|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 1, 2015 7:58:47 GMT 5
The raptorex's height and gape would make it easier to bite the wolf's neck from upwards than the canid to grab the dinosaur. It would be difficult for the wolf to bite back if it's been grabbed on the neck from the top. The dinosaur would have all the leverage. It can push all its weight downwards into pinning the wolf. not too certain on the accuracy of this picture, but it should give a good idea of their respective heights it doesn't appear either has a real height advantage here
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 1, 2015 15:00:59 GMT 5
I don't know how reliable the prehistoric-wildlife picture is. Somehow the legs of Canis dirus appear to be very long and I don't think it was exactly as tall as a gray wolf.
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Feb 1, 2015 19:21:57 GMT 5
The wolf's neck would be covered as the wolf would steady attempt to reach up to grab the throat.
The dinosaurs not so tall it'd be any significant advantage
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 1, 2015 20:32:04 GMT 5
I don't know how reliable the prehistoric-wildlife picture is. Somehow the legs of Canis dirus appear to be very long and I don't think it was exactly as tall as a gray wolf. yeah, the dire wolf one bugged me the most, perhaps when i get my tablet back from its repairs i can make better comparisons lol
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Feb 2, 2015 0:39:44 GMT 5
The wolf's neck would be covered as the wolf would steady attempt to reach up to grab the throat. The dinosaurs not so tall it'd be any significant advantage the wolf's neck isn't more covered than the dinosaur's.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 2, 2015 2:08:47 GMT 5
I don't know how reliable the prehistoric-wildlife picture is. Somehow the legs of Canis dirus appear to be very long and I don't think it was exactly as tall as a gray wolf. yeah, the dire wolf one bugged me the most, perhaps when i get my tablet back from its repairs i can make better comparisons lol OK, I admit that I should have better looked up the skeletons before criticizing: The image doesn't seem that far off.
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 3, 2015 23:37:59 GMT 5
well, in that case, we can see the Tyrannosaur has no real height advantage here.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 4, 2015 2:03:58 GMT 5
Raptorex is smaller than the wolf, I couldn't get the publication but the freely available supplementary material is informative enough.
The skull is 30cm long, the complete length of the vertebral series from the first cervical to the last sacral is 126cm, total snout to last sacral length then is 156cm which suggest a total body length of 3.1m
Femur length is 33.8cm, tibia length is 39.7cm, 4th metatarsal length is 26.6cm and the height of the ilium above the acetabulum is 8.2cm, adding them up we get 108cm tall at the hips with the limbs straight which is unnatural, actual standing height was definitely less than 1m.
This measurements suggest that the animal was larger but not taller than the depiction in the size chart shared by carnosaur but...
The way they estimated the weight is a little funny, they found 4 taxa of similar size that already had a mass estimate and got an average from those estimates. They could have used Christiansen and Fariña (2004) equation, which would have given them an estimate of 72kg but the circumference of the femur reaffirms that this animal is long legged, it is 87mm which suggest a mass of only 46kg using Campione et al (2014) equation.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 4, 2015 3:08:15 GMT 5
Well, I think 3 m is not in conflict with Carnosaur's size scale. Your mass sounds pretty good, when comparing them, it is clear that a wolf would be heavier than a theropod that is about as tall as itself. Maybe I should not list the dinosaurs you have downsized, but the debates you ended because with such a weight disadvantage, I frankly don't see a lot of hope for the dinosaur. I won't classify it as a mismatch, but an 80%+ victory for the wolf sounds realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 4, 2015 4:00:23 GMT 5
This isn't really a contest.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 4, 2015 7:10:07 GMT 5
creature386The text agrees yes but the depiction has a very small body and short tail, from the looks of it the whole head-body length of that depiction is not much longer than the actual length of the cervical to sacral series alone.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 12, 2015 1:05:50 GMT 5
RE Bite force: I tried to calculate the Raptorex's bite force by scaling down Jane with the bite fore given in this paper→ to Raptorex's mass in the OP (I used Jane's mass in the Hutchinson et al. paper). 3210N*(65kg/639kg)2/3≈700N Looks like the dire wolf wins in the category bite force. Even a 50.8 kg wolf has a greater bite force than that:
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1563/619
A cheetah has a proportionately higher bite force than a leopard in this study. How can that be the case?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 12, 2015 1:40:03 GMT 5
I don't know, these studies can be pretty strange. In my bite force thread I have tables where they have shown ridiculously high bite force results for the cheetah, too.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 12, 2015 2:37:33 GMT 5
Ok, I've been really confused on carnivoran bite forces lately.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 12, 2015 7:03:09 GMT 5
That's easy to answer, from their supplementary material.
I don't really get the last sentence, if the equations underestimate the mass of small headed taxa that is obviously going to give them an overestimated BFQ when compared to a taxon that has a proportionally bigger head and is thus has its mass either spot on or overestimated in mass by the equations.
For example, look at the lion, do you really believe that they had the skull of an almost 300kg specimen?
The cheetah is estimated at 29.5kg, but its basal length corresponds to an 18cm skull (based on comparisons with skull photos in Krausman and Morales, 2005), compared to AfriCat's data (I'm sure you've seen the chart) it'll weight 33kg, the leopard on the other hand, I don't have photos of the skull from below to estimate a greatest length so I'll have to content with a direct zygomatic width comparison, it is estimated at 43kg but AfriCat's data suggest it was actually 26kg.
Regarding Canis dirus, the zygomatic width and the basal length of the skull they used is pretty much record sized, suggesting an skull at least 31cm long in greatest length, over 5% larger than average, perhaps 70kg in weight.
|
|