Dhole (pack of 3) vs. Komodo Dragon

[dinosauria101]

Jan 17, 2020 3:04:41 GMT 5 Ceratodromeus said:

Jan 17, 2020 2:57:18 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

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:

Spamming links? What?

1: Three consecutive links with nothing else is spamming links.

These show sea levels were significantly lower in the Pleistocene

2: Considering the fact i didn't make any direct comment, or deny such a phenomenon, it doesn't matter in context.

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:

3: 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

1: How is it spam?
2: That's a contributing factor to overlap in range.
3: These maps (link) seem to suggest a lot of land overlap in the islands where the dholes and Komodos were. This really should be moved back to sympatric if you ask me.

[Ceratodromeus]

1: How is it spam?

Once again we have a problem of you failing to understand a basic concept.

2: That's a contributing factor to overlap in range.
3: These maps (link) seem to suggest a lot of land overlap in the islands where the dholes and Komodos were.

That's great, now provide evidence of Dhole and Ora from the same deposits and provide evidence of interaction.

This really should be moved back to sympatric if you ask me.

Considering the fact you are still talking in hypotheticals, no.

I evidently proved my case for a 3rd party, so as far as i'm concerned this is a done deal until then.

[dinosauria101]

Jan 17, 2020 3:15:43 GMT 5 Ceratodromeus said:

1: How is it spam?

1: Once again we have a problem of you failing to understand a basic concept.

2: That's a contributing factor to overlap in range.
3: These maps (link) seem to suggest a lot of land overlap in the islands where the dholes and Komodos were.

2: That's great, now provide evidence of Dhole and Ora from the same deposits and provide evidence of interaction.

1: Please explain to me how it is spam. I provided evidence for low sea levels as was asked
2: Isn't there evidence enough? Their ranges in the Pleistocene on the islands would be very close, and there was evidently land linking it.
As for interactions, until teh criteria is changed, not yet necessary.

[Deleted]

honestly having a seperate category for sympatric is kinda stupid

really no difference between leopard v hyena and cougar v hyena. Now if there was something like a seperate dinosaur section, I'd be down

[Ceratodromeus]

Jan 17, 2020 3:37:03 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

Jan 17, 2020 3:15:43 GMT 5 Ceratodromeus said:

1: Once again we have a problem of you failing to understand a basic concept.



2: That's great, now provide evidence of Dhole and Ora from the same deposits and provide evidence of interaction.

1: Please explain to me how it is spam. I provided evidence for low sea levels as was asked
2: Isn't there evidence enough? Their ranges in the Pleistocene on the islands would be very close, and there was evidently land linking it.
As for interactions, until teh criteria is changed, not yet necessary.

1: Please explain to me how it is spam. I provided evidence for low sea levels as was asked

Posting three links about sea levels in the pleistocene when i was not talking about sea levels in the pleistocene is spam.

2: Isn't there evidence enough?

No lol, i've already said why numerous times.

again, argumentum ad nauseum.

Their ranges in the Pleistocene on the islands would be very close, and there was evidently land linking it

There are probably innumerous species today with land in between their distributions, or islands very close together, this does not mean they are sympatric.

As for interactions, until teh criteria is changed, not yet necessary.

Considering the definition of sympatry, yes it is. 

[Ceratodromeus]

Jan 17, 2020 3:38:59 GMT 5 @ophiophagushannah said:

honestly having a seperate category for sympatric is kinda stupid

really no difference between leopard v hyena and cougar v hyena. Now if there was something like a seperate dinosaur section, I'd be down

The thought process from what i can tell behind it is having interactions documented in the zoological literature and talking about it therein, something less akin to animal face off. I tend to like that, but i can understand why not everyone would.

[dinosauria101]

Jan 17, 2020 3:40:03 GMT 5 Ceratodromeus said:

Jan 17, 2020 3:37:03 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

1: Please explain to me how it is spam. I provided evidence for low sea levels as was asked
2: Isn't there evidence enough? Their ranges in the Pleistocene on the islands would be very close, and there was evidently land linking it.
As for interactions, until teh criteria is changed, not yet necessary.

1: Please explain to me how it is spam. I provided evidence for low sea levels as was asked

1: Posting three links about sea levels in the pleistocene when i was not talking about sea levels in the pleistocene is spam

Their ranges in the Pleistocene on the islands would be very close, and there was evidently land linking it

2/3: There are probably innumerous species today with land in between their distributions, or islands very close together, this does not mean they are sympatric.

As for interactions, until teh criteria is changed, not yet necessary.

4: Considering the definition of sympatry, yes it is. 

1: I was asked:

Ceratodromeus Avatar
about an hour ago Ceratodromeus said:
dinosauria101 Avatar
about an hour ago dinosauria101 said:
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.
kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/19168/Zong_ku_0099M_14165_DATA_1.pdf;sequence=1
www.clim-past.net/12/1079/2016/cp-12-1079-2016.pdf
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jbi.12416

That looks like asking for evidence of the sea levels to me

2/3: It's likely they would overlap; the islands were already very very close and neither animal, especially not the dholes, tends to stay in 1 place

4: Then we need to redefine the AVA.

[Ceratodromeus]

I was asked:

That looks like asking for evidence of the sea levels to me

Considering the fact that i've been consistently asking you for evidence of interactions, not sea levels, and you very obviously chose to take that in a different direction and context, no But like i said, very good attempt. 

2/3: It's likely they would overlap; the islands were already very very close and neither animal, especially not the dholes, tends to stay in 1 place

Once again, talking in hypotheticals without proper evidence of interaction. With this logic, they'd be sympatric today. Very nice job of dodging my line about animals today with a "very close" distribution, as well.

This is what makes every single one of your arguments incredibly weak.

Next, you will ask "How" or "why", in an increasingly predictable pattern.

4: Then we need to redefine the AVA.

I mean, you chose to go with what a forum headliner said over the definition of sympatry, i think that speaks volumes as is.

[Infinity Blade]

That looks like asking for evidence of the sea levels to me

He was just asking for evidence that they coexisted.

It's likely they would overlap; the islands were already very very close and neither animal, especially not the dholes, tends to stay in 1 place

But again, if you can't solidly prove that they did in fact coexist (you could do this if say, you found fossil remains of both species from the same rock layers), then we can't take this to mean that it was, in fact, sympatric. It doesn't matter how likely of a possibility it is, the fact that there's a real possibility that they didn't overlap in range (in spite of a relative lack of geographic barriers) prevents us from definitively saying it was sympatric.

I want to say this, though: even if we did have concrete evidence that they once coexisted, I'm not sure how comfortable I would be in having this in the sympatric section. You could say "this was sympatric in the Pleistocene" as a defense. But what if we had an American alligator vs Burmese python thread and I put it in the hypothetical section, justifying my decision with "this was hypothetical in the Pleistocene (or any time before the late 20th century)"? I wouldn't agree with that, because they're sympatric now.

Edit: for the record, the reason I put emphasis on the here and now is because it's the latest point in time in which both species were extant. If, however, you have a situation where either a) both species are no longer sympatric by virtue of one of them having since become extinct or b) an extinct subspecies of a still extant species is involved, then I'm fine with that being in sympatric.

[dinosauria101]

Then we may need to redefine our AVA standards.

As for Cerato's latest post, I'm not going to reply because it seems to have a lot of stabs at me.

[Ceratodromeus]

Jan 17, 2020 5:03:31 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

As for Cerato's latest post, I'm not going to reply because it seems to have a lot of stabs at me.

Wrong. It has stabs at how you structure your argument, not you as a person.

Though i will say if i were you i would hang it up, you aren't proving anything close to the point of ora and dhole being sympatric.

[swagserpent]

Yikes, someone took a fat L

[dinosauria101]

I was referring to these:
"But like i said, very good attempt"
"This is what makes every single one of your arguments incredibly weak"
Might not have been at me, but they do seem to be (pointless) stabs one way or the other at, say, my argument. Meh, I'm dropping this.

[Infinity Blade]

Might not have been at me, but they do seem to be (pointless) stabs one way or the other at, say, my argument.

That's pretty much what he said they were.

[dinosauria101]

Oh. Yeah, he did.

No need though to drag this on anymore. This is my last post here about anything that doesn't have to do with the fight.