|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jan 12, 2014 17:25:04 GMT 5
I don't know if I should consider this impressive or not. In the one hand, it looks like I underestimated turtles a bit, in the other hand, outmaneuvering an a bit sleepy shark is not that impressive. Sleepy? Immune to pain? Unagressive?. Seriously after posting vids, I usually admire the ability of others to determine the internal states of animals. If only had this supreme gift. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 12, 2014 17:42:34 GMT 5
I think I sort of "get the point" now (they are able to catch faster sharks and thus catching Liopleurodon should be no problem, size is irrelevant as the main point is just that crocs can catch faster opponents).
I'll even go as far as change my opinion to a 50/50 on this one (I even only favored Liolpleurodon by a slight margin previously), but I still don't see the alligatoroid winning more often than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 12, 2014 17:58:56 GMT 5
I don't know if I should consider this impressive or not. In the one hand, it looks like I underestimated turtles a bit, in the other hand, outmaneuvering an a bit sleepy shark is not that impressive. Sleepy? Immune to pain? Unagressive?. Seriously after posting vids, I usually admire the ability of others to determine the internal states of animals. If only had this supreme gift. I don't know why you so much focus on that vid. That's a juvenile tiger shark which does not show the agression of its adults counterpart. Larger than this sea turtles are usual preys of adults Galeocerdo, Carcharodon. And that includes the massive leatherback. Are we going to appreciate the potency of an adult komodoensis on a mammal prey based on a juvenile example ? No. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jan 12, 2014 18:47:25 GMT 5
Sleepy? Immune to pain? Unagressive?. Seriously after posting vids, I usually admire the ability of others to determine the internal states of animals. If only had this supreme gift. I don't know why you so much focus on that vid. That's a juvenile tiger shark which does not show the agression of its adults counterpart. Larger than this sea turtles are usual preys of adults Galeocerdo, Carcharodon. And that includes the massive leatherback. Are we going to appreciate the potency of an adult komodoensis on a mammal prey based on a juvenile example ? No. Nope this just a general gripe I have with people being shown pretty decisive vids. E.g. I provided a video where a komomdo dragon incapacitates a grown buffalo cow in seconds. What follows was page after page after page of advanced buffalo psychoanalysis, excuses that are both factually wrong and absolutely ad hoc. Similarly when I show a turtle beating up a shark, advanced shark psychoanalysis is used in ways would make even television psychics envious, from inferring painlessness to sleepiness. Sure turtles are often prey: www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1mCH5yfHWUWhat the video demonstrates is how even a very slow swimmer like a turtle can land bites by having superior angular acceleration. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 12, 2014 19:12:08 GMT 5
I don't deny the skills of a turtle-like swimmer once it becomes agressive, only that this example involves a small juvenile and frankly more curious than agressive Galeocerdo. This makes it an interesting point for the contest, not a decisive one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jan 12, 2014 21:18:21 GMT 5
My last post sounded a bit too aggressive so I deleted it. I'll start over coherentsheafThe last thing I aim to do is psychoanalysis. Believe me I know how you feel (Its always the person more liked animal was sick, sleepy, injured etc) What I simply did was make an inference. To me the video was nothing special as the shark merely seemed to be doing the standard "bump and test" which is why I don't bother acknowledging what the turle did to a great extent. My point however was that being more mobile didn't stop faster smaller sharks (or even turtle for that matter lol) from becoming snacks to crocodile. If anything neither of those animals should even be on the menu if they were really vastly superior to a crocodile and its way of locomotion in water be it fight or flight. I honestly don't see a pliosaur killing an alligatoroid or crocodile of similar size. But that's probably just me. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 12, 2014 21:24:30 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Jan 13, 2014 4:54:24 GMT 5
As I said before, being less adapted to water didn't stop saltwater crocodile from catching and killing smaller more mobile sharks in the open ocean now does it? No, but I never claimed anything of the sort. The animal most mobile has the advantage in terms of manoeuvring into an advantageous position. Do you or do you not except this? If so, do you or do you not accept that it is Liopleurodon that would be the most manoeuvrable in this fight? If so, that is an undeniable advantage to Liopleurodon. That you can bring up examples of a less agile animal catching a more agile one only serves to show that being agile is not an automatic win. Don't put words in my mouth, see above. Unless we have a good idea of how many attacks are successful relative to how many are actually attempted, I wouldn't put much weight on the fact that predation does occur especially if we also don't know the circumstance. For all we know such attempts may be extremely common but only rarely successful. Whilst I understand your point, I would doubt Deinosuchus rugosus or Liopleurodon had bites comparable to large Tyrannosaurus specimens, given the latter completely dwarfs the others three-fold. Despite the jaw power of modern crocodilians they do not always kill in just a single bite, nor do sharks despite their dentition. Granted Deinosuchus would have had a significantly stronger bite force than these, but the point remains, a bite wouldn't be a guaranteed kill. Neither combatant is really built for causing large flesh wounds of the sort that are debilitating in a single bite, and so given D. rugosus probably had the weaker bite, and smaller teeth, it stands less chance of killing in a single bite than Liopleurodon does, and less chance of causing structural damage to bones and such too. Don't be ridiculous. If Liopleurodon makes the attempt first, the likelihood is that it will land the bite itself first. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jan 13, 2014 5:15:15 GMT 5
And the multiquoting begins...... curse my non computer owning situation. I quit sigh, SD you win if that's what you were going for. Not gonna even bother battling the multiquote thingy with my device. Won't work out well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2018 10:26:41 GMT 5
Seems like this can go either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 28, 2018 0:39:51 GMT 5
I still favour Liopluerodon, due to its IMO more impressive feeding apparatus.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:36:21 GMT 5
Deinosuchus in shallow water, Liopleurodon in deep water
|
|
all
Junior Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by all on Sept 27, 2019 23:11:27 GMT 5
When i was a kid the accepted size of Deinocuchus was 15 meters then it was 10.5 now its 8 would someone finally give me the right size here. If deinosuchus was indeed only 8 meters long that would mean it was not much larger than modern crocodile. the largest Saltwater crocodile (rosary crocodile, marine crocodile or whatever you wish to call it this days) was cough in 1957 in Queensland Australia it was 8.5 meters long and with 1700 kg weight. That would put it at about same size as deinosuchus. The saltwater crocodile has bite force of 7700 lbs per square inch. Deinosuchus had bite force of 4047 lbs - 23111 lbs per square inch according to Wikipedia. If larger DR being about 8 meters would put it at the higher range of bite force. Wikipedia gives length of deinosuchus at 10.5 meters. an 8 meter crocodile having bite force of over 23000 lbs per square inch i find that hard to believe if very large saltwater crock is about 6.3 meters and bite force of 7700 lbs per square inch. the difference in length is between deinonychus and crock that has bite force of 7700 lbs is less than 2 meters. while bite force is more than 3 fold. once again i find that hard to believe. 10.5 meters seems more reasonable which makes deinonychus longer there fore heavier than the estimate given here. 1700 kg is actually very little for 8 meter crock. usually 7 meter crock weighs at about 2000 kg. which would put deinosuchus at 3 metric tones not 2.5 that might seem like not lots of difference but in a fight like this one it can make quite significant difference. i actually believe that deinosuchus was larger still. I doubt it was 15 meters but if estimates of its bite force are correct then it had to be larger than 8 meters probably larger then 10.5 meters.
In a fight liopleurodon would be more nimble as it was said. It was also a powerful swimmer. Deinonychus on the other hand would have strong armor. slight weight advantage and bite force of 23111 lbs per square inch. tyrannosaurus rex had bite force of 12800 lbs per square inch.
Liopleurodon does have a chance in this fight but deinosuchus generally wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by poseidon on Jul 24, 2021 20:47:57 GMT 5
I'd favor liopleurodon, but if it was deinosuchus Riograndensis, then lio would get rekted
|
|
