|
|
Post by razor45dino on Mar 2, 2024 22:38:16 GMT 5
wouldn't the cat also be able to do similar things with its arms
|
|
|
|
Post by Shri devi on Jun 1, 2024 14:57:22 GMT 5
It doesn't matter if the dromaeosaurid kills the lion first or the lion kills the dromaeosaurid first. Face to face, the cat can invariably count on getting stabbed several times somewhere on its body (whether it's the thighs, stomach, or even the throat) by those biological knives. According to Mickey Mortimer (of The Theropod Database) in this communication, Achillobator had a very stout phalanx II-2 (the phalanx that the "sickle claw" sits on). Typically, modern raptors and Dromaeosaurs (at least most Eudromaeosaurs and Unenlagiines) have elongated penultimate pre-ungual phalanges, including phalanx II-2, which could be to do with grip strength? In any case, it has been suggested that stouter phalanx II-2 in Dromaeosaurus and Adasaurus are indicators of a shorter second ungual as well. As far as I can tell, Kuru kulla had a stout phalanx II-2 and a correspondingly small second pedal ungual. That Achillobator had an even stouter phalanx II-2 than these guys could suggest that its sickle claw was similarly reduced or even moreso. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 2, 2024 6:01:01 GMT 5
It doesn't matter if the dromaeosaurid kills the lion first or the lion kills the dromaeosaurid first. Face to face, the cat can invariably count on getting stabbed several times somewhere on its body (whether it's the thighs, stomach, or even the throat) by those biological knives. According to Mickey Mortimer (of The Theropod Database) in this communication, Achillobator had a very stout phalanx II-2 (the phalanx that the "sickle claw" sits on). Typically, modern raptors and Dromaeosaurs (at least most Eudromaeosaurs and Unenlagiines) have elongated penultimate pre-ungual phalanges, including phalanx II-2, which could be to do with grip strength? In any case, it has been suggested that stouter phalanx II-2 in Dromaeosaurus and Adasaurus are indicators of a shorter second ungual as well. As far as I can tell, Kuru kulla had a stout phalanx II-2 and a correspondingly small second pedal ungual. That Achillobator had an even stouter phalanx II-2 than these guys could suggest that its sickle claw was similarly reduced or even moreso. This claw still leaves a lot of room for it to be a rather large, curved weapon in life. Even if you assumed the keratin sheath was only about a quarter longer than the bone core, it's still a fairly curved, not exactly insubstantial claw.  I'm being purposefully overly conservative btw. This is how much bigger the keratin sheath actually is in a dromaeosaurid's sickle claw.   You probably already know this, but reduced=/=complete shit at something compared to something else that's clearly adapted for it. For instance falconids actually have modestly-sized talons compared to accipitrids (and even to other raptor families), but their talons are definitely still well developed predatory tools that are still injurious to prey. However, there's a possibility that Adasaurus' reduced sickle claw may not actually be a thing. markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/03/realistic-raptors-pop-culture.html |
|
|
|
Post by razor45dino on Jun 3, 2024 21:35:19 GMT 5
According to Mickey Mortimer (of The Theropod Database) in this communication, Achillobator had a very stout phalanx II-2 (the phalanx that the "sickle claw" sits on). Typically, modern raptors and Dromaeosaurs (at least most Eudromaeosaurs and Unenlagiines) have elongated penultimate pre-ungual phalanges, including phalanx II-2, which could be to do with grip strength? In any case, it has been suggested that stouter phalanx II-2 in Dromaeosaurus and Adasaurus are indicators of a shorter second ungual as well. As far as I can tell, Kuru kulla had a stout phalanx II-2 and a correspondingly small second pedal ungual. That Achillobator had an even stouter phalanx II-2 than these guys could suggest that its sickle claw was similarly reduced or even moreso. This claw still leaves a lot of room for it to be a rather large, curved weapon in life. Even if you assumed the keratin sheath was only about a quarter longer than the bone core, it's still a fairly curved, not exactly insubstantial claw. I'm being purposefully overly conservative btw. This is how much bigger the keratin sheath actually is in a dromaeosaurid's sickle claw. You probably already know this, but reduced=/=complete shit at something compared to something else that's clearly adapted for it. For instance falconids actually have modestly-sized talons compared to accipitrids (and even to other raptor families), but their talons are definitely still well developed predatory tools that are still injurious to prey. However, there's a possibility that Adasaurus' reduced sickle claw may not actually be a thing. markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/03/realistic-raptors-pop-culture.htmlwow thats big, but why don't skeletals restore the sickle claw like this |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 3, 2024 22:11:50 GMT 5
This claw still leaves a lot of room for it to be a rather large, curved weapon in life. Even if you assumed the keratin sheath was only about a quarter longer than the bone core, it's still a fairly curved, not exactly insubstantial claw. I'm being purposefully overly conservative btw. This is how much bigger the keratin sheath actually is in a dromaeosaurid's sickle claw. You probably already know this, but reduced=/=complete shit at something compared to something else that's clearly adapted for it. For instance falconids actually have modestly-sized talons compared to accipitrids (and even to other raptor families), but their talons are definitely still well developed predatory tools that are still injurious to prey. However, there's a possibility that Adasaurus' reduced sickle claw may not actually be a thing. markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/03/realistic-raptors-pop-culture.htmlwow thats big, but why don't skeletals restore the sickle claw like this The keratin sheath length is difficult to predict. There aren't many fossils that gave us any indication how long the keratin sheath is. For this same reason, most theropod depictions didn't have lips until recently. Fossils didn't preserve the lips and so most artists assumed their teeth were exposed like crocodiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Shri devi on Jun 4, 2024 9:55:25 GMT 5
According to Mickey Mortimer (of The Theropod Database) in this communication, Achillobator had a very stout phalanx II-2 (the phalanx that the "sickle claw" sits on). Typically, modern raptors and Dromaeosaurs (at least most Eudromaeosaurs and Unenlagiines) have elongated penultimate pre-ungual phalanges, including phalanx II-2, which could be to do with grip strength? In any case, it has been suggested that stouter phalanx II-2 in Dromaeosaurus and Adasaurus are indicators of a shorter second ungual as well. As far as I can tell, Kuru kulla had a stout phalanx II-2 and a correspondingly small second pedal ungual. That Achillobator had an even stouter phalanx II-2 than these guys could suggest that its sickle claw was similarly reduced or even moreso. This claw still leaves a lot of room for it to be a rather large, curved weapon in life. Even if you assumed the keratin sheath was only about a quarter longer than the bone core, it's still a fairly curved, not exactly insubstantial claw. I'm being purposefully overly conservative btw. This is how much bigger the keratin sheath actually is in a dromaeosaurid's sickle claw. You probably already know this, but reduced=/=complete shit at something compared to something else that's clearly adapted for it. For instance falconids actually have modestly-sized talons compared to accipitrids (and even to other raptor families), but their talons are definitely still well developed predatory tools that are still injurious to prey. However, there's a possibility that Adasaurus' reduced sickle claw may not actually be a thing. markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2020/03/realistic-raptors-pop-culture.htmlYeah, I mentioned that the small ungual on Adasaurus was inferred based on the preceding phalanx cuz I've seem it suggested that the previously assigned claw might not be right (It doesn't look right either). That said, we do have Kuru, a close relative, which preserves a similar phalanx II-2 and relatively reduced ungual, not to the same extent as in the figure of Adasaurus you showed, but it's still stated to only be about half the size of the same ungual in Shri. I'd assume Adasaurus was similar in proportions, suggesting that the claw still had some function but perhaps less so than other Eudromaeosaurs. Regarding Achillobator though, I have to make a slight addendum because I may have missed something. Looking over the figures again, it seems like phalanx II-2 of Kuru isn't just shorter than that of other Eudromaeosaurs, it has a shallower (less dorsoventrally expanded) distal articular facet, which I think means that there's just less room for the base of the claw, hence a shallower, smaller claw. By comparison, the articular facet of Achillobator seems pretty comparable to other Eudromaeosaurs like Deinonychus or Shri, it's just that the body of the phalanx is shortened. Though, it looks like the facet isn't quite as expanded proximodorsally as, for example, Deinonychus but I only have a lateral figure to work with and no dorsal view so I'm not sure. See here: imgur.com/a/KEDZpri(Note: I've scaled these phalanges II-2 to the same depth of the proximal articular facet, so basically assuming the same relative size of phalanx II-1) So what does this mean? Well, for one thing, this is the only phalanx we know from the second toe but the first phalanx is also usually quite modified in Dromaeosaurs and especially Eudromaeosaurs. It could be that, like in Troodontids, and to a lesser extent Unenlagiines, phalanx II-1 is elongated to compensate for the loss in overall digit span caused by shortening phalanx II-2. This change in proportion would confer lesser leverage and grip strength at the first interphalangeal joint (between phalanx II-1 and II-2) but increase the speed of digit flexion, which I don't see as being particularly useful for something like Achillobator but who knows. Alternatively, phalanx II-1 could have been more stout like that of a typical Eudromaeosaur, making the digit shorter overall due to the stubby second phalanx. This would confer greater leverage and grip force at the second interphalangeal joint (between phalanx II-2 and II-3/ungual) and at the tip of the ungual, at the cost of digit span. What does the morphology of phalanx II-2, with its short body but deep articular facet, imply about the form of the ungual though? Ig it could imply a typically deep but atypically short ungual on a short toe, or a normal-sized ungual on a short toe, or maybe even a small ungual with a larger RoM. Regardless, I do concede that it could probably have been used in defensive kicking against the lion, as well as offensive grappling, ig my point was more so that Eudromaeosaurs are sometimes treated as being rather homogenous, especially in the form and function of their pes and jaws, when they did actually have a decent amount of variation in both, though I may have overestimated the degree to which Achillobator deviated from the norm in my previous comment. That said, I'm still curious about the functional implications of the stout but deep penultimate phalanx. Another weird quirk of the pes is that metatarsal IV appears to have been ginglymoid, unlike in Deinonychus where metatarsals I-III are ginglymoid but not IV. This would brace the fourth digit against torsion but prevent it from swinging outwards to partially oppose the first digit in flexion as has been suggested for Deinonychus and Velociraptor. What does this imply? No idea. Getting back on track though, an anatomical feature of Achillobator that I am more confident in speculating on that would be relevant to this discussion is the (probable) fact that it would have had immensely (obscenely even) muscular and powerful legs. This can be inferred based on several things. For one, like Utahraptor (and other Eudromaeosaurs to varying extent), Achillobator had rather robust femurs and, famously, had tibae shorter than its femurs, conferring a stockier build that traded speed for power. Then, the tibiae themselves, while less robust than those of Utahraptor, had prominent, well developed and more dorsally inclined cnemial crests (Utahraptor had less developed crests, more like Deinonychus). This is similar to the condition seen in Abelisaurs and suggests relatively massive knee and ankle extensors, amplifying the force-producing capability of the legs. Back to the femur, Achillobator was also somewhat unique amongst Eudromaeosaurs in having a fourth trochanter (I don't remember if Utahraptor did, Deinonychus didn't, Adasaurus did), which was also quite distally positioned (40% down the shaft). While the M. caudofemoralis was generally reduced in Dromaeosaurs, this does suggest that it was still playing some role in powering Achillobator's legs and had rather good leverage too. Lastly, Achillobator famously had a massive and robust pelvis which would've had plenty of room for inserting large leg muscles. That tall ilium in particular looks like it could attach some rather large thigh muscles. Skeletal by GET_AWAY_TRIKE: 
All of this would have given Achillobator incredibly powerful legs, probably even more so than Utahraptor pound for pound (Utah had thicker bones but Achillo was more muscular). What does this mean in a fight (and also just for its behaviour and ecology)? Well, for one thing, as has been suggested for Tyrannosaurs, powerful hip and leg muscles are good if you want to pivot and turn quickly. Achillobator probably benefitted from this even more than Tyrannosaurs given its smaller stature and low slung build. Then, if we assume that it was using its sickle claws for grappling then powerful legs could give it a stronger leap and help it better restrain and control whatever it was grappling with its feet. Just for kicking, powerful leg muscles, especially those knee extensors, would be quite beneficial as well for obvious reasons. The blunt impact alone would be painful, left alone with the claws. Then there's wrestling. If we assume Achillibator and the lion got into a wrestling match, that is to say grabbing eachother with forelimbs and attempting to restrain or subdue the opponent (assuming one doesn't get its jaws on the other, which btw seems like it would be easier for Achillobator to do), then honestly I'd bet on Achillobator. While the lion likely had stronger forelimbs, Achillobator's would also have been quite powerful (they were relatively shorter but more robust than those of Deinonychus) and tipped with longer talons more than capable of latching on and not letting go. From my cursory understanding, in wrestling (as in the sport), arm strength, though relevant, isn't nearly as important as as leg and back strength. The lion had a muscular and more flexible backs (though not as flexible as smaller cats) but Achillobator's back was also strong though much stiffer, with a short dorsal column and prominent interspinous ligament. In terms of leg strength, Achillobator almost certainly had an edge and probably a rather significant one at that for all the reasons I've listed, plus the lion being a quadruped. This would theoretically allow it to overpower and push and throw the cat around, pin it down, etc. You know what? I'd probably bet on Achillobator against a bear in a wrestling match at parity. Then, just to parrot your earlier point about the jaws, Achillobator's maxilla was indeed deep like that of Deinonychus, which could be an adaptation for big game hunting, and its teeth were ziphodont. Beyond that though, the maxilla is also described as being robust and compared to that of Dromaeosaurus, which had quite an impressive bite force for its size. Add to that the fact that the skull may have been 50-60 cm (the maxilla is 29 cm so 60 cm seems pretty reasonable) and that gives you a pretty clear picture of the lethality of this animal's bite. This is not to down play the lion's bite of course but Achillobator's is simply more effective at inflicting lethal or crippling wounds to more zones (In fact I can't think of a single area on the lion besides the tail where a half-serious bite wouldn't be traumatic). |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 4, 2024 16:50:19 GMT 5
Also helps that cat hindfeet are most definitely not as suited for gripping as their forefeet. They have no dewclaw to oppose the other four digits and the claws themselves are less curved and tend to be blunter, despite being protractile (they function more like cleats or dog claws, if you will; they can injure things through sheer force from the hindlimbs). Meanwhile theropods typically had a medially facing hallux that could actually have helped grip things (even if it's not as opposable or nearly as powerful as the hallux of say, a bird of prey).
|
|
|
|
Post by razor45dino on Jun 4, 2024 20:42:17 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 4, 2024 22:41:43 GMT 5
I would disagree with a lot of Othodus Megalodno points. I think he is vastly understating the advantages off serrated teeth. In addition, his example of a mammal with a slicing bite was an AWD, an carnivora that has atypical teeth anatomy compared to modern carnivorans. In addition, monitor lizards have much smaller heads than dromeosaurs at parity. AWD kills are often graphic but we don't have accounts of lone AWD's quickly severing the achilles tendons of animal much larger than themselves. In addition, I am not sure why tegus losing to grison is proof of reptile fighting inferiority at parity. Mustelids in general punch above their weight. In addition, the accounts of mongooses attacking monitor lizards invovle bengal monitors, a primarily insectivorous monitor lizard. Granted bengal monitors do look like they have nasty teeth but I don't think they are especially formidable monitor lizards. In regards to brain size and intelligence, I think in many instances that doesn't actually have much bearing in a fight. Corvids are smarter than BOP's, they still get smoked at parity. Apes/primates are much smarter than cats, except baboons and mandrills, they also get smoked at parity. Reflexes also don't seem to have a strong association with intelligence. The animals with the fastest reflexes are small, have active lives, and move in complex 3d environments. New research reveals that the animals that perceive time the fastest are those that are small, can fly, or are marine predators. These preliminary results were presented at the British Ecological Society’s annual meeting in Edinburgh on Tuesday 20th December by Dr Kevin Healy at the University of Galway. Mobile aquatic predators, aboreal animals, and flying predators tend to have faster reflxes than terrestrial animals for example. An exothermic snapping shrimp has the fastest known aquatic flicker fusion frequency. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7336845/Humans are obivously the most intelligent animals but we don't have particuarly fast reflexes even when you account for size: To my surprise, iguannas apparently have the same flicker fusion frequency as dogs. They are obviously worse at dodging stuff but it seems their ability to perceive incoming attacks is similar, they just can't move as well. rethinkpriorities.org/publications/does-critical-flicker-fusion-frequency-track-the-subjective-experience-of-timeEDIT: Just noticed that according to the link above cats only have 55 HZ vision. That's rather strange but I suppose its possible that cats have rather poor vision and rely on other mechanisms to react quickly. Additional edit: If you think about it, many theropods arguably would have preyed on animals that required even faster reflexes to avoid getting hit. A lot of the animals modern carnivoras prey on typically defend themselves by kicking or by using head gear. Kicks from hoofed animals have a limited striking range and horns are often even less precise. In addition, a lot of those animals don't use both methods to defend themselves. For instance, buffalos and boars don't seem to lash out with their back legs that all that often. I've seen a yak kick a wolf and a bull kick an annoying dog buffalos rarely seem to even try to kick large predators like lions. In contrast, theropods often had to deal with animals that can defend themselves with tail swipes. Many of those animals like hadrosaurs or tenontosaurus could also defend themselves with kicks as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 4, 2024 23:21:22 GMT 5
Link wasn't loading for me but hmmm...it's not like animals can ever go toe-to-toe with or even prey on/defeat animals that are larger-brained/more "intelligent" than themselves. It's not like nature's filled with stuff like
- big cats bringing down similar sized pigs (which are apparently really smart animals)
- Komodo dragons doing likewise
- rock python killing a spotted hyena
- constrictors killing or at least breaking even with big cats
- crocodiles killing big cats
- great whites killing elephant seals (even bulls) and beaked whales
- just sharks generally besting dolphins unless the latter are significantly larger
- big cats hunting apes
oh...never mind.
Oh but I'm sure a bear will Batman up a plan as it's wrestling with a beast rapidly stabbing it multiple times in the gut with knives on its feet, raking with meathooks on its fingers, and furiously shaking off fur and flesh with the serrated steak knives in its mouth...right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 4, 2024 23:28:35 GMT 5
Link wasn't loading for me but hmmm...it's not like animals can ever go toe-to-toe with or even prey on/defeat animals that are larger-brained/more "intelligent" than themselves. It's not like nature's filled with stuff like - big cats bringing down similar sized pigs (which are apparently really smart animals) - Komodo dragons doing likewise - rock python killing a spotted hyena - constrictors killing or at least breaking even with big cats - crocodiles killing big cats - great whites killing elephant seals (even bulls) and beaked whales - just sharks generally besting dolphins unless the latter are significantly larger - big cats hunting apes oh...never mind. Oh but I'm sure a bear will Batman up a plan as it's wrestling with a beast rapidly stabbing it multiple times in the gut with knives on its feet, raking with meathooks on its fingers, and furiously shaking off fur and flesh with the serrated steak knives in its mouth...right? If you type "How formidable are dromaeosaurids compared to bears and big cats" in a search enegine, the result should pop up quickly. In fairness to the guy whose points I was responding to, he actually is a reptile lover and he does try to back up his arguments with data. One of his arguments that high intelligence is related to high coordination, and since theropods were less intelligent on average might struggle to react to novel enemies. But as I said in my previous post, I don't think intelligence is actually that strongly related with reflexes or body coordination. HZ vision measures are probably not the best gauge of "reflexes" since some animals have poor vision or are just outright blind. Mole's for instance probably have shit HZ vision but reportedly have incredibly fast reactions times. But there is a strong association between high HZ speed and reaction time, at least when it comes to highly visual animals. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31822552/#:~:text=We%20found%20that%20flicker%20fusion,hunting%20strategy%2C%20with%20high%20temporal I think its rather evident that a highly mobile animal with good vision would probably have better combat related reflexes than a equally mobile animal with crappy vision. I think one of the main reasons we don't often see cases of reptiles killing similar sized or larger carnivorans (though there are multiple accounts of this happening) is because reptiles can't chew so they have a harder time processing large prey items. Reptiles with ziphodont teeth are better equipped for this but there aren't many left today. Therefore, there isn't much incentive for a formidable reptile to attack a similar sized predatory mammal. The most formidable reptiles don't really have many opportunties to attack a similar sized predatory mammal. How often is a crocodile going to a chance to attack a swimming lion or tiger? Komodos no longer live with similar sized mammalian predators (though they and their extinct relatives used to). The formidable tree monitors are really obscure animals and we don't have much info on them period. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 4, 2024 23:32:43 GMT 5
Link wasn't loading for me but hmmm...it's not like animals can ever go toe-to-toe with or even prey on/defeat animals that are larger-brained/more "intelligent" than themselves. It's not like nature's filled with stuff like - big cats bringing down similar sized pigs (which are apparently really smart animals) - Komodo dragons doing likewise - rock python killing a spotted hyena - constrictors killing or at least breaking even with big cats - crocodiles killing big cats - great whites killing elephant seals (even bulls) and beaked whales - just sharks generally besting dolphins unless the latter are significantly larger - big cats hunting apes oh...never mind. Oh but I'm sure a bear will Batman up a plan as it's wrestling with a beast rapidly stabbing it multiple times in the gut with knives on its feet, raking with meathooks on its fingers, and furiously shaking off fur and flesh with the serrated steak knives in its mouth...right? If you type "How formidable are dromaeosaurids compared to bears and big cats" in a search enegine, the result should pop up quickly. In fairness to the guy whose points I was responding to, he actually is a reptile lover and he does try to back up his arguments with data. One of his arguments that high intelligence is related to high coordination, and since theropods were less intelligent on average might struggle to react to novel enemies. But as I said in my previous post, I don't think intelligence is actually that strongly related with reflexes or body coordination.
HZ vision measures are probably not the best gauge of "reflexes" since some animals have poor vision or are just outright blind. Mole's for instance probably have shit HZ vision but reportedly have incredibly fast reactions times. But there is a strong association between high HZ speed and reaction time, at least when it comes to highly visual animals. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31822552/#:~:text=We%20found%20that%20flicker%20fusion,hunting%20strategy%2C%20with%20high%20temporal I think its rather evident that a highly mobile animal with good vision would probably have better combat related reflexes than a equally mobile animal with crappy vision. The fact that it's hard for us humans to catch a fly bare-handed should have been enough of a clue to the guy... Apart from the fact that the only real argument detracting against dinosaur intelligence is their brain size, which is broadly comparable to that of modern animals that already perform greater feats of cognition than we previously recognized, what I think people don't realize is it's not just how "intelligent" an animal is, but whether or not it actually capitalizes on that cognition in combat and whether or not it has any viable tactics against the animal it's going up against. For example, an orca is smart enough to suffocate a whale by covering its blowhole and/or holding it underwater (presumably with fellow pod members). Or generate waves to knock a seal off an ice floe. Good luck applying any of that in a 1v1 against an angry pliosaur or mosasaur. An elephant, at best, half-heartedly throws sticks at rhinos in un-serious confrontations, and will trample and gore it whenever it does want to kill some. Am I supposed to believe one will come up with some big boi galaxy brain plan against a T. rex or a Triceratops? |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 4, 2024 23:40:36 GMT 5
In fairness, that is a rather extreme example. Flies are tiny so their nerves travel fast and insect benefit from square cubic law.
If we did a huge meta anyalsis on animal reaction time, I imagine mammals would trump reptiles overall, but that's because most species of reptiles are sedentary animals.
There is no evidence that terrestrial birds and rather unintelligent birds like ratites have worse reflexes than similar sized mammals though, so I would say there is no evidence a theropod would have worse reflexes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 4, 2024 23:44:01 GMT 5
Even so, I could pull up an example where the animals are similar sized. Does a human or a chimp have better reflexes than a smaller-brained leopard, for instance? Or even a constrictor or small crocodilian charged up by the sun? I think not.
I also thought it pertinent to bring it up since flies are far smaller brained animals than us, both relatively and especially absolutely. But eh, we're on the same page.
These are just my personal observations, but from personal experience I feel like lots of modern reptile enthusiasts who do indeed use actual scientific data as the basis of their knowledge sell dinosaurs short. Like, they know a crocodile can give a lion or tiger a serious fight, and they can envision a Komodo dragon giving a similar sized hyena (or even a big cat) the same thing. Yet a Deinonychus – which was far more athletic from a physiological and anatomical standpoint than any modern non-avian reptile – being smaller-brained than a cougar or a leopard is a significant disadvantage to it.
Always struck me as kind of weird. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 5, 2024 0:15:59 GMT 5
I think in general people have a weird way of lumping reptiles together. Hell look at the field of reptilian science, herpetology, why are we lumping amphibians and reptiles together when mammals and birds get their own unique branch.
I remember debating guys that would argue that cats being able to beat similar sized crocodiles on land was proof that they could easily beat a komodo dragon. They refused to accept that there are more differences between terrestrial reptile with bladed teeth and semi aqautic crocdilian than dogs and cats. Heck, even if we exclude genetic ancestry, that still remains true.
Crocodiles seem to be the only reptiles that really get respect in the AVA community. Komodos and other monitor lizards are still brushed off as "cheap" predators that kill through venom/bacteria. Those same people with brush off theropod since they have low bite forces and don't realize the mechanical damage ziphodnt teeth can inflict.
|
|
