|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 19, 2013 19:04:02 GMT 5
Smaller than a dire wolf. That doesn't mean it wasn't heavier than a grey wolf. Dromeosaurids in general weren't particularly bulky. That and they likely had hollow bones, reminiscent of birds. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 19:06:50 GMT 5
Those adults there are estimates for all appear to be in the 3-3.4m range, but this sample is much smaller than that of dire wolves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 19, 2013 20:18:29 GMT 5
Smaller than a dire wolf. That doesn't mean it wasn't heavier than a grey wolf. Dromeosaurids in general weren't particularly bulky. That and they likely had hollow bones, reminiscent of birds. Huh? Please, I'm really sick of this bones of paper stuff everyone says. Hollow bones are no weaker than regular bones. Added to the fact most people don't understand a hollow bone is NOT a bone with a big ass empty space inside of it like most believe. www.signsofcreation.com/images_definitivereply/bone.jpgA rat would be no heavier than a bird the same size. And bulk doesn't add on weight. Example cheetahs are on average larger than leopard despite the latter being far more bulky. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 22:01:24 GMT 5
What people have to understand is the difference between being pneumatic and being weak. Bones are always as strong as they have to be, including a big margin of safety.
Even tough their skeletons are hollow for a goot part, the bones of extant birds are still strong, no weaker than mammal bones. The latter aren't just solid cortex either, they too have medullae holding the bone marrow, which does little if anything to strenghten the bone. The only difference is that some bones in birds hold pneumatic cavities instead of marrow.
But I think what he might have wanted to say was simply that it would have had lower specific gravity and thus be been lighter per unit volume, which is correct.
The "likely" is misplaced, theropods (including birds) have hollow bones, that's a fact. The thickness of the cortical bone can of course vary. For example even the femur of T. rex is hollow, nobody would seriously deduce from that that it's weak (but I think here we can see the reson for different femur-diameters at simialr sizes, some are more hollow than others).
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 19, 2013 22:20:48 GMT 5
I never said hollow bones were weaker than regular bones...
Cheetahs are taller than leopards, yes, but that doesn't mean they are heavier. Leopards are heavier than cheetahs BECAUSE they are more bulky. Male leopards can get up to 200 pounds in weight, whereas male cheetahs only get up to around 160 pounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 19, 2013 22:38:12 GMT 5
Male leopards can get up to 200 pounds in weight, whereas male cheetahs only get up to around 160 pounds. Black Ice was talking about average. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 19, 2013 22:56:57 GMT 5
I never said hollow bones were weaker than regular bones... Cheetahs are taller than leopards, yes, but that doesn't mean they are heavier. Leopards are heavier than cheetahs BECAUSE they are more bulky. Male leopards can get up to 200 pounds in weight, whereas male cheetahs only get up to around 160 pounds. I don't know where you get your info from, but no. Cheetah are on average heavier than leopards at 150lbs to a leopards 130lbs. Leopards can get so much bigger because they don't burn extreme amounts of calories chasing prey at high speeds like cheetah do then only to get their prey taken from them half the time. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 19, 2013 23:06:44 GMT 5
Leopards are so small on whole-species average because they are very diverse and widespread, causing big intraspecific variation. The average size of a large population/subspecies would be a good deal higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 19, 2013 23:20:28 GMT 5
Leopards are so small on whole-species average because they are very diverse and widespread, causing big intraspecific variation. The average size of a large population/subspecies would be a good deal higher. Yet cheetah are almost extinct, so their size most likely isn't what it once was. And there are only three living species of cheetah. |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 19, 2013 23:23:21 GMT 5
Oh, ok.
Isn't it more widely accepted that cheetahs are more gracile because they are designed for speed rather than ambush? Not because they burn calories doing so? That is what I thought... Do you have any evidence that cheetahs are more gracile because they burn calories?
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 19, 2013 23:28:37 GMT 5
@gm
Being gracile does not mean you are light as paper compared to a more bulky person. I'm a slim guy yet I am stronger than most people bulkier than me yet also weigh around the same (180-190lbs). And I never said anything about cheetah being gracile because of calorie intake. I merely said with their hunting style they cannot afford to reach 200lbs in weight like leopards. Also you don't need written scientific sources for calorie burning limiting your weight because it should be common sense if you burn a ton of calories everyday doing rigorous excersise (like cheetah running 70mph in extreme bursts) then you obviously are gonna be burning fat and calories thus you will never really gain weight. Compared to leopard who in the same time frame ambush and quickly wrestle down prey which isn't as strenuous on the body as running at 70mph. Why do you think fat people exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 7:15:41 GMT 5
Could really go either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:23:59 GMT 5
Mismatch in favor of Deinonychus, it's now 100 kg
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 3, 2019 2:45:56 GMT 5
dromaeosauridae115
Here is the thread!
|
|
dromaeosauridae117
Junior Member Rank 1
Paleontology student. Biology, chemistry, geology enthusiast.
Posts: 52
|
Post by dromaeosauridae117 on Aug 3, 2019 3:18:21 GMT 5
dromaeosauridae115 Here is the thread! Got it now! Before creating a new thread, I'll check to see if it was already created.  |
|
