|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 17, 2019 5:45:53 GMT 5
dinosauria101 Firstly, the term you are looking for is brontophagy (sensu Bakker 1998), not macrophagy (even a sperm whale is macrophagous, as unintuitive as that sounds).
Secondly, I think Bakker 1998 provides a solid (and fairly accessible) description (much of which subsequent works expanded upon) of the adaptations some theropods have that are useful for "brontophagy" and that are lacking/less developed in Tyrannosaurus. Since I don’t feel like doing your work for you (despite having summarized it and other works on the subject on numerous occasions previously), let me advise you to read that paper yourself and see what you take away from it.
Bakker, R.T. 1998. Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. Gaia 15: 145–158.
Mind you, jaw/neck mechanics in other carnosaurs or other "basal tetanuran" groups as well as most ceratosaurs are not the same, and have never as to my knowledge been studied in any detail, so it could be premature to apply this to all of them, but since most (if not all) of these taxa have tooth and jaw morphology more similar to Allosaurus than to Tyrannosaurus, and since most of them existed in more sauropod-dominated ecosystems, it would be reasonable to expect them to be more adapted to predation on sauropods, though that doesn’t work as an argument in favour of inability, since as we’ve seen (including from some of your own posts) even animals quite poorly adapted to doing so morphologically, like crocodiles, or orcas, or lone wolves, can pull off such feats from time to time.
Of course either way, it should go without saying that the vast majority of sauropods (or other megaherbivorous dinosaurs for that matter) taken by predators would be juveniles, due to R-strategy and the resulting abundance of juvenile individuals, and the much greater ease and far lower risk of taking these individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 17, 2019 5:52:08 GMT 5
As I said, I was never saying that tyrannosaurids were bad at preying on larger animals than themselves, be that brontophagy or macrophagy. I meant that Tyrannosaurus did not evolve to solo 75 tonne sauropods head on, and that's probably what I should have said instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 17, 2019 6:03:17 GMT 5
Well yes, because if you claim "not particularly adapted", you imply that there are animals particularly adapted for this, but there was never any animal adapted to "solo 75 ton sauropods".
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 17, 2019 13:13:55 GMT 5
Wait, haters? Just to clarify, at no point did I think T rex was bad at macrophagy. As I said earlier, maybe a better word choice would be 'did not evolve to solo 75 tonne sauropods' I did not know how else to index it. Besides, it looks like Infinity Blade just took your claim as representative for something circles who probably deserve the term "hater" believe. |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Dec 17, 2019 16:22:54 GMT 5
Creature386, I see what you did here.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 19, 2019 0:35:39 GMT 5
Here are some wacky, wild, and filthy with bias claims that 3 Palaeoloxodon fanatics (I will not say who or where, as much as I’d like to) have made on P. namadicus vs 3 Mapusaurus 1 year ago. Claim: (When I said I favored the 3 Mapusaurus because they were good at hunting large prey and due to numbers, the first fanatic responded to that with this): Rebuttal: This is false. A pair of huge jaws full of serrated teeth is an EXCELLENT weapon against larger animals. It tears out tissue and causes lots of bleeding, good for weakening the larger animal. As for the second, it is certainly DEBATABLE as to whether they were in a pack or not, but the evidence leans in that direction. There were all kinds of age groups from 5.6 meter babies to 13.6 meter adults, and with all reptiles (animals in general) that we know of, where most age groups are together they are social. This is true of, say, crocodiles. And Mapusaurus, being an animal and a reptile, could likely have been social too. Source: www.researchgate.net/publication/228655543_A_new_carcharodontosaurid_Dinosauria_Theropoda_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_ArgentinaClaim: The second Palaeoloxodon fanatic said something along the lines of the elephant being able to easily trample and gore the 3 Mapusaurus Rebuttal: False. I’d like to know how a 22 tonne elephant (very slow and unagile) would be able to EASILY catch and gore 3 7-8.5 tonne (fairly athletic) carnosaurs. Claim: The third Palaeoloxodon fanatic (who is very biased towards elephant against dinos in general and is an absolute wacko about it) made comparisons to lions vs an elephant and said it was a stalemate, edge to the elephant Rebuttal: False. This fight may take a while, but how would the elephant have an edge? It can’t just tank all damage and it would be very lard for it to catch the Mapus. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 19, 2019 0:52:57 GMT 5
I'm a bit confused by the first rebuttal. Where is it being denied that the jaws of Mapusaurus would not be effective weapons against P. namadicus? I don't remember what exactly that quote was responding to, so I lack some context.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 19, 2019 1:00:04 GMT 5
It's denied in the presented order. Maybe this format will help you understand.
I said: They were good at hunting large prey
Palaeoloxodon fanatic said: Theres no real evidence for that
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 19, 2019 2:24:36 GMT 5
Your post already fits the basic format, I've gotta give you that.
Now you only need sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 19, 2019 2:37:57 GMT 5
I can't link this stuff, remember? The topic doesn't exist anymore, and we are likely to get into trouble if I did anyway.
Edit: did you mean sources for rebuttals?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 17:17:17 GMT 5
Alright, here's my new and improved post on Tyrannosaurus fanatics. Claim: CM 9380/BHI 3033 (7.5 tonnes approx) is an average Tyrannosaurus Refutation: False. This is not what given data seems to suggest. The Theropod Database gives an average femur length of 119 cm ( link), when factoring in all known femur lengths as well as extrapolated lengths for specimens without femurs. This would give us an animal 10.9 to 11.3 meters TL and ~6 tonnes average, maybe a bit more. Similarly, this post (hyperlink) gives ~6.6 tonnes as a mean for all specimens known with femurs, close to the other estimate. Claim: The smallest adult Tyrannosaurus is 11.2 meters and 6.3 tonnes, and if you use it as a representative you are a Tyrannosaurus hater Refutation: False - this is not what given data seems to suggest either. Horner and Padian (2004) give an age of 15-18 years for fully grown Tyrannosaurus, and most Tyrannosaurus fossils of that age are quite a bit smaller than 11.2 meters and 6.3 tonnes (which would actually be quite a good representation of an average Tyrannosaurus going by what I went over above). Bucky is 10 meters and 3.5-4 tonnes at an age of 16, B-rex (it has medullary bone, so it's absolutely indisputable that it's an adult) is 10.4 meters and 4-4.5 tonnes at an age of 19, and USNM 6183, with a 99 cm femur, is 17 years of age. This post (hyperlink) elaborates well on it. Claim: Tyrannosaurus almost deserves its reputation Refutation: False. This reputation includes many things that are far, far beyond Tyrannosaurus' capabilities, such as being able to kill the paratype of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum head on. Simply put, a 4-8 tonne theropod is NOT soloing a 75 tonne sauropod head on or even by ambush, nor is it capable of doing anything close to that level of killing large prey. I hope I do not have to explain why. As for all that other stuff in my old post, forget it. That probably belongs in a debate with a fanatic. Horner, J.R. and Padian, K. 2004. Age and growth dynamics of Tyrannosaurus rex. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271 (1551): 1875–1880. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 23, 2019 18:03:48 GMT 5
I actually don't see how this follows. Medullary bone is an indication of sexual maturity. Sexually mature≠adult. Case in point, teenage mothers and the teenage boys who made them pregnant. But I'll let theropod voice his opinion on this. I'm not necessarily saying this specimen wasn't an adult, but yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 18:17:26 GMT 5
Well, the post I hyperlinked to seemingly indicates he would agree
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 23, 2019 18:27:32 GMT 5
Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the point I just made here. I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion, I'm saying I find the argument fishy.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 23, 2019 22:42:00 GMT 5
I can't link this stuff, remember? The topic doesn't exist anymore, and we are likely to get into trouble if I did anyway. Edit: did you mean sources for rebuttals? Yes, sources for rebuttals. See Infinity Blade's posts in this thread. As outlined in the OP, we use the following format here: 1. Claim 2. Rebuttal 3. Sources (not for the claim though) |
|
