Kaprosuchus vs Quinkana

[Deleted]

vs

[Deleted]

I think the Quinkana takes this, it looks more sturdy and heavyset.

[Grey]

Kaprosuchus appears to be a tad smaller than Quikana so.

Striking to recall Australia 55 000 years was inhabited by Quinkana, Megalania and Thylacoleo, like if Australia wasn't metal enough in wildlife.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2023 5:37:30 GMT 5 Grey said:

Kaprosuchus appears to be a tad smaller than Quikana so.

Striking to recall Australia 55 000 years was inhabited by Quinkana, Megalania and Thylacoleo, like if Australia wasn't metal enough in wildlife.

Thanks for posting!

The largest Quinkana remains are fragmentary and there is skepticism if Quinkana was really terrestrial. Therefore, I am not sure how this will play out.

[jhg]

Nope, Quinkana as far as I’m aware was definitely terrestrial.
At any rate, you’d need a small species of Quinkana or this would be a mismatch beyond mismatch.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2023 10:01:47 GMT 5 jhg said:

Nope, Quinkana as far as I’m aware was definitely terrestrial.
At any rate, you’d need a small species of Quinkana or this would be a mismatch beyond mismatch.

[jhg]

I don’t trust some random guy’s tweet over books.

[Deleted]

jhg

The genus has been argued amongst paleontologists to be entirely terrestrial or semi-aquatic with no definitive consensus. Academic analysis cites comparative morphologies as indicators of Quinkana's habitation to be terrestrial, but others argue that most specimens were discovered near known sources of water.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinkana?scrlybrkr=cc760181

So there is indeed “skepticism if Quinkana was really terrestrial”.

[Deleted]

At any rate, you’d need a small species of Quinkana or this would be a mismatch beyond mismatch.

However, I completely agree with this though. Should have used a larger Crocodylian.