rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 9, 2019 5:58:43 GMT 5
who would you favor without parity? The jaguar, with a mass advantage of 20 percent or more Any more size advantage to the Epicyon makes this one decisive, on the other hand i favor the epicyon in a regular fight [where both are real life sizes] but if they were both the same size [at parity] i would back the jaguar as it is pound for pound stronger than a lion or a tiger so if size was even it would beat the dog. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 9, 2019 9:00:37 GMT 5
The jaguar, with a mass advantage of 20 percent or more Any more size advantage to the Epicyon makes this one decisive, on the other hand i favor the epicyon in a regular fight [where both are real life sizes] but if they were both the same size [at parity] i would back the jaguar as it is pound for pound stronger than a lion or a tiger so if size was even it would beat the dog. Studies? |
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 9, 2019 9:01:00 GMT 5
Too tired to look through the whole thread. What's the evidence of the Epicyon's grappling ability? Did it have claws or more flexible forelimbs than modern canines?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 9, 2019 10:11:04 GMT 5
If I read correctly, its grappling was somewhere in between modern canines and bears (in other words, so-so)
|
|
|
|
Post by elosha11 on Jun 9, 2019 13:44:13 GMT 5
^But does anyone know what that means more specifically? For instance, how does it compare to a big cat like the jaguar in grappling. Many would argue, for instance, that as good as cats are at grappling, bears are better. But big cats are also indisputedly better grapplers than modern canines and by all rights are elite grapplers for the animal world. So what type of advantage if any does either the jag or the epicyon have in grappling over the other animal?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 9, 2019 13:51:54 GMT 5
I'd think the jaguar would probably have the more flexible forelimbs of the 2
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 9, 2019 16:11:52 GMT 5
i favor the epicyon in a regular fight [where both are real life sizes] but if they were both the same size [at parity] i would back the jaguar as it is pound for pound stronger than a lion or a tiger so if size was even it would beat the dog. Studies? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 9, 2019 16:15:56 GMT 5
Not a study. There are barely even any linked.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 9, 2019 18:41:40 GMT 5
Thank you creature for pointing that out! rock that is not a study. That's just a link to a site that simply mentions it, seemingly with nothing to back it up |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 9, 2019 19:11:55 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by marsupial on Jun 10, 2019 5:28:00 GMT 5
Well i'm not sure who would win, but if Epicyon was truly as big as what rock said it would most likely win.
But on parity, i think it will be a close match. First of all, jaguars have a pretty strong bite being able to kill caymans with only one. After that jaguars are big cats meaning that they are good grapplers but i'm not sure how that compares with epicyon,so 50/50.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 10, 2019 16:34:50 GMT 5
Well i'm not sure who would win, but if Epicyon was truly as big as what rock said it would most likely win. But on parity, i think it will be a close match. First of all, jaguars have a pretty strong bite being able to kill caymans with only one. After that jaguars are big cats meaning that they are good grapplers but i'm not sure how that compares with epicyon,so 50/50. good choice , i can see if you go 50/50 this is a very close match anyhow according to the flordia museam it was around the size of a grizzly bear www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/epicyon-haydeni/ |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 10, 2019 17:22:58 GMT 5
Well i'm not sure who would win, but if Epicyon was truly as big as what rock said it would most likely win. But on parity, i think it will be a close match. First of all, jaguars have a pretty strong bite being able to kill caymans with only one. After that jaguars are big cats meaning that they are good grapplers but i'm not sure how that compares with epicyon,so 50/50. good choice , i can see if you go 50/50 this is a very close match anyhow according to the flordia museam it was around the size of a grizzly bear www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/florida-vertebrate-fossils/species/epicyon-haydeni/That is blatantly false |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 10, 2019 21:23:44 GMT 5
no it is not , this information comes from people who study these fossils , i doubt anyone on this fourm knows more then archologists who study this for a living |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 10, 2019 22:00:45 GMT 5
no it is not , this information comes from people who study these fossils , i doubt anyone on this fourm knows more then archologists who study this for a living Why? Do you think blaze got the measurements wrong because he did not measure them himself? Well, he listed the sources, so we can check. As for the authority of scientists, we definitely should not underestimate it like many cranks do, but it can be overestimated as well. Scientists are ultimately workers, not living encyclopedias. My paleontology class was taught by a PhD paleontologist who did not know that Ankylosaurus and Tyrannosaurus co-existed (her specialty are invertebrates such as ostracods rather than vertebrates, for those who are interested). This is because the education system is designed on teaching skills rather than a list of facts you can look up on Wikipedia (though there are things you absolutely should memorize). With that in mind, let's look at the actual source of the grizzly-size claim (as the museum did not measure/calculate it themselves): digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1588/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B243-0002.pdf?sequence=1As the title says, this is a paper about the systematic of borophaginae. Normally, a scientist would not make claims without evidence. However, scientists can make errors, too. The size of E. haydeni takes up precisely one sentence in a PDF file with 390 pages and has very little to do with the paper's main topic and purpose. Neither is there any citation given. It is perfectly possible that the author put effort and research in getting that figure right and simply didn't show it. Or the author thought that, since E. haydeni was big and majestic, it was appropriate to tangentially give a rough guess of its size. Now, you could argue that peer reviewers exist to weed out such inaccuracies. And that's true. However, given the focus this sentence got in such a large paper, it is possible that it flew under the radar or that it was not important enough to E-Mail Wang et al. how they got that figure. For this reason, Wang et al.'s paper (and the museum) is probably not a "blatantly false" source. But no perfect one either. It would be fine on its own, but blaze is better. He has shown his measurements and his methodology. I would argue that blaze is more reliable than even Sorkin who devoted significantly more page space to Epicyon's size than Wang et al. did. Blaze at least used a variety of allometric equations found in the literature while Sorkin used simple isometric scaling. |
|
