|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 18, 2014 6:57:08 GMT 5
I'm not up for nor suited for an ontogeny debate, but even if it was, I still don't see why young Pachycephalosaurus couldn't have relied more on the horns at that age, and relied more on the domes as they matured, assuming Stygimoloch=Pachycephalosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 19, 2014 3:03:03 GMT 5
Well, I just learned that many iguanodontians had rather serrated beaks, meaning the keratin sheath would have have been like that too. "Many iguanodontians have serrated edges to their premaxillae, with the serrations being formed by distinct bony denticles. This suggests that, in life, the rhamphothecal covering to the premaxillae was serrated too, and you’ll note that some artists have depicted their iguanodontians with beaks of this form."SourceAnd, yes, some reconstructions do show them with serrated, rather sharp looking beaks. luisvrey.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/maia.jpgqilong.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/aerosatopic-hadrosaurs.jpgTheir specialization in chewing can also mean a fairly high bite force. Could it be that hadrosaurs and alike ornithopods could bite predators? |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 19, 2014 7:55:28 GMT 5
Ornithopods and similar groups of animals did not really possess very distinctive weaponry. I have theorized on Carnivora that their hind legs would have in fact made very good weapons; they seemed to have been quite powerful and would have probably been able to cripple many different kinds of moderately-sized predators. I don't really support the idea of "boxing hadrosaurs"; it is really too quirky.
Sure it did. Without a doubt, diplodocoid tails would have made excellent weapons to cripple small carnivores such as allosaurs and ceratosaurs. They were built much like whips and could have easily made short work of a small group of allosaurus' through sheer bone breaking. And that is to say that its neck could not do the same; sauropod necks were quite thick and could have been used similarly to large bludgeons. Interestingly, spinodontosaurus did tell me on Topix that the neck vertebrae of many species of sauropods likely could not handle this kind of stress. But still, both features could have been surely used as very efficient and crippling weapons. The tails seem to have been the primary weapons of many groups of large sauropods, sat hey were particularly whip-like and would have made short work of considerably smaller predators
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 19, 2014 16:11:25 GMT 5
Ornithopods and similar groups of animals did not really possess very distinctive weaponry. I have theorized on Carnivora that their hind legs would have in fact made very good weapons; they seemed to have been quite powerful and would have probably been able to cripple many different kinds of moderately-sized predators. I don't really support the idea of "boxing hadrosaurs"; it is really too quirky. Sure it did. Without a doubt, diplodocoid tails would have made excellent weapons to cripple small carnivores such as allosaurs and ceratosaurs. They were built much like whips and could have easily made short work of a small group of allosaurus' through sheer bone breaking. And that is to say that its neck could not do the same; sauropod necks were quite thick and could have been used similarly to large bludgeons. Interestingly, spinodontosaurus did tell me on Topix that the neck vertebrae of many species of sauropods likely could not handle this kind of stress. But still, both features could have been surely used as very efficient and crippling weapons. The tails seem to have been the primary weapons of many groups of large sauropods, sat hey were particularly whip-like and would have made short work of considerably smaller predators Hey, how was talking about Godzilla? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 19, 2014 17:12:52 GMT 5
Well, I just learned that many iguanodontians had rather serrated beaks, meaning the keratin sheath would have have been like that too. "Many iguanodontians have serrated edges to their premaxillae, with the serrations being formed by distinct bony denticles. This suggests that, in life, the rhamphothecal covering to the premaxillae was serrated too, and you’ll note that some artists have depicted their iguanodontians with beaks of this form."SourceAnd, yes, some reconstructions do show them with serrated, rather sharp looking beaks. luisvrey.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/maia.jpgqilong.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/aerosatopic-hadrosaurs.jpgTheir specialization in chewing can also mean a fairly high bite force. Could it be that hadrosaurs and alike ornithopods could bite predators? Good for ripping off vegetation, but a sharp somewhat "serrated" keratinous beak could also cause nasty wounds. The question is, could they also open their mouths sufficiently wide to bite a large attacker deeply? |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 19, 2014 18:12:59 GMT 5
I don't know; as far as I know, the lot of ornithopod beaks are rounded, not sharply hooked like those of ceratopsians. Whether or not they were sharply-edged seems to be dietary. I doubt that such a creature would risk trying to bite a large predator, especially when their hind legs would have made decent weapons. But I hardly know anything about ornithopods to begin with
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 19, 2014 18:52:51 GMT 5
Honestly, I doubt that the serrations were used against predators. If the serrations were used for slicing through meat, but if it's beak generally wasn't adapted at all for that, some small denticles won't help. I agree with the idea of them being used for vegetation (so I agree with Godzilla).
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 19, 2014 19:20:32 GMT 5
Well ceratopsian beaks could have been quite crippling for small carnivores like dromeosaurids, but I have theorized that they would have been ineffective against large predators.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 19, 2014 21:29:04 GMT 5
I think that depends on the ornithopod we are talking about. They are quite variable, from deep, hooked beaks in basal (hypsilophodont and iguanodont-grade) ornithopods to flat, wide, duckbill-like ones in hadrosaurs.
In some extant herbivores, for example horses and camels, the incisors (being analogous in structure and purpose to the beaks of ornithopods) can be used as weapons. For a smaller attacker, that could be very dangerous (but it’s true that there would be a multitude of other options that would be too).
But I think ornithopod jaws and beaks simply lack the necessary size and gape, not that much the strenght or sharpness, to cause a life-threatening injury on a larger animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 20, 2014 0:13:47 GMT 5
Well, I just learned that many iguanodontians had rather serrated beaks, meaning the keratin sheath would have have been like that too. "Many iguanodontians have serrated edges to their premaxillae, with the serrations being formed by distinct bony denticles. This suggests that, in life, the rhamphothecal covering to the premaxillae was serrated too, and you’ll note that some artists have depicted their iguanodontians with beaks of this form."SourceAnd, yes, some reconstructions do show them with serrated, rather sharp looking beaks. luisvrey.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/maia.jpgqilong.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/aerosatopic-hadrosaurs.jpgTheir specialization in chewing can also mean a fairly high bite force. Could it be that hadrosaurs and alike ornithopods could bite predators? Good for ripping off vegetation, but a sharp somewhat "serrated" keratinous beak could also cause nasty wounds. The question is, could they also open their mouths sufficiently wide to bite a large attacker deeply? I imagine them sort of nipping at predators. It's obviously not going to compare to that of something like a T.rex, but still not something you'd want to get bitten by. Btw, Godzillasaurus, I think ceratopsian beaks could have two functions in combat, biting and pecking. Edit: I also must say I wouldn't be surprised if this is false. I'm just putting in something I find intriguing. |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 20, 2014 5:57:31 GMT 5
Pecking is possible, but they were hooked, not straight. But still, ceratopsian beaks were likely almost dysfunctional against large animals, as there would not be a large enough gape present anyway, and they were first and foremost designed for feeding (presumably on particularly tough vegetation).
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 20, 2014 6:06:44 GMT 5
By pecking, I mean downward strikes with them, like a terror bird.
Re gape: it's not an issue if you choose not to use it for biting in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 21, 2014 18:04:34 GMT 5
Ceratopsians are thought to have had a huge bite force, owing to their expanded cheek and temporal bones. Thats primarily a specialization for clipping off vegetation and feeding, but if they could bite a body part (eg. a limb), they would literally act like a boltcutter (think of snapping turtles!).
I don´t know how far the jaw joint could open, but owing to their huge skulls I think their bites could be a seriosu thread even to big predators (similar to hippos). Of course in those taxa that had them, the horns would be more important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Mar 21, 2014 19:59:41 GMT 5
Yea, some of the more slender parts of a predator's body would be immensely vulnerable in this regard. Smaller and more gracile predators like dromeosaurids would be very vulnerable to limb bites.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 21, 2014 22:59:01 GMT 5
Dromaeosaurids would be vulnerable to more than just limb bites. Ramming that beak into their chests with sufficient force could cause horrific injuries.
|
|
