|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 10, 2020 18:11:45 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by 6f5e4d on Jan 11, 2020 10:23:52 GMT 5
The Komodo dragon has size and venom, plus harder skin, it wins the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 18:38:09 GMT 5
I too favor the Komodo here. Larger, more durable, and good stamina/speed. Just needs to land 3 bites, then game over
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 17, 2020 2:00:38 GMT 5
These are not sympatric species.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 17, 2020 2:10:40 GMT 5
They were in the Pleistocene. Maybe I should add that to the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 17, 2020 2:18:49 GMT 5
What is the trend of pitting the Dhole against stuff that clubs it? Komodo easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 17, 2020 2:24:48 GMT 5
They were in the Pleistocene. Maybe I should add that to the OP. Where is your irrefutable evidence of sympatry? The remains of a large bodied varanid attributed (tentatively) to V.komodoensis from java are very scant, to make this conclusion is very ambiguous. "A single anterior dorsal vertebra (CD6392) of a large-bodied varanid is recorded from the middle Pleistocene Kedung Brubus deposit (Figure 6, A–F). Morphometrically this specimen falls within the middle range of modern and fossil V. komodoensis and is well outside the largest V. salvator (+20%) sample (Figure S7). CD6392 was considered to be V. komodoensis [17]. It is remarkably similar to V. komodoensis in both size and morphology, possessing steep zygapophyses, dorsally oriented condyles, distinct precondylar constriction and an open neural canal. Although the specimen is close in morphology, a ssignment to V. komodoensis is tentative and should await more specimens for verification."
To come close to even proving sympatry, you need dhole remains from the mid pleistocene Kedung Brubus deposit mentioned in this paper. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007241and even then, it is ambiguous and tentative. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 17, 2020 2:31:13 GMT 5
Well, that's not all there is to it. 1: Dholes inhabit islands very close to Wallacea ( link), ( link) 2: Komodos apparently colonized most of Wallacea during the Pleistocene ( link) 3: As you may already know, Komodos are good at swimming and frequently island-hop, meaning they very likely came into contact with dholes in the Pleistocene if their ranges were so close. Overall, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have met from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 17, 2020 2:35:02 GMT 5
Well, that's not all there is to it. 1: Dholes inhabit islands very close to Wallacea ( link), ( link) 2: Komodos apparently colonized most of Wallacea during the Pleistocene ( link) 3: As you may already know, Komodos are good at swimming and frequently island-hop, meaning they very likely came into contact with dholes in the Pleistocene if their ranges were so close. Overall, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have met from time to time. I mean yeah that is all there is to it. If you can't prove that they were found in the same area -- "very close" doesn't cut it -- than they are not sympatric species, and it is therin unreasonable to suggest interspecific interaction without sufficient evidence.
Using this logic they should be sympatric currently, and they are not.
Yeah we already know how you think they're great swimmers. You tried to put one against a bull shark a couple months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 17, 2020 2:44:09 GMT 5
The sea levels were also lower during the Pleistocene, creating more land between the islands. With this in mind, considering that it increases the land between the already very close islands, it's almost certain they would interact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 17, 2020 2:45:22 GMT 5
The sea levels were also lower during the Pleistocene, creating more land between the islands. With this in mind, considering that it increases the land between the already very close islands, it's almost certain they would interact. Then please provide proper sufficient evidence. Until then, this is all hypothetical and should go in that section do to insufficient reasoning and evidence therein. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 17, 2020 2:49:48 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 17, 2020 2:52:59 GMT 5
Not only does spamming links not suit your case, but it was very apparent i was asking you to provide evidence of sympatry and interaction between the dhole and the ora. Nice attempt though. Continuing to say "its not unreasonable" or "its very likely" with an incoherent argument that doesn't prove sympatry doesn't help you in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 17, 2020 2:57:18 GMT 5
Not only does spamming links not suit your case, but it was very apparent i was asking you to provide evidence of sympatry and interaction between the dhole and the ora. Nice attempt though. Spamming links? What? These show sea levels were significantly lower in the Pleistocene. There would be more land connections between islands and thus overlap for range. Not to mention that it DOES say this for the Sympatric criteria, which dhole-Komodo interaction/range overlap seems to fit: |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 17, 2020 3:04:41 GMT 5
Not only does spamming links not suit your case, but it was very apparent i was asking you to provide evidence of sympatry and interaction between the dhole and the ora. Nice attempt though. Spamming links? What? These show sea levels were significantly lower in the Pleistocene. There would be more land connections between islands and thus overlap for range. Not to mention that it DOES say this for the Sympatric criteria, which dhole-Komodo interaction/range overlap seems to fit: Three consecutive links with nothing else is spamming links. Considering the fact i didn't make any direct comment, or deny such a phenomenon, it doesn't matter in context. Meanwhile you continue to not show direct evidence of the dhole and the Ora in the same geographic area; from the same deposits, and continue to talk in hypotheticals. If you want to claim sympatry, you need to be able to prove it, not talk in strict hypotheticals, or even make the ambiguous claim that "they very likely came into contact". i don't know who made this "criteria", but That needs to be revised then, because if "interaction restriction does not apply", than they should all just go under one section. Edit: Anddd now its in hypothetical. Sick |
|
