|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 20, 2020 4:29:43 GMT 5
Well, if elephant legs/feet are truly significant weapons against animals a notable fraction of their own weight, I'd expect to see some evidence of them being used as such, regardless of whether or not they're the aggressors. But since we don't, what else are we supposed to make of the elephant's rear end?
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 5:19:20 GMT 5
Well, if elephant legs/feet are truly significant weapons against animals a notable fraction of their own weight, I'd expect to see some evidence of them being used as such, regardless of whether or not they're the aggressors. But since we don't, what else are we supposed to make of the elephant's rear end? The fact that none of these aggressors actually got behind them is a big factor. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 5:24:54 GMT 5
The teeth are not usually broken, they're either replacement teeth outgrown or teeth that have been dislocated by the fossilization process. As for the kicks, you are correct that when the mammoth is attacked, it will try to retaliate, but it's also easy for the Daspletosaurus to let go, repeat as needed with due caution, and evade the kicks. Regarding a frontal charge, also possible to just let go and not get dragged down. Exactly, so they're not built for "a lifetime of chomping" if they WEAR OUT and are continuously grown back.
That's if the daspletosaur doesn't get hit when the mammoth retaliates. The issue is that once the mammoth starts moving it has a head start on its action before the daspletosaur does, and will complete it quicker. If the daspletosaur doesn't realize the mammoth is charging before it actually moves, it will get dragged down. The main issue is simply that the mammoth can easily defend itself, while the daspletosaurs need to be on high alert lest the get stomped.
My bad, I meant they are built to be very strong until the replacement teeth grow in. I do have my doubts they would just break willy-nilly. And the mammoth is not 100% defenseless from the rear; more like 99%. On a more serious note, I didn't necessarily mean to imply it was defenseless, just that it didn't really have an efficient way of retaliation from the rear. As for the daspletosaur getting dragged down to the rear, the teeth are not gonna get impossibly stuck nor do they have slow reaction times. If the mammoth charges frontally, a daspletosaur attacking from behind would let go quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 20, 2020 5:53:41 GMT 5
Well, this is admittedly just one video, but starting at 0:58, this buffalo attacks an elephant that turned its back on it, attacking the posterior end of its body. The elephant doesn't kick with its hindleg in retaliation.
Even then, though, theoretically an elephant should be capable of deciding to turn its body to an extent and strike them with a hindlimb, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 6:04:12 GMT 5
May I ask, Infinity Blade, who you back in this matchup?
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 6:25:20 GMT 5
Well, this is admittedly just one video, but starting at 0:58, this buffalo attacks an elephant that turned its back on it, attacking the posterior end of its body. The elephant doesn't kick with its hindleg in retaliation. Even then, though, theoretically an elephant should be capable of deciding to turn its body to an extent and strike them with a hindlimb, no? I don't think the elephant was looking for a fight there-he goes up to the buffalo and bops it on the head before running off. It's a young elephant, so it was probably playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 20, 2020 6:51:25 GMT 5
Fair enough. But, thinking about it, if an elephant would strike out with its hindlegs to seriously injure animals this large, it would probably would stand to reason that they could easily use their forelimbs for this function too. Especially given that the forelimbs are not only more easily deployed face-to-face than the hindlimbs, but because they're just stronger overall than the hindlimbs (elephants, if I recall correctly, bear somewhat more weight on their forelimbs than their hindlimbs). I don't think that happens either, though. So if an elephant doesn't deploy its (probably stronger, if anything) front legs to kick and seriously injure megamammals that stay in front of it, I don't see why a mammoth use it hindlimbs to kick and seriously injure the tyrannosaurs here if they got to its rear.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 8:45:33 GMT 5
Fair enough. But, thinking about it, if an elephant would strike out with its hindlegs to seriously injure animals this large, it would probably would stand to reason that they could easily use their forelimbs for this function too. Especially given that the forelimbs are not only more easily deployed face-to-face than the hindlimbs, but because they're just stronger overall than the hindlimbs (elephants, if I recall correctly, bear somewhat more weight on their forelimbs than their hindlimbs). I don't think that happens either, though. So if an elephant doesn't deploy its (probably stronger, if anything) front legs to kick and seriously injure megamammals that stay in front of it, I don't see why a mammoth use it hindlimbs to kick and seriously injure the tyrannosaurs here if they got to its rear. The main issue is that the elephant's head gets in the way of any potential front-kicking action. It has better weaponry for fighting on its face. If a Tyrannosaur siexed the mammoth's leg, the mammoth will try to kick it off/knock it down. Elephants do kick things that get behind them , it's just that usually they don't get large animals behind them. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 20, 2020 9:18:04 GMT 5
I know they kick things behind them; you showed a video on the first page where one did this to a man. Fundamentally, though, the question is whether or not the mammoth will intend to use this as a legitimate means of seriously injuring something as big as a Daspletosaurus if one does get behind it. At least with regards to the specific example you showed us: a Daspletosaurus is far larger relative to an average bull Columbian mammoth than an adult human is relative to a female Asian elephant that kicks it. And even in that specific incident the elephant doesn't seem to have been serious about injuring or killing the man (given how he survived the kick), which makes me skeptical that a Columbian mammoth would intentionally do it to injure a Daspletosaurus.
Admittedly, though, I think the tyrannosaurs would be more likely to bite onto the haunches than the legs regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 9:30:11 GMT 5
Admittedly, though, I think the tyrannosaurs would be more likely to bite onto the haunches than the legs regardless. Which is something I agree with as the haunches present a better target than the legs (kicking and dragging non-withstanding)
The point of kicking isn't to injure the predator, it's to dislodge it or knock it off.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 15:18:33 GMT 5
^Yes, that's what I was referring to. The flanks and haunches are a viable target here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 20, 2020 19:29:33 GMT 5
Okay then, that's cleared up. Earlier you had mentioned kicks breaking teeth and bones, which is what I really wanted to address.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 1:18:10 GMT 5
Okay then, that's cleared up. Earlier you had mentioned kicks breaking teeth and bones, which is what I really wanted to address. I never mentioned bones. I mentioned teeth because the act of being violently dislodged can and will break teeth. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 21, 2020 1:24:50 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 21, 2020 3:17:38 GMT 5
Because falling down after being kicked can't result in broken bones? |
|
