|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 16, 2024 6:47:11 GMT 5
It's kind of hard to rate their relative tier, since there aren't any similar sized predators that interact with them
They have absurdly thick skin, black rhinos have very pointy horns, and the other rhinos have nasty teeth so they are clearly high tier by herbivore standards.
Based on videos of rhinos attacking they don't seem to be able to inflict flesh wounds nearly as quickly as boars or peccaries. Granted, they do have a higher intraspecific death rate but I wonder if many of those deaths are caused by blunt trauma and falls. Larger animals are most suspectible to falling injuries.
I guess I would consider them tankier than boars but less capable of damage.
I think black rhinos are at the top while modern fanged rhinos like javan's are at the bottom of the extant rhino tier list since their incisors don't look that impressive for their size.
While we're at it, I would place hippos above fanged rhinos but I am not sure if they are above blacks and whites. In a direct fight comparsion I would back the rhino since I think they could shove their horns down the hippos throat, but the hippos jaws may be a more verastile and effective weapon against other animals.
On another subject, overall, I honestly think that amphibians are the least impressive fighters. I can't think of any truly impressive fighters amongst extant amphibians. I know there were some gnarly looking temnospondyls but even then I am not sure they would be as impressive the top dogs in other animal classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 17, 2024 6:02:26 GMT 5
There was a paper that found that an Indian rhinoceros has double the amount of neck muscle mass for its size than a hippo. A 1,300 kg Indian rhino had 150 kg of epaxial muscle mass, while a 1,200 kg hippo had 75 kg. I'd imagine a black rhino would be similar to an Indian rhino, while a white rhino may have even more. So I definitely think that's one advantage rhinos would have over hippos. www.dinochecker.com/papers/paleobiology_of_carnotaurus_MAZZETTA_et_al_1998.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 17, 2024 11:04:58 GMT 5
There was a paper that found that an Indian rhinoceros has double the amount of neck muscle mass for its size than a hippo. A 1,300 kg Indian rhino had 150 kg of epaxial muscle mass, while a 1,200 kg hippo had 75 kg. I'd imagine a black rhino would be similar to an Indian rhino, while a white rhino may have even more. So I definitely think that's one advantage rhinos would have over hippos. www.dinochecker.com/papers/paleobiology_of_carnotaurus_MAZZETTA_et_al_1998.pdfI think I remember reading about the neck muscle comparison somewhere but I am not sure if greater neck mass would compensate for the weaponry and gape advantage hippos have. I suspect a bighorn sheep has more neck mass than a mountain goat, but the latter has more impressive kills to its name. I guess we would need a bite force study or more fighting feats from the fanged rhinos before we can fairly compare them. How do allosaurs compare to Carcharodontosaurid similar sized carnosaurs? I think we kind of went over this when I asked which theropod has the most generalized building but would an allosaurus have any noticeable disadvantages or advantages over an animal like Neovenator or another similar sized animal with the "generic" carcharodontosaurid build? |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 27, 2024 7:28:35 GMT 5
This a controversial opinion but I think komodos are in the same tier as big cats and bears. There are accounts of 5 pound tree monitors sending men to the hospital and inflicting blood loss that could be potentially lethal if they didn't have access to medical treatment. Komodos are known to have exceptional armor, their necks are flexible, and their tails, while not an especially powerful weapon could prove critical in some close match ups.
At parity, I think dimetrodons are inferior to komodos at parity. They were probably more nimble and have more endurance but I think their lack of armor and vunerable spine puts them below komodos.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 28, 2024 2:12:50 GMT 5
This a controversial opinion but I think komodos are in the same tier as big cats and bears. There are accounts of 5 pound tree monitors sending men to the hospital and inflicting blood loss that could be potentially lethal if they didn't have access to medical treatment. Komodos are known to have exceptional armor, their necks are flexible, and their tails, while not an especially powerful weapon could prove critical in some close match ups. At parity, I think dimetrodons are inferior to komodos at parity. They were probably more nimble and have more endurance but I think their lack of armor and vunerable spine puts them below komodos. Honestly, I've been of the mindset that a Komodo dragon should be a formidable foe to a big cat or bear its own body mass (like a sun bear, or leopard or cougar) for a long time now. I grew out of the mindset that carnivorans magically put them in a spell that renders them unable to catch or harm them since I saw Komodo dragon vs cougar being debated on Carnivora forum a decade ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 28, 2024 6:08:22 GMT 5
My only doubt is that I am overcorrecting because an astounding number of people still buy into the idea that komodos kill prey via bacteria and can't kill prey directly and adamtantly maintain that position even when provided with video and photo evidence of KD's f'ing up buffalos.
Some monitor species do seem to preform poorly against carnivorans, bengal monitors get owned by mongooses and Asian water monitor seem to be rather slow when they are attacked by dogs, but the former is a primarily insectivorous species and the latter often end up becoming overweight due to the large amount of food they can scrouge up in urban areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 29, 2024 4:27:44 GMT 5
Is the Komodo dragon an exception among extant varanids in going after large prey? It seems to be the only one that routinely does it (whether it's pigs, deer, feral horses, or water buffalo), although apparently crocodile monitors have brought down pigs, deer, and hunting dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jun 29, 2024 11:44:37 GMT 5
Is the Komodo dragon an exception among extant varanids in going after large prey? It seems to be the only one that routinely does it (whether it's pigs, deer, feral horses, or water buffalo), although apparently crocodile monitors have brought down pigs, deer, and hunting dogs. I'd say that is mostly the case. I've seen desert monitors prey on pretty large lizards. There is also an account of a lace monitor preying on a 3,300 gram carpet python. docslib.org/doc/2994391/canid-predation-a-potentially-significant-threat-to-relic-populations-of-the-inland-carpet-python-morelia-spilota-metcalfei-pythonidae-in-victoriaI think the main reason most monitors are limited to smaller prey is an inability to effectively cut them into smaller pieces, something that the komodos ziphodont teeth are capable of. Tree monitors and other sharp teeth monitors are definitely capable of killing larger animals though. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 29, 2024 17:52:26 GMT 5
Is the Komodo dragon an exception among extant varanids in going after large prey? It seems to be the only one that routinely does it (whether it's pigs, deer, feral horses, or water buffalo), although apparently crocodile monitors have brought down pigs, deer, and hunting dogs. I'd say that is mostly the case. I've seen desert monitors prey on pretty large lizards. There is also an account of a lace monitor preying on a 3,300 gram carpet python. docslib.org/doc/2994391/canid-predation-a-potentially-significant-threat-to-relic-populations-of-the-inland-carpet-python-morelia-spilota-metcalfei-pythonidae-in-victoriaI think the main reason most monitors are limited to smaller prey is an inability to effectively cut them into smaller pieces, something that the komodos ziphodont teeth are capable of. Tree monitors and other sharp teeth monitors are definitely capable of killing larger animals though. Probably also helps that the Komodo dragon is by far the largest, and therefore has the largest energy requirements. Carnivorans have to switch from feeding on animals smaller than themselves to animals that are relatively large compared to their own body mass (AT LEAST 45%) once they reach 21.5 kg (the threshold is estimated to have been similar for theropods). Since monitors are ectotherms, this means that while the ora’s good requirements will be much less than a similar-sized mammal’s, so would a 21.5 kg monitor’s. So most probably aren’t under much pressure to be adapted to kill something relatively big. |
|
|
|
Post by razor45dino on Jun 29, 2024 21:03:15 GMT 5
The downplay of bipedal animals has gotten bad enough that bipedal=domino should be a meme at this point.
"I'm sure to win because I'm a quadruped"
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jul 6, 2024 9:27:21 GMT 5
How do entelodonts stack up to hyaenodonts? Based on my understanding, hyaenodonts beat them in the jaw department but do entelodonts have any combat advantages that could compensate for that, or is it safe to assume they are worse fighters at parity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 7, 2024 4:33:57 GMT 5
How do entelodonts stack up to hyaenodonts? Based on my understanding, hyaenodonts beat them in the jaw department but do entelodonts have any combat advantages that could compensate for that, or is it safe to assume they are worse fighters at parity? Hmm, do hyaenodonts really beat them in the jaw department? Both have huge skulls for their size, but I doubt a hyaenodont's would be larger. The entelodont may have a more massive head, considering it had long neural spines on its shoulder to support muscles and ligaments. Entelodonts also appear to have been capable of opening their mouths really wide. One advantage I think hyaenodonts would have is that their canines are probably sharper, as an entelodont's front teeth can admittedly get worn down from durophagy. I don't think any hyaenodont was quite as cursorial as the entelodonts were, although this arguably confers the opposite advantage to the hyaenodont (limbs better suited for force generation, especially in the distal limb segments). Entelodonts may also be able to have a bit of an extra weapon by swinging their heads and hitting with the bony jugals, but I admit this is minor, since the hyaenodont has a suitable weapon to kill the entelodont anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jul 7, 2024 6:06:19 GMT 5
How do entelodonts stack up to hyaenodonts? Based on my understanding, hyaenodonts beat them in the jaw department but do entelodonts have any combat advantages that could compensate for that, or is it safe to assume they are worse fighters at parity? Hmm, do hyaenodonts really beat them in the jaw department? Both have huge skulls for their size, but I doubt a hyaenodont's would be larger. The entelodont may have a more massive head, considering it had long neural spines on its shoulder to support muscles and ligaments. Entelodonts also appear to have been capable of opening their mouths really wide. One advantage I think hyaenodonts would have is that their canines are probably sharper, as an entelodont's front teeth can admittedly get worn down from durophagy. I don't think any hyaenodont was quite as cursorial as the entelodonts were, although this arguably confers the opposite advantage to the hyaenodont (limbs better suited for force generation, especially in the distal limb segments). Entelodonts may also be able to have a bit of an extra weapon by swinging their heads and hitting with the bony jugals, but I admit this is minor, since the hyaenodont has a suitable weapon to kill the entelodont anyway. I recall Verudgo providing evidence that a hyaenodont's bite force rivalled or even exceeded a macropredatory crocodiles bite at parity. I guess its possible an entelodonts might be roughly as powerful but that seems a bit presumptuous until actual studies are done. Given that entelodonts appeared to eat more plant matter than animal protein, I suspect that it would have a weaker bite similar to how bears have weaker bite forces than cats or canines at parity. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jul 7, 2024 7:40:21 GMT 5
Hmm, do hyaenodonts really beat them in the jaw department? Both have huge skulls for their size, but I doubt a hyaenodont's would be larger. The entelodont may have a more massive head, considering it had long neural spines on its shoulder to support muscles and ligaments. Entelodonts also appear to have been capable of opening their mouths really wide. One advantage I think hyaenodonts would have is that their canines are probably sharper, as an entelodont's front teeth can admittedly get worn down from durophagy. I don't think any hyaenodont was quite as cursorial as the entelodonts were, although this arguably confers the opposite advantage to the hyaenodont (limbs better suited for force generation, especially in the distal limb segments). Entelodonts may also be able to have a bit of an extra weapon by swinging their heads and hitting with the bony jugals, but I admit this is minor, since the hyaenodont has a suitable weapon to kill the entelodont anyway. I recall Verudgo providing evidence that a hyaenodont's bite force rivalled or even exceeded a macropredatory crocodiles bite at parity. I guess its possible an entelodonts might be roughly as powerful but that seems a bit presumptuous until actual studies are done. Given that entelodonts appeared to eat more plant matter than animal protein, I suspect that it would have a weaker bite similar to how bears have weaker bite forces than cats or canines at parity. I somehow wouldn't be surprised if a hyaenodont's bite were actually that powerful. However, entelodonts actually had room for jaw closing muscles more comparable to actual predators. Additionally, their jaw joints are more aligned with their tooth rows and their temporalis muscle was larger than the masseter, conditions that are seen in carnivores but not herbivores (where the jaw joint is well above the toothrow to work like a nutcracker, and a larger masseter than temporalis). So their bite would have been more comparable to a carnivores, even if they ate more plant matter than animal matter (which I'm sure varied within populations and species). www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2400970.pdf?casa_token=ikr58eU6DRAAAAAA:I8a64avJs4PlewqHjlqJNeXQ7fqAtknkG4DEss58pNHPmICdiBde6z-V-J-qnMf9b_dOb4bLcxF0doPzlaiaErLEWKFnrOLbAEwtMsIpYRa7pG3Ygyj1 |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Jul 31, 2024 9:38:55 GMT 5
Thoughts on edestus? How does it compare to modern sharks?
|
|
