|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 28, 2019 18:03:08 GMT 5
No. I was nowhere near as smart then as I am now. Ankylosaurus is not surmounting a three-fold size advantage. Well you may not have been, but I think you still made some valid points, as did others, about this comparison  As you said earlier, Ankylosaurus, despite its size disadvantage, is in the perfect spot to still cripple a leg with its club. Not to mention Rex will need a LOT of bites to kill it, and it is very hard to flip over EDIT: Duly ninja'd |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 28, 2019 18:17:51 GMT 5
But it’s really not. From the looks of it, the total length of Ankylosaurus’ tail doesn’t give it enough reach to hit the hindlimbs of Tyrannosaurus without the rest of its body being uncomfortably close to/underneath the theropod. At which point the T. rex is free to use its jaws and, well, it’s three-fold greater weight to its advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 28, 2019 18:24:36 GMT 5
But it’s really not. From the looks of it, the total length of Ankylosaurus’ tail doesn’t give it enough reach to hit the hindlimbs of Tyrannosaurus without the rest of its body being uncomfortably close to/underneath the theropod. At which point the T. rex is free to use its jaws and, well, it’s three-fold greater weight to its advantage. 2 things I noticed: 1: I don't know if it's just me, but the tail on that Ankylosaurus skeleton seems strangely short. Other skeletals, like Paul's, do a longer tail. This may be more accurate based on relatives  2: Rex is still going to have to get very close if it wants to seriously injure the ankylosaur, and that gives the latter the perfect chance to club the theropod on the head or leg. NOTE TO OTHERS: The higher estimates for Ankylosaurus are considered valid nowadays. We are just debating what may happen with the old, smaller ones |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 28, 2019 18:43:07 GMT 5
I don't know if any of the skeletal creators are in the fault of making a tail too long or too short, but in Greg Paul's Euoplocephalus skeletal and a skeletal reconstruction by GetAwayTrike-> (which is kind of like the skeletal used in SpinoInWonderland's old comparison), the whole length of the tail seems to be less than half of the animal's total body length, taking the rest of the body's length from the proximal end of the tail to just behind the head or above the neck. I think they're fine. What, and a hypothetical ankylosaurid a third of the tyrannosaur's size wouldn't have to? If we somehow ended up with a scenario where both are uncannily close to each other such that the ankylosaur could then strike the theropod's hindlimbs (which I think is highly unlikely), then we have that, but, as I said before, we also end up with its three times heavier opponent being able to bear its weight and weapons on it. Who do you honestly think is more likely to come off better in that scenario? As for strikes to the head, it looks like an ankylosaur outweighed by three fold would either need to raise its tail up substantially to actually hit the head (and I don't know how much dorsiflexion ankylosaurid tails were capable of) or requires the tyrannosaur to lower its head down (presumably to bite). The latter could conceivably happen, but when the tyrannosaur weighs three times as much it honestly doesn't need to do that. I'm aware, but you're the one who claimed that ankylosaurs could defeat predators three times their size, which is what I (and theropod) were responding to. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 28, 2019 18:48:04 GMT 5
1: I don't know if any of the skeletal creators are in the fault of making a tail too long or too short, but in Greg Paul's Euoplocephalus skeletal and a skeletal reconstruction by GetAwayTrike-> (which is kind of like the skeletal used in SpinoInWonderland's old comparison), the whole length of the tail seems to be less than half of the animal's total body length, taking the rest of the body's length from the proximal end of the tail to just behind the head or above the neck. I think they're fine. 2:What, and a hypothetical ankylosaurid a third of the tyrannosaur's size wouldn't have to? If we somehow ended up with a scenario where both are uncannily close to each other such that the ankylosaur could then strike the theropod's hindlimbs (which I think is highly unlikely), then we have that, but, as I said before, we also end up with its three times heavier opponent being able to bear its weight and weapons on it. Who do you honestly think is more likely to come off better in that scenario? 3:As for strikes to the head, it looks like an ankylosaur outweighed by three fold would either need to raise its tail up substantially to actually hit the head (and I don't know how much dorsiflexion ankylosaurid tails were capable of) or requires the tyrannosaur to lower its head down (presumably to bite). The latter could conceivably happen, but when the tyrannosaur weighs three times as much it honestly doesn't need to do that. 4:I'm aware, but you're the one who claimed that ankylosaurs could defeat predators three times their size, which is what I (and theropod) were responding to. 1: So which exactly do you think is fine? I cannot tell solely from the post. 2: I think that depends on how fast Anky gets in a hit. Sooner, the better. 3: If Rex uses its head to flip the ankylosaur, as is so often depicted, it is in striking range 4: What I meant by other people was those who had not seen the backstory |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 28, 2019 18:52:43 GMT 5
I think both are probably accurate.
I never even said that would happen, so...
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 28, 2019 20:31:36 GMT 5
1 :I think both are probably accurate. 1:I never even said that would happen, so... 1: So this may depend on tail length of the particular specimen 2: Just extrapolation from books and media |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Aug 29, 2019 14:13:59 GMT 5
No. I was nowhere near as smart then as I am now. Ankylosaurus is not surmounting a three-fold size advantage. Well you may not have been, but I think you still made some valid points, as did others, about this comparison As you said earlier, Ankylosaurus, despite its size disadvantage, is in the perfect spot to still cripple a leg with its club. Not to mention Rex will need a LOT of bites to kill it, and it is very hard to flip over EDIT: Duly ninja'd I would not say 'a LOT of bites' because T-rex arguably packed strongest jaw power among land-dwellers, sheer size of its jaw notwithstanding. I would rather say that T-rex's jaw power is underwhelming in the movies; each bite from a T-rex should amount to something even in a fight with another large animal. It wouldn't surprise me if a T-rex could kill even a fully grown elephant with a few bites (2 - 3). As for the contest, I can see the possibility of Ankylosaurus thwarting predatory efforts in many situations but I do believe that T-rex had the necessary characteristics (size; strength; weaponry; intelligence) to kill one, if really necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 29, 2019 15:44:20 GMT 5
Well you may not have been, but I think you still made some valid points, as did others, about this comparison As you said earlier, Ankylosaurus, despite its size disadvantage, is in the perfect spot to still cripple a leg with its club. Not to mention Rex will need a LOT of bites to kill it, and it is very hard to flip over EDIT: Duly ninja'd 1: I would not say 'a LOT of bites' because T-rex arguably packed strongest jaw power among land-dwellers, sheer size of its jaw notwithstanding. 2: I would rather say that T-rex's jaw power is underwhelming in the movies; each bite from a T-rex should amount to something even in a fight with another large animal. It wouldn't surprise me if a T-rex could kill even a fully grown elephant with a few bites (2 - 3). 3:As for the contest, I can see the possibility of Ankylosaurus thwarting predatory efforts in many situations but I do believe that T-rex had the necessary characteristics (size; strength; weaponry; intelligence) to kill one, if really necessary. 1: Maybe I should have been a bit more clear about the context under which I was saying that: See, it was actually notwithstanding the bite force of T rex, rather the fact that the head is both extremely solid and hard to get to, due to the good turning power of the ankylosaur, and that the armor is very hard to get a mouthgrip on. T rex definitely has the force, but I don't know if it has the technique 2: Agreed. However, as I said earlier, it's not Rex lacking weapons, rather technique 3: Which estimate of Ankylosaurus do you refer to when you say that? Only the higher ones are considered nowadays |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Sept 5, 2019 9:46:37 GMT 5
Ankylosaurus takes this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Nov 7, 2021 20:30:21 GMT 5
Don't know how reliable this video is but if the test was done well, it may indicate that ankylosaurus armor was far from fool proof:
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Nov 7, 2021 22:24:45 GMT 5
That is scary...
To be fair, Borealopelta is much smaller relative to Acrocanthosaurus (~1.3 tonnes vs ~6.2 tonnes) than an Ankylosaurus could be to Tyrannosaurus. But then again, Tyrannosaurus is also much better adapted to biting through armor than the allosaur. Also just goes to show that a theropod with a slicing bite can still do horrific damage to hard tissue (like a shark biting the edges of a turtle shell).
Really neat video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Nov 8, 2021 0:35:15 GMT 5
Bite tests often also do tend to be unreasonably optimistic. For instance, you would think based on simulated bites vidoes, that crocodiles could regularly crush a buffalo's head in one bite, and while possible it doesn't happen that often.
Mainly though the video shows that the idea an adult ankylosaurus was invunerable to predation is probably bs, an idea that is actually somewhat common given that in practically every documentary that depcis trex on anky violence, the anky wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Nov 18, 2021 13:30:37 GMT 5
|
|
