Bengal Tiger vs Postosuchus

[creature386]

May 29, 2014 19:17:37 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

Not at all, think about tyrannosaurids and carcharodontosaurids, which had almost useless forearms.

Almost useless for carcharodontosaurids is a stretch. While I believe they were not very useful in a fight (but this is arguable), they were useful for hunting. Example Acrocanthosaurus:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S0952836905006989/abstract
Sure, it had to use them in combination with the jaws, but they could be very useful for overpowering and killing a caught animal.

[theropod]

Godzillasaurus

"Probably to hold the prey" (the relevant part) does not pass anything off as a fact–a word like "definitely" or "certainly" would have been used."Probably" is fully appropriate–robusticity in predator forelimbs is often a result of a role in prey restraint.
The part about the claw was likely phrased a bit awkwardly, but that’s not important, and, none of us having read the paper in question, is hard to judge.

Sauropsids and synapsids often use their forelimbs in very different manners, especially for predatory purposes. That does by no means render those of one group more useful than those of the other. Evolution favoured relatively large skulls in most large predatory reptiles when compared to similar-sized mammals–likely because of developmental reasons–that is why there seems to be decreased emphasis on the forelimbs. But, when looking at it objectively, many predatory reptiles nevertheless have very useful limbs that play a notable role in hunting and/or fighting.

Theropods in particular have brought forth some of the most massive and robust forelimbs and forelimb claws of all predators, notwithstandign the fact that those were very different from a tiger’s or a bear’s.

[Godzillasaurus]

May 29, 2014 19:24:33 GMT 5 creature386 said:

May 29, 2014 19:17:37 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

Not at all, think about tyrannosaurids and carcharodontosaurids, which had almost useless forearms.

Almost useless for carcharodontosaurids is a stretch. While I believe they were not very useful in a fight (but this is arguable), they were useful for hunting. Example Acrocanthosaurus:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S0952836905006989/abstract
Sure, it had to use them in combination with the jaws, but they could be very useful for overpowering and killing a caught animal.

But would that correlate with the creature's arm length? They were not particularly long in the regard that they would have been useful for grappling:

Sauropsids and synapsids often use their forelimbs in very different manners, especially for predatory purposes. That does by no means render those of one group more useful than those of the other. Evolution favoured relatively large skulls in most large predatory reptiles when compared to similar-sized mammals–likely because of developmental reasons–that is why there seems to be decreased emphasis on the forelimbs. But, when looking at it objectively, many predatory reptiles nevertheless have very useful limbs that play a notable role in hunting and/or fighting.

But in any case, would this make postosuchus' forelimbs the determining factor in this fight? Surely they would allow for greater mobility when attacking the tiger, but postosuchus' jaws, just like acrocanthosaurus (relevant because it was just brought up) would have utilized its large jaws in killing for the most part, and probably quite similarly given the morphology of the two (recurved serrated teeth, deepened but yet rather narrow snout, and pneumatic build). IF the forearms could be used beneficially, then so-be-it, but I wouldn't hold my breath that they would be the most effective to use, given the crurotarsian's jaws alone.

Theropods in particular have brought forth some of the most massive and robust forelimbs and forelimb claws of all predators, notwithstandign the fact that those were very different from a tiger’s or a bear’s.

But in many genera, the forelimbs, if they could even be used predatorily, would have been sufficient by comparison in terms of physiology, and were most definitely sufficient morphologically. Bears and cats have robust forelimbs for the very reason of grappling so that bites can be positioned correctly, but theropods (and in this case, postosuchus) would not have required it as much given the fact that they were homodont and possessed rather large jaws

[Infinity Blade]

May 29, 2014 19:17:37 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

1.) Saying theropod arms had little to no usefulness is likely a bit of a stretch. The jaws are certainly the main tool, but the arms will definitely be of use when holding onto a prey item. Just look at the arms of megalosauroids or allosaurids. Again, mostly just grappling hooks, but "little to no usefulness"?

Depending on the length of the arms, the usefulness will vary. Allosaurids and spinosaurids had rather long arms (at least relatively in the first example), and their claws were quite well designed for gripping. But is that any indication that all large theropods would have been dependent on their forearms? Not at all, think about tyrannosaurids and carcharodontosaurids, which had almost useless forearms. In any case however, the jaws would be fine alone as long as the creature in question was well adapted for tackling that certain prey item and if their jaws were positioned correctly.

3.) Sort of playing devil's advocate here, but if you favor cats over animals (particularly canines) at parity due to the former's forelimb grappling capabilities and the latter's lack of it, what then, is so special about Postosuchus?

When did I ever favor the tiger? I was simply stating the fact that the tiger's ability to grapple was superior to that of postosuchus (probably any archosaur really, at least in terms of forearms). I in fact favor postosuchus here, but mainly because its jaws alone would have been able to deal excessive amounts of damage to any prey item, whereas the tiger is designed to kill with specific bites to the throat (all cats kill this way, although jaguars will often bite the skull in some cases, but it is the same idea)

1.) So it seems to me that you're basically telling me that some theropods had forelimbs that were nice for gripping, then that others didn't, thus not all large theropods could use their forelimbs. Where exactly did I suggest I disagreed with this notion again?

2.) I meant you favoring felids over canines at parity, not Postosuchus. I know full well who you favor in this fight.

Playing devil's advocate here again due to my curiosities, but think of it this way. Felids are very well adapted to deal with animals who only use their heads as weapons. With its grappling ability, it can better control its opponent here. While Postosuchus might not necessarily have been much of a precision biter, it needs to get a bite in before it gets grappled. How would you explain this?

[Godzillasaurus]

Playing devil's advocate here again due to my curiosities, but think of it this way. Felids are very well adapted to deal with animals who only use their heads as weapons. With its grappling ability, it can better control its opponent here. While Postosuchus might not necessarily have been much of a precision biter, it needs to get a bite in before it gets grappled. How would you explain this?

A tiger would be hunting something through ambush, and will try to avoid an actual face-to-face fight. This is a fight, not one animal hunting the other.

And you must remember that the animals hunted by tigers that utilize their head region as their primary line of weaponry (such as deer and buffalo) do not use their jaws, they use their actual heads and would only really be very effective at wounding the tiger if their horns (or antlers) made contact perfectly; they would not have worked well laterally, and it is possible that they wouldn't even be able to touch the tiger if it were already biting the creature underneath its neck (to attack the throat). Basically, once the tiger grabs a hold of them, they are pretty much done for unless they can completely overpower the tiger (like in the case of gaur). Postosuchus seemed rather agile and quick on land, at least in comparison to modern crocodilians, and as such it seems that a couple of good bites to the tiger would be enough to cripple it (also note that jaws can also be easier to manipulate than horns/antlers, which are in a fixed position unless they become damaged)

Although, I am unsure if the postosuchus would be trying to always bite the tiger without good positioning, considering how its jaws were quite pneumatic and did not seem largely robust, quite similar to allosaurs as opposed to the more typical tyrannosaur analogy. Still, they were much better adapted for such biting than the tiger's maw, but still the tiger was much more advanced (especially in terms of limbs) and intelligent

[creature386]

May 29, 2014 23:07:52 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

May 29, 2014 19:24:33 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Almost useless for carcharodontosaurids is a stretch. While I believe they were not very useful in a fight (but this is arguable), they were useful for hunting. Example Acrocanthosaurus:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S0952836905006989/abstract
Sure, it had to use them in combination with the jaws, but they could be very useful for overpowering and killing a caught animal.

But would that correlate with the creature's arm length? They were not particularly long in the regard that they would have been useful for grappling:

Sauropsids and synapsids often use their forelimbs in very different manners, especially for predatory purposes. That does by no means render those of one group more useful than those of the other. Evolution favoured relatively large skulls in most large predatory reptiles when compared to similar-sized mammals–likely because of developmental reasons–that is why there seems to be decreased emphasis on the forelimbs. But, when looking at it objectively, many predatory reptiles nevertheless have very useful limbs that play a notable role in hunting and/or fighting.

But in any case, would this make postosuchus' forelimbs the determining factor in this fight? Surely they would allow for greater mobility when attacking the tiger, but postosuchus' jaws, just like acrocanthosaurus (relevant because it was just brought up) would have utilized its large jaws in killing for the most part, and probably quite similarly given the morphology of the two (recurved serrated teeth, deepened but yet rather narrow snout, and pneumatic build). IF the forearms could be used beneficially, then so-be-it, but I wouldn't hold my breath that they would be the most effective to use, given the crurotarsian's jaws alone.

Doesn't really disagree with my post. I acknowledge that the arms were short, but I didn't say they would have been used for paw swiping a different theropod, I said the forelimbs are not useless, due to being a second predation tool:

The mouth of Acrocanthosaurus is much further forward (Currie & Carpenter, 2000: fig. 1) and therefore much more likely to have made first contact with prey. Undoubtedly, the forelimbs were used during prey capture. They are the stockiest known theropod forelimbs outside Spinosauroidea, and their huge muscle scars suggest that they were heavily muscled and therefore made to be used in activity involving forces of high magnitude, such as wrestling with large, violently struggling prey. Therefore, after having initially seized prey orally, the forelimbs were probably used next. […] Acrocanthosaurus could not have manually grasped prey by reaching forward or to the side. It could only manually grasp prey over which it was already standing, so that the prey was positioned beneath its pectoral region. This positioning could probably have been achieved by flexing its neck after initially grasping the prey with its mouth. It is most plausible that Acrocanthosaurus made first contact with prey orally, rather than manually.

(From the full text of the paper of which I have shown the abstract)

As for Postosuchus, my post was a little nitpick and not meant to be really relevant. It was really only about if the forelimbs of carcharodontosaurids can be called useless. I believe that Postosuchus isn't comparable to it anyway because there is a huge difference in terms of arm length in relation to the rest of the body. Given that we don't know if Postosuchus arms were as heavily muscled as the ones of Acrocanthosaurus (maybe we know, but I have no paper, same with other morphological aspects which have to be compared, like range), we cannot compare them anyway, unless we can judge the morphology of the forelimbs from the one of the jaws or the rest of the body.

[jhg]

I think Postosuchus.

[Deleted]

The tiger wins in my opinion.

[dinosauria101]

I favor the Postosuchus, it's got a far deadlier bite and is more durable