Grizzly Bear vs. Quetzalcoatlus northropi

[Infinity Blade]

Giant azhdarchids have some of the longest heads of all terrestrial animals. Their beaks make up a huge portion of it too, so the bear is certainly not going to survive a stab. 

[theropod]

My doubts are whether the beak of Quetzalcoatlus was sturdy enough for delivering a fatal stab to large animals.

I can easily see the beak being a dangerous weapon, if it was reinforced like for example a woodpecker’s, but was it actually suitable for withstanding this kind of force (in that case, Azhdarchids would actually be very formidable animals), or was it too delicate and only suitable for stork-like preying on small animals? I don’t know, does anyone have information on that matter?

[creature386]

I don't know more than you, but as for now, the stork comparison seems to be acceptable:

The elongate skull positions the jaw tips close to feeding level, whilst the peculiar stiffness of the neck may have served to minimize the energy requirements to hold the head in feeding position. The length of the neck may have allowed azhdarchids to extend their feeding range into areas where they could otherwise not reach—such as the deeper waters of rivers or lakes. It is not inconceivable to imagine azhdarchids standing in shallow water or along riverbanks with open jaws suspended in the water column, snagging fish and other forms as they swam between the jaws or perhaps even collecting prey whilst walking across plains and woodlands. The straight nature of azhdarchid beak morphology suggests that they did not specialize in one food item and, as with storks, a vast range of small vertebrates may have been eaten. More work is needed before any of these hypotheses can be verified but, on a theoretical level at least, the latter idea seems most satisfactory.

www.markwitton.com/download/i/mark_dl/u/4009119796/4549073080/Witton%202007%20-%20Azhdarchids.pdf

[Reticulatus]

Do they have vertebrae from this animal? In the depictions I have seen the neck is somewhat thin, gravity can only do so much. This is a grizzly made up of thick muscle wrapped in fat and framed with dense heavy bones, not a grasshopper. Do you guys comprehend how much force it would take to impale this animal?

[Infinity Blade]

I honestly don't think you need that much force just to drive such a large weapon down the grizzly bear. The latter's muscle, fur, and fat will not save it from a beak some feet long.

Would be great if someone made another size comparison to emphasize the frame and weapon size discrepancy.

[Reticulatus]

Because a bear is a dense animal, I doubt the weight of quetzacoatlus head alone bearing down on the grizzly would be sufficient to kill it with out application of additional force.

[Infinity Blade]

Gravity alone is not going to be driving that head down. The neck will too, particularly powerful or not, it will add force. Again, I would consider the pterosaur's huge weapon also making up for that.


Apparently Hatzegopteryx had a short, robust neck at the least, and I would probably most definitely back it over this bear.

[creature386]

Apr 3, 2014 5:23:20 GMT 5 Reticulatus said:

Do they have vertebrae from this animal?

Yes, we do:

Pterosaurs as a whole are most often thought to have been shorebird-like piscivores, with some imagined as insectivores or durophagores [24]. Azhdarchid anatomy has been difficult to interpret (as evidenced by [38,39]), and it was not until relatively complete specimens of the Javelina Formation form Quetzalcoatlus were discovered that paleoecological interpretations could be made [2]. The first proposed hypothesis of azhdarchid habits - prompted by the stiff, hyper-elongate neck and large size of Quetzalcoatlus combined with the sedimentology of the Javelina Formation - was that Quetzalcoatlus was a carrion feeder, using a vulture-like flight style and long neck to probe into dinosaur carcasses [2]. The traditional pterosaur diet of piscivory was ruled out due to the structure of the cervical vertebrae and large size of Quetzalcoatlus, and the small size of the streams that would have existed in the environment represented by the Javelina Formation [2].
[…]
Cervical vertebrae are perhaps the best known elements of azhdarchid anatomy, with detailed descriptions provided by Howse [57], Frey and Martill [58], Martill et al. [29], Pereda Suberbiola et al. [47], Godfrey and Currie [59] and Henderson and Peterson [60]. They are among the most common of azhdarchid remains, although complete cervical series are only known for Quetzalcoatlus sp., Zhejiangopterus and Phosphatodraco (Figure 4; [40,47,57]).

www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002271&representation=PDF

This is a detailed paper on azhdarchid morphology (it also asses Quetzalcoatlus in detail), I suggest reading to anyone who is interested in the paleobiology of these animals.

[theropod]

Infinity Blade: Sheer size of a weapon certainly doesn’t mean no driving force would be require to use it. Quite the contrary, the larger a weapon is, the more force is necessary to drive it into something. The necessary driving force is a result of the shape.

Reticulatus: You have to keep in mind that this is a fairly pointed beak that is more or less falling down from the height of a giraffe, additionally acellerated by the neck muscles. It could produce a respectable impact force, simply due to the speed it will move at.

[Vodmeister]

Could a quetzalcoaltus, with its enormous beak, eat a grizzly bear like a pelican eating a pigeon? That might sound weird, but I'm trying to imagine it.

[theropod]

OMG, I’ve watched the video. But there’s no way a pelican could do that to an animal comparable to its own body mass.

Now, Quetzalcoatlus actually seems to be a better analogy for a stork or heron than for a pelican. A long, pointed, straight beak for pinching and spearing, not swallowing.
However it has a relatively inflexible, straight neck, not an s-curved one like a bird. I think it would have utilised gravity to make its huge head strike down at prey.

[creature386]

In addition to your point, Quetzalcoatlus couldn't lift the grizzly with its beak for eating it like a pelican.

[theropod]

Yes, there’s no way it could lift such a heavy animal. But I also don’t think a pelican could lift another pelican. This only works with smaller animals.

[Infinity Blade]

Ausar the Vile: Sheer size of a weapon certainly doesn’t mean no driving force would be require to use it. Quite the contrary, the larger a weapon is, the more force is necessary to drive it into something. The necessary driving force is a result of the shape.

When did I say it did? I even stated the neck, particularly powerful or not, will help in driving the beak towards its quarry. The only thing I suggested was that its size was going to help make a strong neck null and void, which I was admittedly wrong about.

Given azhdarchids always had their heads upon their necks, I don't think their necks will have a problem using such a large weapon.

[pckts]

Bear is to durable IMO. If we are talking about a fight to the death, the bear is far heavier and more capable fighter. I would take a "Van" sized grizzly any day of the week. And I'm not sure what makes you guys think bears are not aggressive, they certainly are and will fight quite readily. Even if this creature could grab a hold of the grizzly what could it do after that, it would definitely not be strong enough to hold a bear which weighs 3 times its own size. I guess its only hope would be to impale the bear in a vital organ. Which could happen I'm sure. Still would favor the bear though.