|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 12, 2015 19:46:37 GMT 5
The orca would have a big advantage, its mobility and manoeuvrability and its stamina. But would it dare to engage such a huge, armored and powerful opponent ?
On a physical basis (body mass, endurance, biting lethality), Purussaurus just appears more fearsome.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Apr 17, 2015 0:59:37 GMT 5
I'm not convinced that Purussaurus reached 12m, that recent paper uses 45-90cm long juvenile broad-snouted caimans as basis for their equations, one can argue that the equations break down when extrapolated to something as big as Purussaurus because the end result suggests it had a head-body length ratio of 1:8.8 despite its tail being only 1/3 of total length, if it had normal alligatoroid proportions it'll be 16.5m long with a head-body length ratio of 1:12, on top of the ridiculous resulting proportions they mistakenly used maximum skull length as DCL and then we have their choice of proxy, the broad-snouted caiman has a much shorter snout that Purussaurus (54% vs 70%) all factors that play into their estimate being an overestimate.
On top of that, the realization that 140cm really is greatest (reconstructed?) length for UFAC 1403 and that it has been associated with the mandible UFAC 1180 is important for the size of Purussaurus, it means that the DCL of UFAC 1403 is not 134cm as claimed by Moreno-Bernal (2007) but 122cm and by consequence the estimated DCL for the DGM 527-R mandible is not 145cm but 134cm which suggest a total length of 9.7m and a weight of 6.3 metric tons using Farlow et al. (2005) equations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 3:56:39 GMT 5
The orca has the advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 1:22:39 GMT 5
I favor the Purussaurus. It's bigger, more durable, and has a far deadlier bite than the killer whale, and I think it can bite through the whale's blubber and win everywhere, even very deep water.
|
|
