|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 31, 2019 13:55:01 GMT 5
I think some of the more underrated are the Indian and false gharial, especially the latter since it is actually a generalist, but both are often viewed as just weak fish eaters.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 15, 2019 11:53:58 GMT 5
In my opinion, ankylosaurs are somewhat underrated due to their slow appearance (as in, people on the old Carnivora actually thought a Giganotosaurus could kill an Ankylosaurus with 1 bite to the head because it would be too slow to retaliate, but what they fail to realize is that Giganotosaurus does not have the weaponry to kill ankylosaurs)
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 2, 2019 2:01:32 GMT 5
I find one of the most overrated animals (at least on here, Carnivora, and Discord) to be the American mastodon.
It is claimed to beat Triceratops and Mapusaurus when it in fact has inferior weapons (sharp, straight horns and serrated teeth>curved tusks) and doesn't really have a realistic way to win, due to inwardly curved tusks.
(anyone who wants to debate me on this, we can do it in the respective threads)
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 0:30:16 GMT 5
I have seen some people claim 24m, 130 tonnes Livyatans scaling up from theropod1’s Livyatan estimates to the McLain size estimation of a sperm whale (24m) and claiming it was a giant orca essentially, with abilities of tool use due to its large brain (lol). Essentially what Grey was saying I definitely see more awesomebro minsinformed calculations of Livyatan in the future, I wouldn’t be surprised if they scales it to 30m claiming it was “how big sperm whales in the past used to be” (referring to dubious whaling records). Then I also notice them “””mistaking”” 10m as a hard maximum for the shark. Livyatan is overhyped in order to make it more “awesome” than the shark such as what happened with JP3 Spinosaurus killing the T Rex to show how powerful it was. Unfortunately a very large amount of people thinking a Megalodon vs Livyatan is the same as a Great White vs Orca. Yes there are definitely Megalodon fanboys citing the 20m 103 tonnes size figure, but in general the public and online Livyatan definitely is more overhyped. I’m not a hundred percent sure about real paleontologists thoughts on this... Perhaps this is more appropriate for this thread. Anyway, I see very little of what you describe, rather the opposite. Of course there are certainly Livyatan fanboys out there who make up BS about it, but what gives you the idea that there were more of those than of meg fanboys? The 103 t figure, albeit overly liberal and based on an unreliable methodology, is not fanboyism, it was simply a speculative calculation to extrapolate a plausible maximum size for the species. Sadly it has become very widely misreported as if it had actually been intended as a reliable size estimate, but that’s not so much fanboyism as it is sensationalism and inability to read scientific texts properly. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 25, 2019 0:41:45 GMT 5
Theropod, how heavy do you expect a potential 20 m meg to be already ?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 25, 2019 0:46:24 GMT 5
It's possible that he saw the main problem with the estimated length (20.3 m) rather than with the bulk. Regardless of whether Megalodon did actually grow that large, that specific estimate based on the specific specimen studied by Gottfried is pretty much indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 0:57:11 GMT 5
What do you mean "already", I’ve posted these figures in accessible form for everyone to see on the megalodon profile months ago. Depending on the equation somewhere between 78 and 99 t, mean of 89 t. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/attachment/download/765I wasn’t referring so much to the weight estimate at that length (even the weight implied by Gottfried et al.’s equation does not suggest an absurdly bulky shark, albeit more robust than would be expected), but rather the methodological un-soundness of a length figure that was isometrically scaled from a single tooth, from a single white shark, that happened to have the largest reported length in their whole sample, and a very doubtful one at that, and seemingly the proportionately shortest teeth. Which of course Gottfried et al. acknowledged, since they considered the white shark too unreliable to even include in their regression, but of course almost everyone else who cited the study soundly ignored that. Now based on what we know today, the largest megalodons reaching 19-21 m is quite plausible. But back then, the readiness to accept such a figure, even when the work it was originally from clearly gives reasons why it should be treated as unreliable, is certainly somewhat sensationalistic. More than that (and despite the fact that it already bases on the largest tooth held in surveyed museum collections to this day) this was frequently touted as not actually the maximum size of the species, based on rumoured larger teeth (often in slant length rather than the appropriate measurement). Even more assumptions that…let’s call them overly enthusiastic people…were all too ready to accept. But let’s go with a presumption of innocence here, and refrain from throwing around the F-word all the time. EDIT: creature ninja’d me, that was spot on. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Oct 25, 2019 3:42:30 GMT 5
I see this in online paleo communities pretty (very) often. They don't like the shark at all due to its oversaturation and hype so bomb all its stats to nothing cause they hate how overrated it is, (thereby underrating it) and overrate the Livyatan. These Livyatan fanboys remind me of the Russian Mosasaurus fanboys, tons of calculations and extrapolations that are mathematically correct but are not realistic at all and misrepresentations of the sizes. A megalodon fanboy gets pretty well shrugged off and well recognized whereas the conflation with Livyatan and orcas makes it more easy to slip under the radar and overall its just well accepted. They also tend to underrate some well known animals too like Utahraptor and Giganotosaurus. Its stupid in my opinion, if you hate it so much then don't counter it by making more fanboy stuff. I remember them using some of your older work (size chart) saying a 20m Livy would beat a 10m (apparently maximum lmao) C. megalodon. Doesn't matter anyways I don't tend to correct them, I just pretend to agree with their gigantic ultraintelligent orca Livyatans, its a less hassle than giving a debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 25, 2019 14:43:24 GMT 5
I'm quite agreed with prehistorican. The hype of meg (or any other famous critter) produces the inverse effect with some people, hence why some debates are heated. Some people simply forget what the vision of a white shark-like animal the size of a tractor trailer would represent.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 25, 2019 15:14:26 GMT 5
So the logic here is that Livyatan is hyped because meg is hyped? That doesn’t explain this focus on how hyped Livyatan alledgedly is.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 11, 2019 1:12:00 GMT 5
1: Which is more more overrated, Lion or Tiger? 2: Also, can you list your underrated animals? We ought to take this to this thread; probably a bit more appropriate Anyhow...... 1: Both. Each side has fanboys, fanboys, fanboys, fanboys, and some more fanboys with a side of fanboys. I just can't pick. 2: They include but are not limited to -Carnotaurus -Allosaurids -Komodo dragons -Crocodilians on land -Spinosaurids -Dunkleosteus -Titanoboa (yes, really. Some people think it was a predator of sardine size fish and could not constrict, plus it's bigger than many think) -Sauropods -Most herbivorous animals around today -Leopards -Canines, ESPECIALLY in comparison with felines |
|
smedz
Junior Member
Posts: 195 
|
Post by smedz on Nov 11, 2019 2:23:51 GMT 5
Overrated Animals
1. Dholes- I love dholes, but they aren't chasing off elephants or even hunting healthy tigers.
2. Wolves- Thank the wolfaboos for this one. Those people think these canids are invincible.
3. Tigers- Favorite animal, but they're not hunting fully grown elephants in the wild.
4. Leopards- They are not killing lions or tigers or actually any larger carnivore in a fight people. Don't believe everything you read.
5. Apes- People act like that the higher intelligence of the great apes makes them more invincible, but in reality animals are driven by instinct in fights, not brains. And I'm pretty sure a gorilla is not as strong as a lion or tiger.
Underrated
1. Tigers- Overrated in some points, but I think underrated as many will call the tiger a coward when in fact they will fight other animals when they have to. Take the fight between a crocodile and Machli for example.
2. Crocodilians- I said this once and I'll say it again, anyone who says these animals are slow on land have never seen how fast they move on land.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 11, 2019 2:45:50 GMT 5
Underrated 1. Tigers- Overrated in some points, but I think underrated as many will call the tiger a coward when in fact they will fight other animals when they have to. Take the fight between a crocodile and Machli for example. 2. Crocodilians- I said this once and I'll say it again, anyone who says these animals are slow on land have never seen how fast they move on land. 1: In case you didn't know, Machil and that crocodile are considered to have been about the same size - it was ~3 meters, not 4.2. Not to mention that crocodile was probably sick given it's hides' elasticity. So I agree tigers are not cowards but that account's nowhere close to as impressive as the media makes it out to be - I'd in fact say it's a fairly average or even unimpressive representation of killing ability since it's killing a similar sized and likely ill animal that was out of its element. 2: Agreed hands down. Big cat fanatics especially most definitely need to familiarize themselves with the true capabilities of crocodiles on land. |
|
smedz
Junior Member
Posts: 195
|
Post by smedz on Nov 11, 2019 3:03:15 GMT 5
dinosauria101
I didn't know that, but I do still favor the tiger on land against a mugger. But against a saltie, it'd stand little chance. Check this out, found it in a pdf called SUNDARBAN TIGER (Panthera tigris tigris) - A NEW PREY
SPECIES OF ESTUARINE CROCODILE (Crocodylus porosus)
AT SUNDARBAN TIGER RESERVE, INDIA
"There are
instances of fights between crocodile and tiger in
Ranathambhore Tiger Reserve of India over prey,
but in the end the tiger won the battle."
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 11, 2019 3:30:50 GMT 5
^Yeah, pretty good account. And I agree, Saltie wins on land and water
|
|
