|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 11, 2022 20:39:24 GMT 5
Any opinions on how ecothermic sharks like tigers sharks compare to mesothermic/endothermic sharks at parity? There was a study that found that red muscle endothermic fish have cruising speeds twice that of fish without it, and can migrate for longer distances. However, it says nothing about maximum speed. Maybe RM endothermic fish have greater endurance/stamina and can keep up fast speeds for longer (which is one of the advantages of endothermy, no?). www.pnas.org/content/112/19/6104.abstract
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Mar 15, 2023 5:50:42 GMT 5
In regards to hadrosaurs, at best they would be about as formidable as formidable as equines or guanacos despite on a "pound for pound basis". Despite lacking specalized weapons, these animals are able to put up a better fight than many horned animals such as wildebeest it is possibly that hadrosaurs were scrappy fighters.
On the other hands, they could be more analogous to filter feeding whales. From what I've seen humpbacks are the only filter feeding whales that can actually defend themselves from orcas. The rest typically rely on sheer resilience and stamina to get away from them and to date I don't know of any accounts of a filter feeding whale seriously injuring an orca. Now obviously orcas hunt in large pods but I doubt anyone would argue that a minke has any real chance of defeating a lone orca.
My two cents is that hadrosaurs are somewhere between equines and non humpback filter feeding whales. A hadrosaur might be able deliver a nasty tail thwack/kick on theropod, and on some rare occasions might even be able to kill large predators but generally speaking it would be rare for to seriously injure a similar sized theropod.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 16, 2023 4:11:59 GMT 5
We find some pathologies in hadrosaurs that suggest they did get into aggressive encounters, such as rib fractures that may have been the result of them kicking each other, as well as tail pathologies in Edmontosaurus suggesting its use as a weapon. So at least the occasional aggressive fighting behavior seems to have been a thing. Now, my take: I think it's a bit complicated. I think it's a matter of absolute size translating to how deadly the animal is on a lb for lb basis. A 300 kg ornithopod ramming its shoulder/kicking/tail slapping a similar sized animal will definitely hurt, but perhaps not deliver serious injuries most of the time. Scale that up to 1, 2, 7, 10, or even 17 tonnes (around the size of the largest known hadrosaur), and I think it would be a far different matter. That is, it's going to be much worse, due to the fact that the larger two objects are, the more resistance they will put up to each other when they collide. This makes the impact more jarring and the chance of tissue damage greater. Essentially, this roughly horse-like fighting method (with the addition of a massive bludgeoning tail) would be more potent in larger animals and less so in smaller ones*. A 300 kg ornithopod would fare about as well against a 300 kg theropod as a 300 kg horse would against a 300 kg cat. A 7,000 kg hadrosaur would stand a significantly better chance at seriously injuring a 7,000 kg theropod, but it would of course still be susceptible to being seriously injured/killed by the theropod's weaponry or even its own great mass (imagine an Edmontosaurus and T. rex shoulder-checking each other). That said, I also think that hadrosaurs probably didn't rely on fighting as their primary defense. Hadrosaurs do have one locomotor advantage over tyrannosaurids, and that was greater endurance at the cost of running speed (judging from the attachment point of the caudofemoralis muscle on their femora). I think fighting would be done when it had no other choice (even prey well-suited to fighting back will still sometimes flee from their predators). *For the record, I didn't make this concept up. I based this idea on something the late biologist Valerius Geist said long ago, only he said this in the context of the evolution of horns. " In large mammals a fighting form can become more effective which would be conceivably less potent in small forms. With an increase in total size, a heavy head swung in an arc or a frontal butt would deliver a substantial amount of energy onto an opponent in animals the size of pigs, but very little in animals the size of mice. The greater resistance of the large body to a heavy blow would allow for a greater jarring effect, and for a greater chance of tissue damage." www.jstor.org/stable/4533157?seq=10
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Mar 17, 2023 1:24:45 GMT 5
I understand your points but I think researchers overstate the amount of damage a multi-ton creature would receive from an impact. Orcas are roughly as large the biggest theropods and we don't seem them smashing their skulls when they ram larger whales or get done in by tail swipes. Granted they live underwater so they don't have to worry about falling and would have an easier time outmaneuvering their prey but still, I think it would rare for a hadrosaur to fatally wound a similar sized predator, especially since a multi-ton hadrosaurus would also be more vunerable to high impact attacks. If for instance a large hardosaur took a bite to the leg and fell, it's basically done for, whereas a smaller herbivore may have a chance of dusting itself off and getting away. In addition, the predator usually is the one that typically intiates the conflict and is more likely to land that first decisive blow, so I think when it comes to hunting similar sized prey, multi ton predators aren't at an inherent disadvantage, though the approach would be somewhat different. I do, however, realize predators would have a much harder time killing a prey item several times than something like a lion since a giant prey item would just have to knock them over to seriously harm them. Edit: There is also this interesting video where a young playing elephant knocked over a much larger, adult female. Interestingly enough the smaller elephant seemed to be unscathed despite the powerful impact whereas the older female was on the ground for 40 minutes. Obviously this video illustrates gravity is unkind to large animals, but at the time it shows that the smaller multi ton animal doesn't always get the short end of the stick. Since predators will usually try to take their prey surprise, I think large theropods were more likely to knock over similar sized herbivores than vice veras (really stout dinosaurs like ankylosaurus may have been an exception) www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tnFNF2IJy0&ab_channel=frankietwodogs
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 17, 2023 2:45:49 GMT 5
Orca skulls are evidently sufficiently strong enough to withstand the impacts of ramming: both parties don't have to be seriously damaged in a multi-ton collision. Although, I actually posted an account of a captive orca ramming another and actually breaking its own skull ( link->), so even then a multi-ton collision could indeed seriously injure their own crania. I actually think this sort of proves the point: the fact that orcas can seriously injure or kill large whales by ramming them to death, even if they're similar in size or smaller, goes to show how much damage a multi-ton animal could do with a collision, so long as the body part used in the collision could withstand it (I don't have a problem thinking a hadrosaur's tail, feet, or shoulder could). Whales also have reportedly killed animals with their tail flukes. Obviously the animals in question are smaller than themselves (one of them is admittedly an old account too, but another is much younger), but it does suggest that they're not weapons to be scoffed at. fnw.ratcatinc.com/121521ar/AR023448.pdfI definitely agree a multi-ton predator could use this to its advantage as well. This comes to mind: I just think that, once animals get to a certain body size, they automatically basically have sheer mass as a weapon (of course, whether or not they behaviorally do so is another matter; Balaenoptera and large filter-feeding sharks being examples that don't). It's not guaranteed to kill, severely injure, or incapacitate as you've shown here, but the fact that it's still a real possibility (considering how often giant animals appear to get blunt force injuries like broken ribs) means that any creature that does decide to use its mass this way is still quite a dangerous animal. (For the record, I'd still back a well-armed theropod, ceratopsid, or whatever over a same-sized hadrosaur, I promise I haven't gone that crazy. I just think it has a more realistic chance against them than what people traditionally think.)
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Mar 17, 2023 3:47:05 GMT 5
I have heard accounts of orcas killing similar sized whales with a few blows, but I was mainly bringing them up to point out that orcas can smash into much larger blue whales without injuring themselves. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220131110513.htmAlthough most theropods most likely didn't have ramming adaptations like orcas do, I think these accounts illustrate that a smaller multi ton creature can collide with a much larger animal without taking injury, provided they are the one that initiated the attack first. Larger predators like tyrannosaurus might have been more hesistant to intiate an iffy ambush than a lion or a hyena, but if their intial assault on a similar sized herbivore goes well, the fight is probably mostly over, whereas lions and a hyenas often get into prolonged fights with their prey. Yeah, I think I understand what you're getting at. I imagine very few people actually think a hadrosaurus could beat a similar sized theropod more often than not, I just think that there has been too much push back against the "hadrosaurs are weak sentiment". I am sure a direct tail smack from a big filter whale would be devestating but the main point is accounts of orcas actually being taken out by these attacks are incredibly rare. If orcas went extinct millions years ago, I suspect some researchers would have concluded that 50 ton + whales would have been far too dangerous for them hunt but that is not the case. I am not suggesting multi ton theropods were also capable of taking on 50 ton + sauropods (as terrestrial animals there are less angles they can attack from and they most likely lacked orca coordination) but I think a hadrosaur was about as dangerous to a t-rex as a white tailed deer is to a cougar. Every once in a while a hadrosaur may have seriously injured or even killed a similar sized rex but these accounts would be super rare. There is also the question of whether hadrosaurs are good at using their legs and tails defensively. On paper, a wildebeest should be capable of kicking the crap out of a smaller predator, yet, I have never see even one attempt to do so. I know they have horns and that is probably their first line of defense after running but it is rather curious how they don't even seem try to lash out with their legs while a hyena is eating them alive from the groin up. www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0kNW4KQCoY&ab_channel=WildlifeProtectionSolutionsAs for their tails, while I am sure a smack would hurt, I doubt hadrosaurs were very good at timing or aiming their tail slaps. I imagine they just lashed them around as they ran or swung them reflexively whenever they got bit. They were probably far more accounts of theropods crippling/subduing hadrosaurs by biting and holding onto their tails than getting hit by them. Lastly, I wonder if creatures 4+ ton creatures had a sort of anti-collision reflex similar to how we our bodies instinctively realize that tall falls are bad news. Given that large animals are objectively more vunerable to bad falls they might have been more reluctant to slam or tackle a similar sized creature at full strength.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 17, 2023 5:41:37 GMT 5
Well I know that's the case, I'm just not sure how an orca's skull surviving a ramming attempt on a much larger whale has bearing on a theropod being okay from a body slam by a hadrosaur (if that's what you're suggesting). In the former, the one doing the ramming is well off at the expense of the one getting rammed, and I suspect the same would be the case in the latter too. To be fair, not only does it have a long tail to hit with, but it's also hitting another humongous animal. One of the largest known Edmontosaurus annectens specimens had a complete tail measuring 7.5 meters in length, and it was using that to hit a 7+ ton predator as long as a school bus and as tall as a basketball hoop. I admit that these accounts of whales tail-slapping orcas to death are rare, but at the same time I feel that that could be attributable to A) we just don't observe most fights between orcas and mysticetes, B) whales simply don't need to kill orcas that much (it's worth pointing out that while the predator's goal is to kill prey, the prey's goal isn't necessarily to kill the predator, just to stop the attack, which could mean just driving off the predator), and/or C) orcas don't target adult mysticetes much larger than themselves that often (certainly they rarely succeed in actually killing them). And that's not accounting for the fact that, as you alluded to, some baleen whale species (particularly Balaenoptera spp.) don't even bother fighting back against orcas (and these same species are not anatomically suited to do so, unlike those that fight back), which doesn't help the abundance of such instances. Fundamentally, I think the reason I believe a hadrosaur was more than just a scaled-up deer or antelope to a similar-sized predator is not just the absolute size as a weapon, but also, the likes of deer, antelope, and horses are still significantly more cursorial and better built to flee from a predator than any hadrosaur was. I know I said hadrosaurs had endurance over tyrannosaurids, but zebras have that same advantage over lions, except zebra legs are also more proportioned for cursorial running than any large hadrosaurid's (not that hadrosaurs were graviports like elephants, they just don't reach the degree of specialization for running that modern ungulates do). This is significant because there tends to be a trade-off in locomotory ability and the ability to fight, with cursorial limbs being less-suited than more robustly-proportioned ones for straight up combat. So if I had to describe a hadrosaurid's methods of defending itself from predators, I would think of it as being roughly like a gigantic horse, but less flight-y and more fight-y (even though it isn't hugely specialized for the latter either). (P.S. I think multi ton theropods could have just taken the Komodo dragon approach to killing large sauropods. The latter don't even need venom to kill prey much larger than themselves and even buffalo have been killed just by direct trauma like disembowelment, so I suspect a theropod that bit when the sauropod least expected it could actually kill it. It helps that many theropods had skulls proportionately much larger/more robust than varanids do, and had a lot more body weight to use when shaking/twisting/wrenching off a chunk of flesh too. I think sauropods can be underestimated too, but I hesitate to deem them completely immune to theropod predation, depending on the exact species and size ratios involved.) EDIT: I found a news article of an elephant dying from a fractured rib from a fall ( link->). It was just one rib, and the fractured rib pierced its lung, so the possibility of a hadrosaur inflicting such an injury (whether on one or multiple ribs, and whether through a blow or causing a foe to fall) has precedent. Rib pathologies in hadrosaurs are attributed to aggressive interactions as well ( link->).
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 3, 2023 10:36:29 GMT 5
Thoughts on pterosaurs?
I never rated them that highly but I am starting to come around after we found proof that bats can actually punch things and after I learned loons are capable of killing ealges. I still think eagles and other birds of prey are far more formidable at parity, but I think some pterosaurs might capable of holding their owna against other similar sized carnivores.
Hatz, Sericipterus, thalassodromeus, are probably at the top of the pterosaur fighting tier list.
If pteranodon's beak is as deadly as a loons they could be tough customers, but I suspect they are more like storks/herons/cranes.
I am particularly interested in how tropeognathus and other ornithocheirids stack up as they are my favorite. I remember posting a graph of pterosaur bite forces and they had a fairly high bite by pterosaur standards, though far less than thalassodromeus. I am inclined to think they would have been unsuited to killing similar sized animals but since they have highly muscular upper bodies, it's possible they might have been good at battering things with their wings.
Edit: here is the bite force graph:
/photo/1
Tropeos bite is not as strong as I remembered so yeah killing large prey is probably off the table. It's teeth, however might have been able to inflict gnarly damage on another pterosaurs wings.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 17, 2023 5:23:45 GMT 5
How formidable do you think a human armed with a spear is, lb for lb, compared to animals with goring weapons (horns, tusks, and antlers)? Ignore throwing spears here, just assume the human is limited to thrusting with it at close quarters (even though this is obviously not realistic). I feel like we have much greater accuracy when aiming and thrusting with a spear compared to horned or tusked animals, since the weapon isn't on our head but in our very dexterous hands/arms, as well as the fact that we have perfect binocular vision. And that's ignoring that the spear possibly has a stone-tipped head that creates a larger wound, or even worse, a metal head that is much sharper and more durable than the tip of any horn, tusk, or antler tine. Thoughts on pterosaurs? I never rated them that highly but I am starting to come around after we found proof that bats can actually punch things and after I learned loons are capable of killing ealges. I still think eagles and other birds of prey are far more formidable at parity, but I think some pterosaurs might capable of holding their owna against other similar sized carnivores. Hatz, Sericipterus, thalassodromeus, are probably at the top of the pterosaur fighting tier list. If pteranodon's beak is as deadly as a loons they could be tough customers, but I suspect they are more like storks/herons/cranes. I haven't thought too hard about it, but I think this is about right. Pummeling with powerful pectoral muscles and the knuckle of the enlarged "ring finger" that forms the wing may be able to cause some serious blunt trauma. One pterosaur I'm particularly interested in is Istiodactylus. Although it's thought to have been a scavenger, it had teeth that would have allowed it to sever flesh from carcasses like a cookie cutter. The claws on the hands also may have been used to manipulate carcasses, which I wonder if they could also be co-opted to grasp or even rake foes in combat.
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 17, 2023 6:44:01 GMT 5
How formidable do you think a human armed with a spear is, lb for lb, compared to animals with goring weapons (horns, tusks, and antlers)? Ignore throwing spears here, just assume the human is limited to thrusting with it at close quarters (even though this is obviously not realistic). I feel like we have much greater accuracy when aiming and thrusting with a spear compared to horned or tusked animals, since the weapon isn't on our head but in our very dexterous hands/arms, as well as the fact that we have perfect binocular vision. And that's ignoring that the spear possibly has a stone-tipped head that creates a larger wound, or even worse, a metal head that is much sharper and more durable than the tip of any horn, tusk, or antler tine. Thoughts on pterosaurs? I never rated them that highly but I am starting to come around after we found proof that bats can actually punch things and after I learned loons are capable of killing ealges. I still think eagles and other birds of prey are far more formidable at parity, but I think some pterosaurs might capable of holding their owna against other similar sized carnivores. Hatz, Sericipterus, thalassodromeus, are probably at the top of the pterosaur fighting tier list. If pteranodon's beak is as deadly as a loons they could be tough customers, but I suspect they are more like storks/herons/cranes. I haven't thought too hard about it, but I think this is about right. Pummeling with powerful pectoral muscles and the knuckle of the enlarged "ring finger" that forms the wing may be able to cause some serious blunt trauma. One pterosaur I'm particularly interested in is Istiodactylus. Although it's thought to have been a scavenger, it had teeth that would have allowed it to sever flesh from carcasses like a cookie cutter. The claws on the hands also may have been used to manipulate carcasses, which I wonder if they could also be co-opted to grasp or even rake foes in combat. Loads more dangerous. It is pretty crazy how dangerous even stone tipped spears are. To this day, tribal lamalerans kill whales by jumping in the water and stabbing them with harpoons. There are videos of them killing orcas this way. www.mensjournal.com/adventure/last-whalers-excerpt-doug-bock-clark
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 19, 2023 11:57:22 GMT 5
I honestly think that theropods and other archosaurs with ziphodont teeth were probably the most formidable macropredators on the planet. Massive heads and flesh slicing teeth are a deadly combo. There are videos and accounts of 20 to 30 pound crocodile monitors and asian water monitors inflicting potentially life threatning injuries on full grown people with a single bite. So just imagine the kind of damage a dinosaur with a much larger head and serrated teeth could do. On an unrelated note, elosha11 how would you rate sharks in terms of impressiveness? Obviously the great white shark is the most powerful extant shark as it is the largest but which species do you think outpreform or underperform based on their weight class?
|
|
|
Post by lionclaws on Sept 24, 2023 8:12:04 GMT 5
I honestly think that theropods and other archosaurs with ziphodont teeth were probably the most formidable macropredators on the planet. Massive heads and flesh slicing teeth are a deadly combo. There are videos and accounts of 20 to 30 pound crocodile monitors and asian water monitors inflicting potentially life threatning injuries on full grown people with a single bite. So just imagine the kind of damage a dinosaur with a much larger head and serrated teeth could do. On an unrelated note, elosha11 how would you rate sharks in terms of impressiveness? Obviously the great white shark is the most powerful extant shark as it is the largest but which species do you think outpreform or underperform based on their weight class? There's more to a fight than weaponry, IMO. In Game of Thrones, Jon Stark tells Arya Stark that the way to win a sword fight is to "stick 'em with the pointy end." Anyone who knows anything about sword fighting knows that's nonsense. The key to winning a sword fight is to not get stuck.So ability to cause debilitating injuries is only half of the battle, and arguably the smaller half. The ability to avoid being injured is by far the greater half. There are several ways to do this. The most obvious is by being too big to be easily injured, but let's limit ourselves to methods that work at similar weights. Aggression is arguably the best method to make up for a weaponry disadvantage. All things being equal, whoever delivers a serious injury first is liable to win. Even if that injury isn't fatal, the victim's performance for the remainder of the fight will be degraded. While my "unique" contributions to the Lion vs Tiger debate were primarily biomechanical, I have always viewed aggression as the critical difference between the two animals, and the one that gives the Lion the edge. Grappling ability is also a viable tactic. This is what makes saber-tooth cats (and, arguably, dromaeosaurs) such dangerous animals in a fight - not only do they have formidable weaponry, they are capable of controlling their opponent's weaponry to some degree in most fights. Agility is another good way to avoid injury. Being able to control the distance in the fight, so that you are consistently able to bring your weaponry to bear while denying your opponent the same? That's dangerous. This, combined with the strong evidence of face biting in most theropod taxa, is one of the reasons I tend to back tyrannosaurs against carnosaurs at equal masses. Yeah, the carnosaur has better weaponry. But what does that matter if the tyranosaur always in a better position due to constant maneuvering? Durability is another extremely relevant factor, for reasons that should be obvious. The best sword in the world won't cut through plate harness, so even if the guy in armor has a rusty kitchen knife, he's liable to win against a better armed but unarmored opponent. This is what makes mustelids in general such good fighters. In general, compactness/robusticity of build has a big impact on all of the above - putting the same amount of muscle on shorter limbs with a broader chest will consistently improve both flexibility and strength - and thus grappling ability - while simultaneously lowering rotational inertia and increasing durability. Bears take advantage of this, and are, imo, some of the best fighters in their weight class despite having lackluster weaponry. In general, for terrestrial fighters, I see bears, mustelids, dromaeosaurs, and sabertooth cats as being S-tier fighters, with the "Cookie-Cutter-Cat" standing out as having the best balance of adaptations - compact, good grappling ability, and a theropod-like "exanguinate anywhere" bite. I'm not aware of any animal with a comparable suite of adaptations. Lions get honorable mention just for being gangster murder hobos, but they're ultimately A-tier, same as most pantherine cats, as well the tyrannosaurs and abelisaurs (both of which I place on the lower end of A-tier). The giant carnosaurs were at the peak of B-tier, with most other theropods (in my opinion) spread throughout the B and C tiers. Wolves are middling C-tier, while hyenas (due to sheer durability) are peak C-tier. Spinosaurs generally, and Spinosaurus aegypticus specifically, were F-tier. They were hyperadapted for killing small prey to the exclusion of animals in their own size range.
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 24, 2023 8:59:06 GMT 5
I honestly think that theropods and other archosaurs with ziphodont teeth were probably the most formidable macropredators on the planet. Massive heads and flesh slicing teeth are a deadly combo. There are videos and accounts of 20 to 30 pound crocodile monitors and asian water monitors inflicting potentially life threatning injuries on full grown people with a single bite. So just imagine the kind of damage a dinosaur with a much larger head and serrated teeth could do. On an unrelated note, elosha11 how would you rate sharks in terms of impressiveness? Obviously the great white shark is the most powerful extant shark as it is the largest but which species do you think outpreform or underperform based on their weight class? There's more to a fight than weaponry, IMO. In Game of Thrones, Jon Stark tells Arya Stark that the way to win a sword fight is to "stick 'em with the pointy end." Anyone who knows anything about sword fighting knows that's nonsense. The key to winning a sword fight is to not get stuck.So ability to cause debilitating injuries is only half of the battle, and arguably the smaller half. The ability to avoid being injured is by far the greater half. There are several ways to do this. The most obvious is by being too big to be easily injured, but let's limit ourselves to methods that work at similar weights. Aggression is arguably the best method to make up for a weaponry disadvantage. All things being equal, whoever delivers a serious injury first is liable to win. Even if that injury isn't fatal, the victim's performance for the remainder of the fight will be degraded. While my "unique" contributions to the Lion vs Tiger debate were primarily biomechanical, I have always viewed aggression as the critical difference between the two animals, and the one that gives the Lion the edge. Grappling ability is also a viable tactic. This is what makes saber-tooth cats (and, arguably, dromaeosaurs) such dangerous animals in a fight - not only do they have formidable weaponry, they are capable of controlling their opponent's weaponry to some degree in most fights. Agility is another good way to avoid injury. Being able to control the distance in the fight, so that you are consistently able to bring your weaponry to bear while denying your opponent the same? That's dangerous. This, combined with the strong evidence of face biting in most theropod taxa, is one of the reasons I tend to back tyrannosaurs against carnosaurs at equal masses. Yeah, the carnosaur has better weaponry. But what does that matter if the tyranosaur always in a better position due to constant maneuvering? Durability is another extremely relevant factor, for reasons that should be obvious. The best sword in the world won't cut through plate harness, so even if the guy in armor has a rusty kitchen knife, he's liable to win against a better armed but unarmored opponent. This is what makes mustelids in general such good fighters. In general, compactness/robusticity of build has a big impact on all of the above - putting the same amount of muscle on shorter limbs with a broader chest will consistently improve both flexibility and strength - and thus grappling ability - while simultaneously lowering rotational inertia and increasing durability. Bears take advantage of this, and are, imo, some of the best fighters in their weight class despite having lackluster weaponry. In general, for terrestrial fighters, I see bears, mustelids, dromaeosaurs, and sabertooth cats as being S-tier fighters, with the "Cookie-Cutter-Cat" standing out as having the best balance of adaptations - compact, good grappling ability, and a theropod-like "exanguinate anywhere" bite. I'm not aware of any animal with a comparable suite of adaptations. Lions get honorable mention just for being gangster murder hobos, but they're ultimately A-tier, same as most pantherine cats, as well the tyrannosaurs and abelisaurs (both of which I place on the lower end of A-tier). The giant carnosaurs were at the peak of B-tier, with most other theropods (in my opinion) spread throughout the B and C tiers. Wolves are middling C-tier, while hyenas (due to sheer durability) are peak C-tier. Spinosaurs generally, and Spinosaurus aegypticus specifically, were F-tier. They were hyperadapted for killing small prey to the exclusion of animals in their own size range. Grappling is less useful when you reach the multi ton weight class. When animals wrestle they tend to fall down a lot, which is a problem for any elephant sized animal. So it is a bit hard to directly compare a tyrannosaurus' fighting ability to a dromeosaurs or a bear's. Grappling is obviously a powerful assest amongst more modest size but wrestlers are not always able to prevent non grappling animals from biting them in self defense. Hyenas for instance, often manage to bite lions in self defense even when they are put in a headlock. Ultimately I favor leopards and other cats over similar sized hyenas because I think usually the hyena wouldn't be able to inflict enough damage before the cat strangles it to death but theropods are a different story. Theropods have huge heads with slicing teeth. For instance just look at how big a 400 pound marshosaurus skull is compared to a bear's. Not sure of the species of bear but I am assuming that it was thin the marshosaurus' weight range. Likewise, a deinoychus had a masssive head compared to other roughly similar sized mammals. I think its highly likely a single good bite could cause serious hemorrhaging and given that theropods had a unidirectional breathing system, they probably tended to have higher stamina than most mammals that aren't specialized for long distance pursuit. So once they land a good bite they could potentially just wait for their opponent to get weakened by bloodloss and win even if they get wrestled into submission.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 24, 2023 15:04:45 GMT 5
Grappling is obviously a powerful assest amongst more modest size but wrestlers are not always able to prevent non grappling animals from biting them in self defense. Hyenas for instance, often manage to bite lions in self defense even when they are put in a headlock. Interesting. I always thought that big headed predators (eg. many theropods, hyaenodonts, entelodonts, etc.) could prevent getting grappled in the first place with their huge jaws, but I didn’t realize even a hyena could do so against a much larger lion. Similarly, I’ve seen a video where a zebra gets its neck restrained by a lioness, but the zebra was able to nip her flank with its front teeth. It ultimately escaped. m.youtube.com/watch?v=kXwG-ms63X8Also, in that cougar-wolf fight that happened in B.C. several years ago, the wolf ultimately lost, but initially both animals were said to have had a grip on each other in their jaws. It was only after the wolf was startled by the observer that it let go of the cougar and tried to flee, allowing the cougar to counterattack and kill the wolf. www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/cougar-vs-wolf-unreal-battle-caught-on-video-in-b-c-1.2411625Obviously not saying grappling isn’t useful, it certainly is, but lots of people on CF used to act as if a non-grappling predator caught by a grappler was automatically screwed. That doesn’t appear to be completely true.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Sept 24, 2023 16:54:33 GMT 5
I honestly think that theropods and other archosaurs with ziphodont teeth were probably the most formidable macropredators on the planet. Massive heads and flesh slicing teeth are a deadly combo. There are videos and accounts of 20 to 30 pound crocodile monitors and asian water monitors inflicting potentially life threatning injuries on full grown people with a single bite. So just imagine the kind of damage a dinosaur with a much larger head and serrated teeth could do. On an unrelated note, elosha11 how would you rate sharks in terms of impressiveness? Obviously the great white shark is the most powerful extant shark as it is the largest but which species do you think outpreform or underperform based on their weight class? There's more to a fight than weaponry, IMO. In Game of Thrones, Jon Stark tells Arya Stark that the way to win a sword fight is to "stick 'em with the pointy end." Anyone who knows anything about sword fighting knows that's nonsense. The key to winning a sword fight is to not get stuck.So ability to cause debilitating injuries is only half of the battle, and arguably the smaller half. The ability to avoid being injured is by far the greater half. There are several ways to do this. The most obvious is by being too big to be easily injured, but let's limit ourselves to methods that work at similar weights. Aggression is arguably the best method to make up for a weaponry disadvantage. All things being equal, whoever delivers a serious injury first is liable to win. Even if that injury isn't fatal, the victim's performance for the remainder of the fight will be degraded. While my "unique" contributions to the Lion vs Tiger debate were primarily biomechanical, I have always viewed aggression as the critical difference between the two animals, and the one that gives the Lion the edge. Grappling ability is also a viable tactic. This is what makes saber-tooth cats (and, arguably, dromaeosaurs) such dangerous animals in a fight - not only do they have formidable weaponry, they are capable of controlling their opponent's weaponry to some degree in most fights. Agility is another good way to avoid injury. Being able to control the distance in the fight, so that you are consistently able to bring your weaponry to bear while denying your opponent the same? That's dangerous. This, combined with the strong evidence of face biting in most theropod taxa, is one of the reasons I tend to back tyrannosaurs against carnosaurs at equal masses. Yeah, the carnosaur has better weaponry. But what does that matter if the tyranosaur always in a better position due to constant maneuvering? Durability is another extremely relevant factor, for reasons that should be obvious. The best sword in the world won't cut through plate harness, so even if the guy in armor has a rusty kitchen knife, he's liable to win against a better armed but unarmored opponent. This is what makes mustelids in general such good fighters. In general, compactness/robusticity of build has a big impact on all of the above - putting the same amount of muscle on shorter limbs with a broader chest will consistently improve both flexibility and strength - and thus grappling ability - while simultaneously lowering rotational inertia and increasing durability. Bears take advantage of this, and are, imo, some of the best fighters in their weight class despite having lackluster weaponry. In general, for terrestrial fighters, I see bears, mustelids, dromaeosaurs, and sabertooth cats as being S-tier fighters, with the "Cookie-Cutter-Cat" standing out as having the best balance of adaptations - compact, good grappling ability, and a theropod-like "exanguinate anywhere" bite. I'm not aware of any animal with a comparable suite of adaptations. Lions get honorable mention just for being gangster murder hobos, but they're ultimately A-tier, same as most pantherine cats, as well the tyrannosaurs and abelisaurs (both of which I place on the lower end of A-tier). The giant carnosaurs were at the peak of B-tier, with most other theropods (in my opinion) spread throughout the B and C tiers. Wolves are middling C-tier, while hyenas (due to sheer durability) are peak C-tier. Spinosaurs generally, and Spinosaurus aegypticus specifically, were F-tier. They were hyperadapted for killing small prey to the exclusion of animals in their own size range. There is one important aspect I think is missing in this list, especially since we are already speaking in terms of analogy with human combat: One of the most crucial advantages in any fight is reach and nimbleness in the attack. This is why in unarmoured fighting, a rapier will have an advantage over most other swords, and a spear (or similar polearm) will have the advantage over almost any other melee weapon (and of course a projectile weapon will have the advantage over pretty much anything anyway). These weapons will outrange and outmaneuver shorter, beefier weapons, and will generally have a distinct advantage over those other weapons as long as they are still capable of inflicting sufficient damage (which, in unarmoured combat, they generally are), which makes this probably the best way to simultaneously not get stuck with a pointy end oneself, and stick one’s opponent, because the opponent physically cannot get in range of their own weapons without first getting in range of yours.
The only thing that can really meaningfully negate this advantage is armour, which allows an opponent to potentially tank hits from such a weapon and bring one’s own (ideally more damaging, or more geared towards armour penetration at any rate) weapon to bear, but there is no real animal equivalent of steel plate, and the things that come closest (like crocodile/armadillo/turtle/placodont/ankylosaur armour) tend to incur such severe drawbacks in terms of mobility, that truly effective armour in the animal kingdom is mostly restricted to slow-moving animals (i.e. not available to the fast-moving terrestrial macropredators you are comparing here). There are of course more durable animals and less durable animals, but assuming similar overall sizes, few have the kind of durability that could really nullify the advantage of greater reach and striking speed. I think that people generally tend to agree with this point based on how highly rated animals with long, forward-facing horns like Triceratops tend to be in the context of a face to face engagement.
It is true that this is strictly speaking an aspect of the weaponery, but so is grappling ability (tied to claws or jaws), and, just like grappling ability, this is not directly related to the ability and potency of the weaponery to inflict injuries, so I think it belongs on this list for completeness’ sake.
Also some other things worth considering:
1) Since you are considering them all in their respective size-class: where would you place non-giant allosauroids (or giant carnosaurs that had non-reduced forelimbs, like Allosaurus/Saurophaganax)? This aspect completely changes the game in terms of your point about grappling: you have an animal that still has all the reach and striking speed advantages outlined above (that generally incur drawbacks when it comes to grappling ability with the jaws), but supplements those with a pair of massive forelimbs bearing 30 cm long meathooks, whose sole mechanical specialization is puncturing and clutching prey.
2) What about flight? There’s literally no animal on the planet that seems to have more favourable matchups against other carnivores in a similar weight class than the golden eagle (which I also don’t see in your ranking), and the key advantage here is that flight gives raptors the power to completely dictate the terms of almost any engagement. They are formidable on the ground, but with this stacking the odds in their favour, they take out and even prey on mammalian carnivores larger than themselves somewhat regularly. 3) In terms of tyrannosaurs, it’s important to differentiate which ones we are talking about. People usually generalize from T. rex (typically touted as "superior" to "normal theropods" in all ways imaginable) to other tyrannosaurids or even all tyrannosauroids. But the vast majority of all tyrannosauroids were <3m mesopredators, and even among tyrannosaurids, which do show many novel specializations (chiefly for mobility) and are generally large, apex predators, almost all of them seem to perform very similarly to same-sized carnosaurs in terms of tooth and skull strength metrics (see the Snively et al. 2006 study I cited on the other thread). So really, whether one agrees with their basic point, usually when people say "tyrannosaurs", what they really mean is Tyrannosaurus rex, which is a major overgeneralization of the many tyrannosaurids that were quite different from T. rex in terms of their feeding apparata.
|
|