|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Dec 24, 2013 7:21:44 GMT 5
Nope, i think this is unlikely. The kinetic properties of the snake skull probably help them absorb impacts where other skulls would break since they are less flexible. Further making quick nipping bites seems very ineffective compared to cutting through large quantities of tissue, unless you inject poison. I think it is unlikely that they lost the plesiomorphic dentition in favor of such a method. I see, well I doubt they really just had those menacing jaws just for show. Must have employed some type of biting when predating or fighting. Even today's toothless and beaked birds employ bites when fighting. Sure but it was probably a secondary tool in subduing prey or intraspecific fights. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Dec 24, 2013 7:27:37 GMT 5
I see, well I doubt they really just had those menacing jaws just for show. Must have employed some type of biting when predating or fighting. Even today's toothless and beaked birds employ bites when fighting. Sure but it was probably a secondary tool in subduing prey or intraspecific fights. Fair enough I suppose. I doubt Utahraptor had that same problem though given its size. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 30, 2013 5:11:26 GMT 5
This might be irrelevant and I may be missing something, but I'm confused on something.
I know Ursus arctos from Carnivora wrote a post that I guess debunks the supposed bite force figures of 4100-8200 Newtons for Deinonychus, but I forgot if he addressed the supposed fact that a Tenontosaurus bone had deep tooth marks made by a Deinonychus.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 3, 2014 18:18:21 GMT 5
He said when he posted the numbers, he warned of comparing them to other animals, but he seems to be very well aware of the tooth marks, as Ursus showed screenshots from the study, where they were mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 3, 2014 19:29:49 GMT 5
So could it really bite that hard?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 3, 2014 19:41:44 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 3, 2014 20:24:16 GMT 5
if I recall correctly Coherentsheaf posted data suggesting that Deinonychus mandible was comparable to captive comodo dragons in bending strenght. In that case it's very unlikely it had the bite force of an alligator...
It's teeth (small, narrow and sharp) and jaws (rather gracile and lightly constructed) are not built for delivering a crushing bite. Dromaeosaurines have more robust skulls tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 5, 2019 0:32:52 GMT 5
I'm not sure if this topic has any merit existing. Estimates for the body mass of Utahraptor well exceed those for Archaeotherium and there is no reason to assume the entelodont would be able to prevail against a much larger, well armed predator. Surely the creator of this thread was aware of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 5, 2019 0:52:10 GMT 5
Well there was one thing I had in mind - apparently Utahraptor is shorter than it once was, and thus not as heavy. I believe dinocat illustrated that on the last page of the current Carnivora's Smilodon populator vs Utahraptor thread. Maybe should have said so in the OP.
However, if that is incorrect, I will delete these comments and post something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 5, 2019 0:57:12 GMT 5
...Okay, did dinocat at least provide some methodology to arrive at such a conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 5, 2019 1:01:56 GMT 5
From what I could find on the internet, it was either Utahraptor's proportions and dimensions being smaller than thought (I think from Hartman on DeviantArt) or just Paul's 300 kg estimate.
If you think I should delete this and post something else instead, just let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 5, 2019 1:11:45 GMT 5
I just checked dinocat's post and uhhh... ->First he brings up some BYU video that says Utahraptor was up to 14 feet long (which is ~4.27 meters) and takes this at face value (except that I don't think any of us are sure how this was obtained). Next he shows us some video from the Utahraptor Project with a CGI Utahraptor reconstruction...and takes that at face value too as if it actually iNdIcAtEs UtAhRaPtOr WaS sMaLlEr ThAn OnCe ThOuGhT. For whatever it's worth, at the risk of making the same essential mistake as using some random post from CF as a source, Franoys did a GDI estimate of Utahraptor, and it came out at around 470 kg at 5.1 meters ( link). As he explains in the comments, he used Scott Hartman's skeletal of Utahraptor for lateral view, while for dorsal view he used a dorsal reconstruction of the skull of Dromaeosaurus and Deinonychus (from Greg Paul?) for the postcranial skeleton ( link). I'd appreciate if anyone can fact check me, but it looks like roughly 500 kg, as is often cited, is tenable. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 5, 2019 1:17:12 GMT 5
My IP is blocked, so I actually couldn't see it. That was only what I could find about Utahraptor being under 500 kg
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 5, 2019 1:37:03 GMT 5
I just moved all the post from the Archaeotherium vs Utahraptor thread here, and will change Archaeotherium to Shaochilong on the thread
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 21, 2020 1:18:06 GMT 5
This sounds interesting...
|
|
