this helps. As much as I wasn't interested in who would win to begin with, the more I thought about it the more I found it suspicious that T. rex should have so many advantages: my expectation would - for obvious reasons - have been for each to have a similar number of advantages. So I did some research of my own and I'll reply to you with what I have found. If we work with what we have - which we have literally no choice but to do - even the Giganotosaurus holotype does come out as being larger than most T. rex. More on this below. Believe it or not, the reverse of overestimation is true for Giganotosaurus. The most popular estimate for the holotype from Scott Hartman of 6.8 tons is actually an underestimate: a model fixing the underestimate-causing issues came out at 8.2 tons, and going by what is written in the comments it would be even bigger with some anatomical updates: thesauropodomorphlair.wordpress.com/2022/01/09/volumetric-estimate-for-giganotosaurus/I disagree: the data I can find suggest a very substantial size advantage for Giganotosaurus even using just the holotype. Time to elaborate on that. Compared to the >8.2 ton estimate for the Giganotosaurus holotype linked above, we get 6-7 tons for the average T. rex (this being an elaboration on the method from which the mentioned 6.3 ton estimate came from): www.deviantart.com/theropod1/journal/The-average-rex-958100358So even just using the smaller Giganotosaurus, it comes out to >26% larger with these rigorous estimates. I agree on the bolded. And I heavily favor Giganotosaurus: besides just its size advantage. you will see why in the rest of this comment. If this is the case I will take your word for it. I know very close to nothing about snake and big cat interactions. I believe the opposite is true as well, as you will see argued further down this comment. Neither do I: in my opinion that is a good example of the bolded statement in the quote 3 quotes above this one. From reading your comment I get the impression you are unaware of the advantages for Giganotosaurus that my research dug up. If you are unaware of them, you may change your opinion. I believe Giganotosaurus would have its fair share of advantages for a positioning contest as well. For example, it is better at sidestepping and is more stable (more lateral hindlimb mobility). From: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/65174It also has a greater reach and range of motion with its head and neck because they are longer, lighter, and more flexible than those of T. rex, giving it a greater reach and striking speed with which to land a good bite. Furthering this reach advantage is the fact that it is the longer animal. I thought I found info on this in the linked comment from theropod , but I can't seem to find it the second time around. If he could provide the citations I can't seem to find that would be most helpful. But, ultimately, I believe this together with its wider gape would be enough for me to give Giganotosaurus the win even at the same size, say, 6/10 times. These conflicts largely come down to who gets the first good bite, and Giganotosaurus in my opinion has a better chance at doing that even at the same size for the above reasons. Allosauroids don't need to maintain grips to do serious damage: a slash that severs the jaw muscles of a T. rex and leaves it unable to bite back is plenty enough. I think this is a completely unreasonable assumption, with no disrespect intended. By far the most parsimonious explanation for Stan's survival was escaping and healing in secluded safety. There is no reason to believe the pain, shock, blood loss, and inability to bite back due to severed jaw muscles would not render the T. rex unable to fight back at that moment. I do agree that T. rex could do serious damage to a Giganotosaurus skull if it got a good hold, but due to simple mechanics Giganotosaurus severing the jaw muscles would unquestionably be the end for T. rex. Severed jaw muscles means no more biting, period. I don't think it is pertinent to begin with, we are talking about a fight to the death. Headbutts, to my admittedly limited knowledge, are not for these fights. Even if it was pertinent, I believe studies on the skull of Giganotosaurus would be needed to make judgement on that topic. I concur. Ultimately, I favor Giganotosaurus 76 percent of the time or more. This is based on my 6/10 verdict at the same size while accounting for its probable >26% size advantage - and even if we were to assume 50/50 at the same size, that would be a 63 percent or more win rate for Giganotosaurus. Edit: Now that I've done my research on my suspicions I'm not quite really motivated for this discussion anymore. Sorry, I probably won't have anything else to say. |
|
|
|
Post by razor45dino on Sept 4, 2024 4:52:16 GMT 5
One thing I want to bring up is that if the Giganotosaurus holotype was asymptotic, because as it has an efs ( if it is not asymptotic please correct ), then it wouldn't really be fair to compare it to the average of all Tyrannosaurus specimens but only asymptotic ones, of which there are about 7, iirc, not sure how much the results would differ from that but I suspect the difference would be a lot less.
I also do not think it is fair to use "average sizes" and conclude one has a size advantage over the other because of the extreme difference in sample size. I do not think 2 specimens are enough to get an average for Giganotosaurus and even if we do that just a couple hundred kilograms on a value that has massive margin of error on such a large animal is kind of meaningless, both specimens are in the range for the size of tyrannosaurus ( at least per theropod's chart ), so I believe the best assumption is that they re the same size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 4, 2024 4:54:42 GMT 5
You mean the "Carnosaurs had few predatory specializations"-guy? lmao Still don't know how that one made peer review, geez |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 4, 2024 6:44:05 GMT 5
I honestly, haven't heard anyone try use the 6.8 ton figure in AVA debates in years, though I don't usually pay attention to the obvious fanboys that try to downplay giga. At any rate, I do find it rather eyebrow raising that there hasn't been an in-depth research on the gigantosaurus holotype size's after it's initial barebones description, despite the substantial remains, especially since gigantosaurus is a very famous dinosaur in its own right and has been toted as the "t-rex dethroner" for decades. I hate to sound tinfoil hatty, but I do wonder if its possible that researchers are hesitant to revise its size. Just to clarify, I don't think there is a high possibility of this but I think it is worth bringing it up since we are working with small sample sizes. There is also the question of whether sexual dimorphism may have been a thing. Although we don't have any hard evidence that tyrannosaurus exhibited size based sexual, statistically speaking it seems most birds do exhibit some level of size based sexual dimorphism so it's plausible that this applied to non-avian theropods as well.  Since there is only two giganotsaurus specimens known, its possible we have only uncovered remains from two gigantosaurus of the same sex while we have a mix of female and male rex's admittedly, this is speculation but its another factor that makes me leery to declare one is definitely larger than the other on average. Personally, I distinctly recall the days when people where certain that spinosaur was by far the heaviest theropod and that anyone that suggested any theropod that could beat in a face to face fight was a fan boy. Thus I am bit skeptical that either animal had a major size advantage until more rigorous research is done on the topic. That's interesting, but you haven't really quantified how much more stable giganotsaurus would have been compared to a tyrannosaurus. In addition, I don't believe the study even directly compared their stability. In contrast, we do have a study directly comparing tyrannosaurid agility scores to other theropods and the difference is pretty massive: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387760/I would need to see a lot more evidence before I can concede that gigantosaurus had a large stability advantage. In addition, greater stability doesn't mean the animal is necessarily mean it is better at pulling or pushing other animals to the ground. That may sound paradoxical but look at cats. The animals cats hunt tend to be much more stable than them, but usually they are the ones that bring the animal to the ground rather than vice versa. Obviously, cats have grappling forelimbs so that may not be the greatest example, but I don't really think either animal made a habit of violently pulling animals off their feet, because that's a dangerous action for such large animals. Just imagine the kind of damage either would suffer if they accidentally dropped a large prey item on their toes. Given that gigantosaurus was a sauropod hunter it makes sense that it had adaptations to not be pulled off its feet, but I don't think that means it would be better at knocking over tyrannosaurus. Tyrannosaurus would have also had faced evolutionary pressure to keep its balance given its great size. A longer flexible neck can be useful at retaliating from odd angles, but I don't think reach will be much of a factor here. Asides from humans, or animals specialized for striking, equipped with venomous weapons, or possess absurdly long necks like a terror bird/azdar, reach doesn't usually seem to be a big factor in fights between similar sized animals, because animals can close the distance pretty quickly. For instance, an albatross has a longer neck and beak than a petrel but it isn't able to keep a petrel at a distance. Granted, neither animals has ziphodont teeth but I honestly don't think there are many scenarios where either animals is able to prevent the other one from biting it at all. I think in most cases, the dinosaur that gets the first bite will be quickly bitten in return. Off the top of my head, the only biting animal that I really think would have a real reach disadvantage would be sharks since their snouts heavily protrude in front of their jaws. From my experience, seriously underestimate the amount of damage needed to kill or completely cripple an animal. For instance on paper a hippo should be able to crush a lion's head in one bite but we have a video of a hippo failing to do so: Similarly, while komodos can rapidly induce blood loss, there are some videos of them needing quite a few seconds to rip open the skin. If the deer had more dangerous teeth it could have bitten this komodo back. Speaking as a bit of a history buff, there are actually a lot of accounts of humans that continued to fight on after being stabbed or shot by weapons that do much more extensive tissue damage than teeth (at least on an ib for ib basis) In fact, one of the most difficult things in a an unarmored duel was killing your opponent without taking a mutually fatal blow in return. Scholagladiatoria is a legit historian. So he is a good source of info. Perhaps the most relevant video though would be this one, here is a video of moray eels that kept on fighting despite having noticeable damage across its face and jaw when it was nearly ripped in half. Pause at 0:18, and 1:11 and you can see how badly the smaller eel's face was savaged. Both the lower and upper jaw are misisng large portion of flesh but it can still bite back at 0:43. Since eels are ecotherms, I don't think tyrannosaurus would be able to shrug off as much tissue damage but I think its totally pausible for when to keep fighting if had some flesh taken off its snout. More often than not, I don't think either animal would be able to fatally cripple the other with one bite. It would likely to take multiple or a long sustained bite to do the job, and I think the tyrannosaurus' bone crushing jaws have a better chance of inducing quick death than the gigas. |
|
