|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 24, 2019 2:17:00 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 2, 2019 9:33:15 GMT 5
Verdugo
My reason for favoring Triceratops here, even at parity:
1: It would have had virtually no rotational inertia
2: It's rather maneuverable itself, moreseo than a mammoth or something like that
3: It has a weight advantage; 5-8 tons vs 6-12 tons (yes I know this is irrelevant at parity but the rest should cover it)
4: It's very well protected and well armed, with a frill to protect its neck and horns absolutely PERFECT for goring (in fact so good for goring that 1 well placed stab could very well end the fight)
|
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Aug 2, 2019 11:10:12 GMT 5
horns absolutely PERFECT for goring (in fact so good for goring that 1 well placed stab could very well end the fight) Here is a post from a Member on Carnivora (Lightning) regarding the whole one stab insta-kill thing of a modern Herbivore that is usually compared to a Ceratopsians (a Rhino) that you may want to consider... The effectiveness of Horns as killing weapons is rather doubtful considering that there are virtually no Predators (animals that are actually evolved to kill things) in the history of Planet Earth that use Horns as killing weapons. If Horns are so much better than Jaws at killing things (since one stab is all it takes as you claimed), why don't we have any Predators with Horns as weapons? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 2, 2019 13:54:16 GMT 5
horns absolutely PERFECT for goring (in fact so good for goring that 1 well placed stab could very well end the fight) 1: Here is a post from a Member on Carnivora (Lightning) regarding the whole one stab insta-kill thing of a modern Herbivore that is usually compared to a Ceratopsians (a Rhino) that you may want to consider... 2: The effectiveness of Horns as killing weapons is rather doubtful considering that there are virtually no Predators (animals that are actually evolved to kill things) in the history of Planet Earth that use Horns as killing weapons. 3: If Horns are so much better than Jaws at killing things (since one stab is all it takes as you claimed), why don't we have any Predators with Horns as weapons? 1: Bad representation for this matchip. The rhino is at a size disadvantage there (4-5 tons vs 6-7 tons), and has 1 horn that is IMO inferior to the Triceratops' 3 horns in this match 2: Oh I dunno, maybe because it isn't exactly easy for a predator to use horns? By their very nature, they seem to be more of an intraspecific conflict and defence tool to me 3: Same principle as you claimed about horned predators. About the one stab thing, I think this chart you made shows that quite well:  They're in the perfect spot for stabbing a vital organ. That, along with all the other factors I mentioned, makes me favor the ceratopsian pretty solidly here. By the way, Verdugo, I know you said you don't go too off topic, but I have literally no idea where else to ask you this, so here goes: I remember on Carnivora, you considered Diplodocus vs T rex a little one sided. What do you think is more one sided, T rex vs Diplodocus or T rex vs Mamenchisaurus sinocanandorum? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 2, 2019 18:00:02 GMT 5
Verdugo: There’s a simple evolutionary explanation for predators not using horns, and it’s not that jaws are better, it’s that jaws are already present whereas horns are not. Most vertebrate predators primarily target small prey, and they universally descend from ones that do so. They require jaws either way, but horns would be very impractical for such a predator for the same reason you don’t use a spear to hunt grasshopper. Hence basal gnathostomes evolved jaws, not horns. Each genetic step to develop a jaw apparatus adapted to take large prey from an already existing one adapted to catch small prey is far smaller than the step it would take to develop horns useful for predation, so as lineages adapt to take larger prey, the adaptive pathway they take is to adapt the jaws (and/or claws), structures already present and adapted for carnivory, rather than develop horns, an entirely new structure. Clearly horns might be very useful to a large predator. Again this is for the same reasons a spear is very useful against large prey (and don’t tell me it isn’t, spears allowed weak, puny humans to compete with and even prey on animals orders of magnitude larger than themselves for millions of years); they would grant greater reach, and allow them to cause deeper wounds at lower risk to themselves. So perhaps the ideal macrophagous predator would have long, spear-like horns to stab its prey to death with from a safe distance. That would be the outcome you’d expect if an intelligent designer made these animals ideally suited for what they do, but not from evolutionary processes, because evolution depends on the constraints to the development of a structure as much as on its potential selective advantages. A predator might develop horns for other reasons, such as display (which is probably the main factor in the evolution of horn-like structures in herbivores as well), but for such a horn to become large enough to be useful for predation (more useful than the jaws), it would have to become very long and robust, which in turn would present an initial disadvantage because it would impair the use of the jaws, become stuck on things, and be a plain waste of developmental resources. Which is probably why ceratosaurs never developed horns that were anything more than modest-sized display structures. On the other hand, herbivores don’t have to hunt anything or move their heads particularly quickly or precisely, so the development of all sorts of head ornamentation due to sexual selective pressures is far less limited, and those are then free to secondarily become useful as defensive tools. Now if a Triceratops suddenly decided to evolve into a carnivore (extremely unlikely since there are almost no recorded instances of specialized herbivores evolving into carnivores), it might keep the horns. But if a basal ornithodiran, already a carnivore, evolved to specialize in larger prey, it wouldn’t evolve horns to do it for reasons outlined above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 2, 2019 18:16:55 GMT 5
Since you're replying to Verdugo's point about horns and "one-hit-killing", are we just going to ignore the fact that there are four different videos right in the post that you quoted where an animal gored an animal similar in size to (if not much smaller than!) itself and it didn't end in an immediate one-hit takedown? Obviously horns are still dangerous weapons and you're technically right that a well-placed stab can potentially end the fight, but...the videos kind of speak for themselves.
To be fair...we can straight up throw our spears, which can grant you even more range than just having a single long thrusting weapon.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 2, 2019 18:24:14 GMT 5
Since you're replying to Verdugo's point about horns and "one-hit-killing", are we just going to ignore the fact that there are four different videos right in the post that you quoted where an animal gored an animal similar in size to (if not much smaller than!) itself and it didn't end in an immediate one-hit takedown? Obviously horns are still dangerous weapons and you're technically right that a well-placed stab can potentially end the fight, but...the videos kind of speak for themselves. I thought Verdugo was making a reference to the deleted Elasmotherium vs Acrocanthosaurus thread on Carnivora, where the rhino is at a size disadvantage. Anyhow, it may not be a one-hit KO now that you mention it, but I still think a good gore is enough to turn the tables in the Trike's favor, for these reasons: They are relatively long granting a good range, sturdy, and perfectly placed for goring the stomach and chest of T rex here, plus they could potentially be thrust with lots of force. IMO, ceratopsian horns are an entire league ahead of rhino/buffalo horns for those reasons, and it's an underestimate to use modern herbivores |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 2, 2019 19:03:42 GMT 5
True, but thrusting spears likely dominated during early human evolution (it still dominates among hunter-gatherer spear use today), and I was thinking of specific situations analogous to this, where one might be preferred anyway. E.g. a human armed with a thrusting spear may well be a match for a bear, and I wouldn’t want to throw my spear in such a situation anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 2, 2019 19:31:06 GMT 5
You could say that a rhino would also have a horn well-placed for goring a similar-sized theropod, and a rhino's horn, while I'm not entirely sure if it's as relatively long as a Triceratops' horns, is still decently long. I doubt you'd back a rhino against any similar-sized theropod worth its salt, though (and I'll say this time around, I don't either).
I do think one could argue that a Triceratops would be better predisposed to thrust its horns into a giant predator than say, a rhino, but that has more to do with postcranial anatomy. Not sure if it has anything to do with their horns*.
*Except for one thing. I do have this intuition that a keratin sheath+bone core horn will arguably be even stronger than something that's pretty much just keratin (and probably also a tusk too), simply because the bone and the keratin complement each other in strength (I assume this is at least partly why a lot of offensive/defensive spikes, horns, beaks, claws, and osteoderms are made of this composite structure, although evolutionary history probably plays a role too). This could then permit a stronger thrust. But even assuming that intuition is true (and someone could very well prove me wrong), how much better would that really make it?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 3, 2019 0:58:42 GMT 5
1: You could say that a rhino would also have a horn well-placed for goring a similar-sized theropod, and a rhino's horn, while I'm not entirely sure if it's as relatively long as a Triceratops' horns, is still decently long. I doubt you'd back a rhino against any similar-sized theropod worth its salt, though (and I'll say this time around, I don't either). 2: I do think one could argue that a Triceratops would be better predisposed to thrust its horns into a giant predator than say, a rhino, but that has more to do with postcranial anatomy. Not sure if it has anything to do with their horns*. *Except for one thing. I do have this intuition that a keratin sheath+bone core horn will arguably be even stronger than something that's pretty much just keratin (and probably also a tusk too), simply because the bone and the keratin complement each other in strength (I assume this is at least partly why a lot of offensive/defensive spikes, horns, beaks, claws, and osteoderms are made of this composite structure, although evolutionary history probably plays a role too). This could then permit a stronger thrust. But even assuming that intuition is true (and someone could very well prove me wrong), how much better would that really make it?
1: Yes that is correct. I'd back a similar size carnosaur/megalosaur/abelisaur/dromaeosaur/tyrannosaur/ceratosaur over a rhino (though not sure about a spinosaur). However, Triceratops seems much more formidable than a rhino at parity, even a very impressive one like an Elasmotherium, for reasons in number 2. 2: Here is why, to me at least, Triceratops is more formidable than a rhino at parity (heck, this applies to just about every chasmosaurine/centrosaurine with a decent horn or set of horns) -It's VERY robust (3 meters shoulder height for 12 tons, proportionately the same at minimum and average), moreso than even the infamous mastodons and more than any rhino I have ever seen -It has virtually no rotational inertia, and as such is almost impossible to outflank. A common argument in rhino vs theropod threads for theropod supporters is outflanking the rhino, and that's much, MUCH harder with a ceratopsian -The horns seem to face more forward than rhinoceros do, and this would make it much easier to gore a theropod. I think a good representative is this Elasmotherium vs Triceratops size comparison  As can be seen, the Triceratops has directly front-facing horns. Not the case for the Elasmotherium; if anything, its horn seems to be BACKWARDS a bit -Ceratopsians had a solid frill to protect their neck, as well as a ball and socket joint to rotate their heads to face the attacker. No rhino has either -(This only applies to chasmosaurines and some centrosaurines), but they have 2 horns instead of 1, an obvious advantage |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 6, 2019 17:17:16 GMT 5
Thought I’d copy this here, just so we’re clear on this whole body mass issue. Body mass of the largest known Triceratops individual: Maybe scaling up from other ceratopsians would be the way to go? We could scale up Titanoceratops (though that may be a bit of an underestimate, since the frill and skeleton are both less solid than in Triceratops) This would only shift the problem onto another taxon and introduce additional error factors. The question is, are there any more accurate size figures for Titanoceratops? There is easily sufficient material to make a reliable size estimate for Triceratops, the question is just whether someone has actually done it. Seebacher (2001) estimated an 8m Triceratops horridus at roughly 5t, which seems unreasonably low, but is at least based on some sort of volumetric methodology. Greg Paul (2010, 2016) estimates an 8m Triceratops horridus at 9t in the Princeton Field Guide, which is also presumably based on volumetric models. The largest specimen Greg Paul lists on his website (USNM 4276) he estimates at 9.3t, with a ~1.3m femur. Based on his skeletal (2016), that would correspond to a total length (axial length from the tip of the tail to the tip of the rostral) of about 8.6m and a shoulder height and skull length of about 2.7m. So this is consistent with the skull length and overall size suggested by the largest fragmentary material, as well as the skull length of Eotriceratops¹. I’ve tried roughly replicating this in Blender based on his multiview skeletal scaled to the appropriate dimensions, here are the results:   | Specimen/dimensions | USNM 4276, 1.3m femur (Paul 2010), ~2.7m skull, ~8.6m TL
| UCMP 12861, Scott Hartman’s skeletal scaled to 2.7m long skull as per Eofauna, ~9.2m TL, dorsal view adapted from Paul (2016) | Axial Postcranium
| 7.1566m³ | 8.3114m³ | Head
| 1.5637m³
| 1.5637m³ | Forelimb [×2]
| 0.1564m³ [0.3128m³] | 0.2690m³ [0.5379m³]
| Hindlimb [×2]
| 0.2508m³ [0.5018m³]
| 0.3477m³ [0.6955m³]
| Total [mass]
| 9.5349m³ [9535kg]
| 10.7607m³ [10761kg]
|
So assuming a density of 1.0, we get a total body mass of about 9.5t. I’d take this with a grain of salt, especially around the head, which is tricky to model, but this should be good enough as a test of Paul’s estimate.
EDIT:I’ve added an estimate based on scaling Hartman’s skeletal to a skull length of 2.7m and adapting the lateral-view silhouette of the model accordingly.
Paul, G.S. 2010. The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Paul, G.S. 2016. The Princeton field guide to dinosaurs. 2nd Ed.. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Seebacher, F. 2001. A new method to calculate allometric length-mass relationships of dinosaurs. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21 (1): 51–60.
¹https://www.deviantart.com/eofauna/art/Eotriceratops-vs-Triceratops-341153326
Just for completeness’ sake, here’s the lateral view of the model adapted to Hartman’s skeletal. The skull was left unchanged, as it was already the right size, but the body and limbs are bigger and bulkier in Hartman’s version.  That being said, Hartman himself wrote he thinks 2.7m is fishy. A more reliable measurement may be 2.5m (BYU 12183, this is the largest in over 30 skulls known to Scanella & Horner 2010), in this case we would have to scale down that upper estimate to 8.5t. So in conclusion, UCMP 12861 and Eotriceratops may have approached 11t, however the former is very fragmentary. More substantial large Triceratops specimens (BYU 12183 and USNM 4276) seem to have reached around 8.5-9.5t. However a 2m Triceratops skull is already considered large, so you can gather that the average size is quite a lot smaller than the aforementioned figures.
Scannella, J.B. and Horner, J.R. 2010. Torosaurus Marsh, 1891, is Triceratops Marsh, 1889 (Ceratopsidae: Chasmosaurinae): synonymy through ontogeny. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30 (4): 1157–1168.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 4, 2019 17:25:13 GMT 5
VerdugospartanHere's some more stuff on the mass of Trike. To be fair it does depend on what skeletals we use, but GAT's Trike seems fairly reasonable; overall, if we go by what theropod got here from GSP as the average, Triceratops would be ~9 tonnes on average. At max, we'd get an animal possibly up to 14 tonnes:
|
|
|
|
Post by 6f5e4d on Dec 4, 2019 23:22:17 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus has one of the strongest bites known, it can win against Triceratops, plus being very robust.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 4, 2019 23:23:23 GMT 5
^Triceratops seems to be SIGNIFICANTLY more robust, along with less rotational inertia, impressive horns, and a solid frill.
I'd favor it for those reasons.
|
|
