|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 16:42:13 GMT 5
The largest would have likely reached or exceeded 9t (Paul's estimate), but I think 12t is quite a stretch. Again, at that weight I think a large Triceratops would be too much for a lone T. rex in a head-on fight. Likely not the average Triceratops, and perhaps not at parity, but if it has a size advantage I see no reason why it should not be favoured. @creature: It's "Biomechanics of locomotion in Asian elephants" Sorry that the link didn't work. You should be able to find an abstract somewhere, which sais "Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) was studied over their entire speed range of 0.4-5.0 m s(-1)". Runic: I know this game. Anyway, do you remember the video of the peccary giving one hell of a struggle to two jaguars at the same time? That's quite comparable to your accounts. Predators evolved to kill, you are right. They did not evolve to fight fair. You'll find tons of exceptional cases were some predator managed to kill a huge prey animal, by the same logic you'd have to say a tiger would win in a fight with an elephant. Grey: What "so called impossibility", and why "beyond T. rex' league" ? I was merely saying a large Triceratops is too much for T. rex in a head on confrontation. Evidence of predation on smaller specimens does not suffice as evidence against that. Triceratops certainly is an unusual prey, a few prey animals are simply more dangerous than others of the same size. Clearly, a 5t Triceratops would be much more dangerous than a Hadrosaur of the same size, for the latter's lack of a huge skull and horns. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 9, 2013 16:54:26 GMT 5
Runic: I know this game. Anyway, do you remember the video of the peccary giving one hell of a struggle to two jaguars at the same time? That's quite comparable to your accounts. Why is it comparable to his accounts? It is very impressive, sure, but giving a struggle is not the same as killing. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 18:35:17 GMT 5
Because the peccary was outnumbered 2/1 and outsized vastly. And because herbivores don't have the goal of killing (and very rarely the weaponery needed to kill a significantly larger foe[rarely because I know there are accounts of warthogs killing adult lions], which is unrelated to the question how well they would fare at parity size), but that of escaping.
You see, of course a warthog's weapons are not specialized for being effective in killing a buffalo, or a muskox. It is in the same way those of a crocodile are not specialized for killing elephants (which does not mean a crocodile would not beat a lion). But the mere fact that herbivores manage to hold their ground in faceoffs and the carnivore winning in such scenarios is not commonplace should totally roam out any prejudices against "prey" being automatically inferior.
And still you see "prey" such as boar, warthog or peccary holding their own against and even injuring or killing predators as large or larger than themselves. They definitely do not lack in fighting ability, and if at all, due to the larger scale, Triceratops´ advantages it had because of it´s quadrupedal body plan and huge horns become even more notable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 9, 2013 19:42:55 GMT 5
"So called" impossibility : you stated that a T. rex has no chance to tackle a Trike at its largest size. I don't agree.
"Beyond the league" : Trike was not beyond the league, evidence of attacks or at least feeding are common.
Evidences that Trike remains with T. Rex bite marks/attacks evidenced represent small individuals ?
Evidence that a massively built, aggressive, experienced hunter cannot subdue a same-sized robust prey ?
Theropods were very resilient, particularly T. rex.
That hadrosaurs were more common and easier preys ( which hadrosaurs by the way ?) that Trike does not mean that Trike was an exceptional prey. The common occurrence of attack and or feeding in fossil records does not indicate this.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 20:39:27 GMT 5
I did not state either. Theropods were very resilient, and in fact you'll see other predators are too (tons of horrific pictures of crocodilians prove that), that does not mean they could tackle any animal face to face and come out as winner more often than not. The largest Triceratops specimens, given they are really, as indicated by the estimates we have ( Greg Paul, online), in excess of 9t and have skulls approaching 2.5m in lenght, are such a kind of prey item I would not favour them against. The ceratopsian would likely be every bit as resilient btw. Hadrosaurs such as Edmontosaurus/ Anatotitan, Lambeosaurus or Parasaurolophus, why are you asking? It's just a fact, some prey animals give great trouble to predators similar in size (suids are the prime, or at least a well documented, example of this in the modern world), others are quite easy to subdue (if they are caught) or can be subdued by smaller predators. What one must realise in addition is that predation still isn't the same as fighting an animal. Assuming a large T. rex and a large Triceratops faced off, each one of them on it's own and without any ambush advantage, the predator would very likely walk away, because of the risk being too great, since it probably (=>50%) wouldn't prevail anyway based on the defenses it faces. Even in hunting scenarios predators with very few exceptions are probable to fail, and the majority of hunted prey is not as well-armed as trike, nor prepared to fight as is certainly a basic premise in this scenario. That isn't in disagreement with evidence for predation on smaller Triceratops individuals, because we know the majority are not 9t behemoths, and because both social behaviour and ambush attacks are feasible in Tyrannosaurus, both greatly faciliating the attack on dangerous prey. As I already wrote I favour T. rex, because on average Triceratops probably isn't the larger animal at all (my feeling tells me blaze could write a long explanation on Triceratops' size). But I do not favour it against a large specimen such as USNM 4276. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 9, 2013 20:45:55 GMT 5
Even in hunting scenarios predators with very few exceptions are probable to fail, and the majority of hunted prey is not as well-armed as trike. But when the prey is not as well armed as Triceratops, it's mostly because the prey escapes (most herbivores choose the escape option, even ones like large bovids), so why is this relevant? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 20:47:32 GMT 5
It's totally irrelevant in fact. They won't prevail more often against particularly-well armed animals either, or what point would there even be in evolving natural weaponery instead of running away.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 9, 2013 20:50:26 GMT 5
I agree with the first part, but it doesn't mean that the weaponry evolved for predators. It could have evolved for intraspecific conflicts.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 21:20:12 GMT 5
In part, yes. But if it was a massive disadvantage for survival the advantage it brought in sexual selection wouldn't make up for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 9, 2013 21:43:55 GMT 5
Why would it be a disadvantage for survival, if it won't be used for defense? Then it would be no advantage, but no massive disadvantage either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 9, 2013 21:58:10 GMT 5
We go back to my previous statement.
Your account is irrelevant to what I asked for. We go back to what i initially said. Predators are adapted for killing, prey are adapted to repel. Just because a deer manages to repel a wolf one time doesn't mean that it would have survived had the wolf stayed with the intent on killing it. I'm arguing predator vs prey, not your predator vs predator scenario you just made with the croc and the lion. There's a huge difference from my point.
What?? There are no "fair fights" in wild animal conflicts regardless of what animal it is. A head on fight is a head on fight. Period.
But absolutely none of the reverse happening. You see what that implies?
I'm sure you know lone tiger have killed elephants head on solo before? When has a prey item killed a predator with that great a size disparity? Never.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 23:42:31 GMT 5
Why would it be a disadvantage for survival, if it won't be used for defense? Then it would be no advantage, but no massive[u/] disadvantage either.Giving up cursoriality in favour of a body plan that's more adapted for fighting. If this significantly increases a predator's chances of success, why would any prey animal evolve such adaptions? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 9, 2013 23:46:50 GMT 5
It reflects their adaptions. Prey animals don't evolve to effectively kill things much larger than themselves, contrary to some predators. This is not directly relevant to their ability to kill predators smaller than themselves.
"Fair" in the sense of "head on"
yes, absolutely nothing relevant to this case.
And is that important? No!
So, you are saying because an elephant doesn't kill tigers bigger than itself (lol), it cannot kill a real tiger smaller than itself, because that makes the predator more formidable?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 10, 2013 0:16:11 GMT 5
Why would it be a disadvantage for survival, if it won't be used for defense? Then it would be no advantage, but no massive disadvantage either. Giving up cursoriality in favour of a body plan that's more adapted for fighting. If this significantly increases a predator's chances of success, why would any prey animal evolve such adaptions? Looks like you're right on that. I must have completely overestimated the speed of some herbivores, buffaloes attain a top speed of "only" 7 m/s: www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/index.php?s=1&act=pdfviewer&id=1275033787&folder=127 |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 10, 2013 4:17:09 GMT 5
Gotta wait till tomorrow for an adequate reply. On a mobile.
|
|
