|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 22, 2019 20:15:16 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by 6f5e4d on Dec 23, 2019 4:07:17 GMT 5
Triceratops is a lot bigger than a Columbian mammoth and has better stabbing weapons, so it wins the fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by roninwolf1981 on Dec 23, 2019 9:55:44 GMT 5
Below 9 tons, the Columbian Mammoth would beat the Triceratops, but if the Trike was much heavier than 9 tons, then yes the Triceratops would win. Not so much in stabbing, but more of lift-jacking or forklifting.
But then again, I don't know how strong or fragile would Mammoth tusks be compared to the bony horn of Ceratopsids. I would think that, if Mammoth tusks were every bit as resilient as Ceratopsid horns were, both animals would do a sort of bull-lock or stag-lock before one would attempt to twist to turn the other. Another unknown here is space between the curvatures of both the Trike horns and the Mammoth tusks. How would they line up if they charged at each other head to head?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 16:07:32 GMT 5
Ceratopsian horns would probably be SIGNIFICANTLY more combat oriented than mammoth tusks, for several reasons. -They are made of solid bone as opposed to ivory for mammoth tusks, and they have a keratin sheath for reinforcement -They are much sturdier; bone and keratin is stronger than ivory, and they are much better built for combat due to superior durability and thicker build -The Columbian mammoth has curved tusks; not exactly the best weapons for a bull-lock. The Trike would be much better suited, and it could even attack the flanks if it wanted to. In all, I favor the Trike here due to better weapons, mass advantage, better mobility (not graviportal), and superior robusticity Anyhow, here are some of those size charts I posted for you earlier; they could be of help here. This is the Denver Columbian mammoth (372 cm shoulder height, 9 tonnes) vs BYU 12183 and UCMP 128561 Triceratops (scaled to 2.5 and 2.7 meter skulls respectively, 8.6 and 11 tonnes respectively). Skeletal for the mammoth is by Larramendi while the Trike skeletal is by Hartman and the outline of the bigger Trike's head is by Eofauna.  And this is with GetAwayTrike's UCMP 128561 - up to 14 tonnes, scaled to 9 meters TL  In both cases, note how much burlier the ceratopsian is. Hartman's BYU 12183 is about equal in mass to the mammoth yet much more heavyset and robust, and GetAwayTrike's Triceratops, while possessing a 50 plus percent weight advantage, is STILL shorter in shoulder height. I favor the ceratopsian pretty solidly all around. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 23, 2019 18:26:17 GMT 5
Below 9 tons, the Columbian Mammoth would beat the Triceratops, but if the Trike was much heavier than 9 tons, then yes the Triceratops would win. Not so much in stabbing, but more of lift-jacking or forklifting. But then again, I don't know how strong or fragile would Mammoth tusks be compared to the bony horn of Ceratopsids. I would think that, if Mammoth tusks were every bit as resilient as Ceratopsid horns were, both animals would do a sort of bull-lock or stag-lock before one would attempt to twist to turn the other. Another unknown here is space between the curvatures of both the Trike horns and the Mammoth tusks. How would they line up if they charged at each other head to head? I could help weigh in on some of this. According to Table 8 of Larramendi (2016), bull Columbian mammoths are estimated to have been anywhere from 8.2 to 10.9 tonnes on average (this gives you a mean of 9.55 tonnes). This range is dangerously approaching the size of the largest known Triceratops specimen. As for weaponry and strength, well, proboscidean ivory varies in strength depending on how the force is loaded onto the tusk ( Pfeifer et al., 2019). Longitudinal bending strength is indeed quite impressive, ~357.3 MPa for the woolly mammoth, and with a fracture toughness of 22.3 kJ/m 2. In the transverse direction, however, proboscidean ivory is much weaker, with a bending strength of ~97 MPa for the woolly mammoth and a fracture toughness of 0.4 ± 0.2 kJ/m 2 (for some reason, the work of fracture value for the woolly mammoth is substantially lower than that for the African elephant, but everything else is similar). I think this (nearly four fold) discrepancy in strength depending on the direction of forces acting on it would be particularly relevant if both animals weighed the same. But as I've alluded to above, the mammoth is probably a significantly bigger animal on average anyway, so... I'm not really sure how the strength and toughness of a traditional bone and keratin horn (a la Triceratops) compares. I tried figuring this out once before here, but I was just left a confused mess. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 18:40:25 GMT 5
Bigger?
That depends on which Triceratops skeletals you use, no? Some restorations would give the Triceratops quite the size advantage - GAT's skeletal with a bit of extra soft tissue is ~13.82 tonnes for UCMP 128561, and that's with a width comparable to a 6-7 meter Trike, which means it may be underestimated STILL.
Either animal could have the size advantage depending on mass estimations, but some size advantage for the mammoth may even things up a bit.
Edit: Using GAT's skeletal, I get an average of 8.21 tonnes for Triceratops using the mean size theropod gave - that's fairly close to 9.55 tonnes, and I would definitely favor the ceratopsian - not that much size disparity and it has better weapons. As with the straight tusked elephant, I'd favor the Trike until the mammoth was about 2 times as big.
EDIT 2: This 13.82 tonne maximum and 8.21 tonne average are from an 8.26 meter Triceratops that has the width of a 6-7 meter one. So yeah, definitely underestimates. The Trike may actually be the bigger animal on average should we trust GAT.
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 23, 2019 20:29:10 GMT 5
Sorry for my absence, I was thinking about leaving this website. But I decided to come back although I won’t be as active as I once was. But anyways, Triceratops takes this. Columbian Mammoth tusks were curved which would be a disadvantage of fighting sometime like a Triceratops. If I remember correctly, these tusks during the fights with other males, sometimes they would get stuck. Triceratops would take this around 80% of the time. Here’s an image of what some Columbian Mammoth tusks looked like:  Not the best, but here’s another one:  Let’s take a look at Triceratops horns:   You can see that these were designed to taking down large foes. A completely opposite for Columbian Mammoth and mammoths in general. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 20:43:15 GMT 5
^Quite a good comparison, denis. Really shows how much better the dinosaurs' horns are at goring.
Post as your schedule allows, there's no rush
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 23, 2019 22:16:11 GMT 5
You're not actually arguing that the mammoth's tusks will get stuck here, are you? You're just simply emphasizing the curvature of the mammoth's tusks, right?
|
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 23, 2019 22:21:24 GMT 5
You're not actually arguing that the mammoth's tusks will get stuck here, are you? You're just simply emphasizing the curvature of the mammoth's tusks, right? It’s actually happened back then. Here where I got it from here.  |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 23, 2019 22:51:52 GMT 5
You're not actually arguing that the mammoth's tusks will get stuck here, are you? You're just simply emphasizing the curvature of the mammoth's tusks, right? It’s actually happened back then. Here where I got it from here. You didn't answer my question. I already knew there were two mammoth specimens that died with their tusks stuck. I'm asking you if you actually think it will happen here. Because unless the tusk tip gets stuck in the Trike's eye socket (which isn't good for it either!), like what happened with the actual specimens, it's not going to happen here. Because, you know, Triceratops' horns are much straighter and will be much easier to extricate from. Also, not that I can't just google the title of the video myself (not that I needed to watch it), but why did you give me an attachment of that video's thumbnail? EDIT: I (and others!) were mistaken; the claim that the tusk tip of one of the mammoths gouged the eye socket of its rival is false. Here's a picture of the actual specimens.  As you can see, the tusk tip is right above the orbit, but not actually embedded in it. |
|
denis
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by denis on Dec 23, 2019 23:08:40 GMT 5
It’s actually happened back then. Here where I got it from here. You didn't answer my question. I already knew there were two mammoth specimens that died with their tusks stuck. I'm asking you if you actually think it will happen here. Because unless the tusk tip gets stuck in the Trike's eye socket (which isn't good for it either!), like what happened with the actual specimens, it's not going to happen here. Because, you know, Triceratops' horns are much straighter and will be much easier to extricate from. Also, not that I can't just google the title of the video myself (not that I needed to watch it), but why did you give me an attachment of that video's thumbnail? Oh. But I think it will likely happen her. It will be bad for both. I can see if it misses the eyes, the tusk will get stuck behind the frilled. But the mammoth would already be dead because like you said it’s horn is straighter. Also why did I do that, well because if I take a screenshot I would have to downsize it. Also PBS Eons, they put the title on the thumbnail. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 23, 2019 23:11:52 GMT 5
I'm pretty sure the frill is too broad to make getting stuck likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 23:12:27 GMT 5
Yeah, I wouldn't expect them to get interlocked here - rather direct horn- tusk wrestling, then possibly a flank attack from the dino.
As for Infinity Blade, if you missed my edits in the above post, the width of an 8.26 meter, 11 tonne Triceratops (USNM 4276) in the GDI of GetawayTrike's skeletal is about the same as a 6-7 meter Trike (Kelsey, 185 cm), which means it is almost certainly underestimated in terms of mass by quite a bit (the same would probably apply to Hartman's skeletal's mass estimates, which were AFAIK also produced using a thin top view).
Overall, on average, I'd expect them to be fairly similar or maybe even a bit bigger for Trike. Max size, Triceratops would probably have a large mass advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 23, 2019 23:19:40 GMT 5
I'm not sure if the tusks could even hook around the frill. If they could, it must be one hell of a clash and struggle (for lack of a better way to put it) for something like that to happen. While it's not impossible for animals with elaborate and curvy cranial weapons to get them tangled up with each other (to the point where neither can escape and end up dying of starvation/dehydration), even scenarios like this don't happen all the time. I somehow doubt they're all that common either (although, I have no data on how frequently incidents like these happen).
No, I meant why didn't you just give me the link to the video?
How was Kelsey's torso width measured? Was the actual specimen examined or did someone measure it using a skeletal?
Scott Hartman never made a top view of his skeletal. For that reason people doing a GDI of Triceratops using his skeletal have to use someone else's top view to actually perform the GDI.
|
|
