Both on a field 100 m apart, bloodlusted
The biggest mammoth outweighs the biggest T-rex by like 4-8 tons and it could protect itself with its tusks I guess. Could potentially charge and knock the T-rex over, no?
>I highly doubt it
because bull elephants are agressive as fuck and some of their tusks can grow to large sizes
(the biggest is 3.50.m)
>The biggest mammoth outweighs the biggest T-rex
so does some african elephants
I'd bet on the T-Rex, just because it's a predator evolved to prey on things at least close to the size of a mammoth, and mammoths never had to deal with predators the size of a T-rex, or even in the same league.
Of course, temperature, oxygen content of the air, and a bunch of other minor factors would come into play, and I doubt it'd be anything like certain. But my money would be on the T-Rex.
Maybe something like 65-35.
Paleoloxodon namadicus is much bigger.
Kill yourselves you fucking douches.
the problem is T-Rex is basically a lizard. Rex would have completely unpolluted, unthinking cunning, and not suffer from the petty trappings of higher-thinking mammalian bodies and brains. i don't think Rex would ever give up :[
>T.rex is basically a lizard
t rex's hunted animals with a compatible size to a large rhino with 3 pointy horns and a bony display crest. there built to deal with large animals with pointy things on their heads.
T-Rex did not risk dying when it hunted though, if it could prevent it. Now it's an all out fight. Also, aren't a Triceratop's horns mostly for show? I heard their horns if used for ramming could potentially get shoved back into their skull/brain.
triceratops was closer to elephant size than to rhino.
>I heard their horns if used for ramming could potentially get shoved back into their skull/brain.
their brain is about the size of a peanut and is wrapped in bone about three to five inches thick. There's no possible way a horn would hit it.
"So far, no one has found direct evidence of a Tyrannosaurus versus Triceratops battle. A healed bite wound on a Triceratops skeleton or an injured Tyrannosaurus bone corresponding to damage that could have only been made by a horn would provide paleontologists with a sign that these dinosaurs actually fought."
>dozens of T. rex tooth marks appear on a Triceratops sp. pelvis...
>at the Titans of the Past exhibition, I could view the sharp teeth marks of a T. rex indented in a hipbone fossil of a Triceratops. >Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: http://www.asianscientist.com/2013/12/features/treacherous-titans-bone-crushing-dinosaurs-mammals-science-center-singapore-2013/
the Smithsonian dinosaur blog is bullshit.
also, they're talking specifically about fighting, not just eating.
there are thousands of examples of T. rex eating Triceratops.
there's only a couple examples of them fighting, where both survive the fight.
the author is not a paleontologist though, or they'd know the first Trike ever described survived a fight with a T. rex.
>There is evidence that Tyrannosaurus did have aggressive head-on encounters with Triceratops, based on partially healed tyrannosaur tooth marks on a Triceratops brow horn and squamosal; the bitten horn is also broken, with new bone growth after the break. Which animal was the aggressor is not known.
>just because it's a predator evolved to prey on things at least close to the size of a mammoth, and mammoths never had to deal with predators the size of a T-rex, or even in the same league.
Except other mammoths.
Those fuckers are HUGE. Head on, T-rex is toast.
there are actually differences in the size, shape and anatomy of the brain in modern reptiles as compared to birds.
very large differences in fact.
of the two types, Tyrannosaurus had what we call a "reptilian" brain. No noticeable forebrain enlargement not associated with olfaction. Also an overall brain mass to body weight ratio that's much closer to an alligator than an albatross.
>theropods confirmed to be bigger than that
that chart is actual sizes of known fossils. It even includes the ID's and locations of those fossils in case anyone wants to go measure them.
These aren't average theropods either. These are the largest known examples of each animal.
As absurd as these kinds of thought experiments are, the smart money would probably be on the mammoth.
I'm going to let you look at this pic for a second and see if you can figure out your mistake by yourself.
height in a bipedal animal depends greatly on posture. If someone says rex stood over 20' tall they're using an erect posture that is now considered unlikely.
but since total height varies by posture, it's easier to use a height measurement that doesn't change. Hip height is the measure on Tyrannosaurus that doesn't change with posture.
Standing hip height of the largest known T. rex is just over 12 feet. As the chart we're discussing shows.
>trex would go unconscious
Dude do you even fucking dinosaurs? Dinosaurs had the best respiratory systems of any animal that ever lived. They could live in almost any atmosphere the Earth has ever had since life began.
i don't think anyone mentioned this, i tried to catch up on the thread but skimmed some of the pointless arguing -- we can easily mammoths behaved similar to modern elephants. they are clever and wary, even when aggressive -- they would threaten with tusks, charge, try to do some damage, then back off. they would keep their tusks squarely facing the opponent. as a warm-blooded mammal with a relatively high metabolism, they could continue in this manner for a long time, frustrating or tiring a predator and possibly damaging it with charges enough to take the fight.
on the other hand, we cannot *easily* surmise anything about t-rex. theories abound including a theory that they were warm-blooded. were they like birds of prey? fast, ambush predators striking without warning so there was barely even a fight? were they active and tenacious, attacking again and again until their prey was tired out and then coming in for the kill? or did they tire easily? did they stupidly go all-out in a frontal assault regardless of the prey's defensive capabilities? or were they cat-like and wary, backing away from prey that put up a fight? honestly, no one knows. they may have been idiots and run straight into the tusks. they may have been clever and done things we could never know about like whipping with their tail to stun prey (ever see steve irwin when he got too close to a komodo dragon? whipped him with the tail and left quite a welt.)
so until the fight is on pay-per-view i dunno if t-rex is rhonda rousey or conor mcgregor.
>he needs a helmet and suit to live in space
While elephant trunks are exceptionally powerful considering they have a fuckton of muscles used to simply move the thing in a certain direction, I dunno if it could snap the neck of a predator as bug as a T. rex.
Hey guys. I think we're all missing an important fact here. The Tyrannosaurus is actually believed to be a scavenger, so all that predatory instinct yall are talking about is only half right at best. It's legs are more designed for long distance walking rather than running, so it may not be able to charge with much force. One advantage it does have however, is the immense jaw strength, but the woolie's fur may negate that in they key points of battle.
>Those fuckers are HUGE.
...yet still smaller than the largest T-rexes, albeit by a relativeley small margin. The largest land predator to live at the same time as wooly mammoths would be bears, the largest of which (which were continents away) weren't even half the size of a big T-rex.
another point to keep in mind is predators are often smaller than their prey, especially with dinosaurs.
T. rex regularly preyed on animals >50% larger than mammoths by weight, and at least equal to its own size. Often enough its prey was actually larger than it was.
>not the largest predator to ever stalk the earth
Bipedal or quadrupedal?
Sail or hump?
currently looking bipedal, but we need more fossils to say. Unfortunately the Kem Kem Beds which are chock full of Spinosaurus remains mostly preserve random piles of bones from all different dinosaurs and other critters present. No unequivocal articulated remains to date.
Regarding the hump/sail, it's clear that the neural spines were heavily vascularized and made of cancellous tissue without significant periosteum. This structure is also found in Stegosaurus plates as well as osteoderms from a number of dinosaurs including Ceratosaurus. It's not usually interpreted as being muscle attachment or fat deposits. When we encounter that type of bone it's usually covered with horn or skin. Not conclusive proof or anything, but perhaps indicative of a sail rather than a hump.
>When we encounter that type of bone it's usually covered with horn or skin.
It's also really common on bones that have been eaten and passed through the digestive tract. Stomach acid tends to remove the periosteum and expose the cancellous bone beneath.
presumably the neural spines of Spinosaurus weren't eaten and shit out though. Any theropod that ate those would choke to death.
Another alternative is abrasion of the periosteum by sand, wind or water. That's pretty unlikely as well though. It usually just strips off parts of the periosteum that are exposed to the elements, so you'd get a neural spine that's half cancellous surface and half smooth bone.
carnivorous dinosaurs didn't digest bones completely. Dinoshit full of bones isn't exactly rare.
also a lot of times the bones we find digested were still in the dinosaur when they died.
you've got a preservation bias going, most modern carnivores don't eat big bones and have no problem digesting small ones.
Gigantic theropods on the other hand regularly ate huge bones, just like your mother does. This is because they ate huge animals, they had to.
so it's probably just a matter of prey size. Gigantic theropods clearly digested bone, but the bones were large enough that digestion didn't do much except strip the surface off.
Almost certainly tyrannosaurus would win.
Despite what some may believe, woolly mammoths are actually smaller than modern African bull elephants; though there are other larger species of mammoths than the animal actually named "woolly".
Plus, tyrannosaurus had:
1. An extremely powerful set of jaws
One bite from those, and it would pretty much be the end.
2. A terrifyingly wide gap
This allowed its jaws to have very little limitations on where or how much it can chomp.
3. Massive serrated, bone smashing teeth
4. And very accurate eyes.
Precision matters a lot.
Pretty much, yeah.
Only the beak area of triceratops skull was considered weak. The rest was very solid, which goes especially for its horns.
Elephant skull are also very robust, but its tusks are basically specialized teeth that though are strong were clearly not suited to withstand a massive tyrannosaurus biting on to them and yanking them off.
Triceratops horns were also designed to spear deep into ribcages, while elephants were just design to shove rival elephants or batter smaller animals such as lions or tigers (which can kill these much smaller predators).
Highly dependant on situation.
Some animals in each species have more fighting experience, they have different ages and propably even slightly different fighting styles.
Each animal could basically incapicate the other with one first hit.
>tfw a mammoth could kill a T-Rex
>tfw humans killed mammoths
who /Apexpredator/ here?
A tusk is designed to show other elephants but wouldn't withstand a T-rex' bite? I'm not good at math, but a 9 ton animal pushing against another 9 ton animal surely creates more force than a T-rex' bite, no?
'd say one could probably take a woolly mammoth. I assumed it was the largest mammoth, but break a tusk? How great was a T-rex' balance? It's not like the mammoth would stand still.
From yahoo answers
>in 2005 in india there was a case of a female matriarch that ate a human. the elephant did die cause they cant digest meat and when she died they cut her open and found meat in her stomach.
The Simpsons was right.
>biped with tail
Mammoth hair would make it more difficult to bite. If the Trex were trying to positing itself behind the mammoth, the mammoth could use the momentum of turning to face the Trex and deliver a powerful tusk attack. Break some of the rexs bones, which are less dense than the mammoths, and that big chicken is fucked.
Mammoth decisive victory.
Elephants are amongst the smartest animals on the planet, literal top 10
The smartest dinosaur is still dumber than the dumbest bird, the mammoth is going to be a fucking tactical genius compared to peanutbrain rex
The T-Rex would win because of his jaw so massive (5000 pounds of pressure, it can take a mammoth leg easy). But a bad hit at full running speed by the wolly could cripple the t rex to death. This motherfucka like all bipede is extremy fragile with his big legs.
Remember Achille ?
>T-rex would win
>T-rex bites the charging tusks, might crush and break one
>even if that happens the charging mammoth still has a momentum and will knock the T-rex down
Could the T-rex survive such a fall without injuries? How easily could it get back up?
Mammoth is heavier and more stable on 4 legs than t-rex on 2 legs. The tusks give it more reach too. Tusks can take hits, deflect strikes, etc. T-rex has to attack with his head which is also a weak point. I'm assuming one big slam from a tusk to his face would end it outright. If t-rex falls over once he's probably getting stomped to death and it's all over. Basically for t-rex to win it'd have to get past the tusks and deal a pretty lethal blow to the mammoth, probably biting a main artery, and still make it out of range of the tusks. I could also see t-rex biting on and having an ankle dragged under the mammoth's foot. If t-rex loses one leg to a stomp or tusk strike, he's out too. It just doesn't seem likely that t-rex could win this.
Also don't mammoth's travel in herd's?
That's ironic, because most paleontologists agree that tyrannosaur legs were proportionately long. Their legs were also well adapted for maneuverability, swiftness and agility due to their proportionately longer tibias and metatarsals than most other large theropods.
The only thing that truly made tyrannosaurus arguably slow is its size and robust mass.
But there are even parts of their femurs that show strong signs pf having massive leg muscle attachments from their thighs to the base of their tails. This of course mean that tyrannosaurus was likely faster than we think.
Tyrannosaurus average speed estimate is 15-20 mph for a short distance. The extra strong legs may boost that up to 20-25 mph for at least a short amount of time, which is pretty fast for such a massive animal.
>Tyrannosaurus average speed estimate is 15-20 mph for a short distance. The extra strong legs may boost that up to 20-25 mph for at least a short amount of time
I think most modern estimates range from 25-40 mph.
estimates below 20 mph are usually from people that don't think rex could run. Whether that's true or not is unknown.
It is hard to say. Based on tyrannosaurus legs and tail which I explained on, it would appear that tyrannosaurus was more agile than most large dinosaurs.
There are even some studies that show tyrannosaurus could move its tail quite quickly, which would give it more control of its balance and increase swiftness and agility.
Just look at a similar size bipedal dinosaur called acrocanthrosaurus. All of the main bones (femur, tibia and metatarsals) in its legs were found and was cleanly a relatively short animal with legs that were also proportionately thin.
Its tail was also likely not as fast, due to the enlarged neorospine body crest that would have encased it more in flesh and thus making it more stiff.
But tyrannosaurus broadness, size and weight are also factor, but factors that suggest it was probably slower than it should have otherwise been.
It does beg the question as to why there aren't spinoffs for every period of earth's history.
To be fair, I don't expect Cambrian Park would have much in the way of heartstopping terror.
As I mentioned here >>2028600 tyrannosaurus legs and tail show it to be relatively fast and agile, and much more so than most theropods.
If we look at the pubic bone, it is clearly broader, thicker and with a greater raise on the top than that of most theropods and seem to hoist more leg muscle due to these factors. This means potentially faster.
The main problem with tyrannosaurus in terms of speed was the simple fact that it is also the thickest, broadest and most robust large bipedal animal to have eaten meat we have found. This makes it likely slower than what it should have otherwise have been.
Tyrannosaurus was mostly built to be a bruiser able to withstand a lot of damage, able to hoist more muscle and have ruthless confrontational battles. But the factors of tyrannosaurus legs, tail and hip cannot be ignored.
This is why I personally believe tyrannosaurus speed was logically 20-25 mph (possibly a bit more; possibly 30 mph) for at least a short distance.
This is still pretty fast for such a massive animal, which is evidently about (if not almost) as fast as an edmontosaurus and definitely much faster than a triceratops.
Oops. That image is too small.
here is a proper size version.
1. It was likely because tyrannosaurs developed more hostile relations with each other as evident by the highly common bone scares seen on so many specimens. Broader and powerful tyrannosaurs were simply the most likely to survive.
2. Tyrannosaurus was likely a very confrontational hunter. perhaps it had to be brutish in order to hunt prey designed specifically to fight back.
Such a design made tyrannosaurus more durable and able to inflict even more damage if they use their bodies as additional weapons.
if you look again at the two you'll see rex had a much shorter chest area. The distance between the shoulder and the hip is shorter than in Acrocanthosaurus.
they had pretty much the same amount of organs, but Tyrannosaurus had a shorter chest to fit them in. So the chest is wider to fit all those organs.
Nope. It is about the chest areas are the same length. But tyrannosaurus tarsal neck and head was clearly much thicker.
Compare >>2028612 >>2028613 >>2028616
This link is based on a file too large to post directly.
Plus tyrannosaurus bones were much more robust than acrocanthrosaurus or even gioganotosaurus (arguably the most robust in its entire family). This much is irrefutable based on the actual specimens themselves, which all seem to be very well preserved with the tarsals especially preserved.
That's anomalocaris, which was a very primitive arthropod about a meter (3 ft) long. It was evidently the top predator during the Cambrian Period.
>It is about the chest areas are the same length
the Giganotosaurus is 3% longer total
The distance from the centerline of the proximal scapula to the acetabulum is 18% longer in Giganotosaurus.
The distance from the proximal humerus to the center of the pubic boot is 8% longer in Giganotosaurus.
the width of the chest is 25% wider in rex.
they aren't the same size, the Tyrannosaurus is drawn with a significantly shorter, wider chest.
>tyrannosaurus tarsal neck and head was clearly much thicker.
the size of the tarsus has nothing to do with the size of the chest.
unless you're telling us rex had a 25% wider chest because its bones were thicker, but if that's the case its ribs would have to be something like a meter thick.
>the Giganotosaurus is 3% longer total
That so slight it would matter to next to nothing. The builds and designs are totally different and would make a significant difference when considering they are roughly the same size. The results speak for themselves>>2028606
>The distance from the centerline of the proximal scapula to the acetabulum is 18% longer in Giganotosaurus.
I have no reason to believe that. MUCPv-95>>2028606 tarsal is about the same length, despite its body in total being slightly longer. Giganotosaurus tarsal was actually very well preserved. It appear that giganotosaurus actually had a proportionately smaller tarsal than even acrocanthrosaurus
Now compare that to this in terms of proportions: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Sue_side_full_%28Field_museum%29.png
At best, the biggest giganotosaurus had a tarsal about the same length as t. rex
>The distance from the proximal humerus to the center of the pubic boot is 8% longer in Giganotosaurus.
At best, that's because tyrannosaurus pubic boot is much larger, thicker and is even pointed more forward... Pretty explicit and would not matter.
>"the width of the chest is 25% wider in rex."
Nonsense and an utterly ironic lie. Scott Hartman even explained this before >>2028606 keep in mind that what you are looking at is giganotosaurus specimen MUCPv-95 compared to T. rex Sue.
MUCPv-95 is the biggest giganotosaurus supposedly found, with MUCPvCH1 being even thinner.
The biggest giganotosaurus in recorded history is clearly, undoubtedly much thinner.
>they aren't the same size, the Tyrannosaurus is drawn with a significantly shorter, wider chest
Excluding giganotosaurus neorospine ridge, the depth actually appear even thicker on tyrannosaurus. In terms of sheer volume, there is no question which is thicker
I measured off of the drawing you posted. In the drawing T. rex's chest is 25% wider and 18% shorter shoulder to hip.
also I'm not sure what you mean by tarsal. You know that's part of the foot, right?
They were more like feathery archosaurs, which are actually more related to crocodiles than lizards. But dinosaurs themselves were more related to modern birds than ancient reptiles.
But, there is no direct evidence to suggest dinosaurs are dumb. In fact, the way measuring intelligence is remained debatable. For instance, the once considers "unintelligent" reptile have some species demonstrate high degree of learning and intelligence, for example: monitor lizard and america anole http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2013/05/31/green-anole-intelligence-researchers-shocked-by-lizard-brainpower/#.VouGR5MrJ-U.
Back to the point, there are no direct ways proving prehistoric animals are dumb or intelligent since no living animals to conclude the study; however, there are some dinosaurs fossils indicate some dinosaurs may have levels of interactions with other dinosaurs or even other animals. In fact, some t-rex fossils have sign of damaged tails. The damaged tails are lethal to t-rex because the tails are used for balancing during running and severe tails damage could lead to fatal infection, yet, the fossil also an interesting study. That t-rex lived past through adulthood based on the recovered sign on the tails, which was consider impossible that damage tail could have prevent t-rex from hunting, which made t-rex starved to death. Thus, there is a theory believes that t-rexs could have live in group that the different members of the group took care the ill one, just like some mammals do today. Also, there are some vary sizes of allosaurus buried together in one location, further indicating the possibility of the hypothesis.
Although those are still speculations, the point for those thing just to rectify my statement, "We don't know anything but finding plausible evidences or support to back up the statement rather than cut to the conclusion right away". I can say Einstein knew anything because his high IQ, but he had some lackluster intelligence performance too, same thing applies to everyone.
First, t-rex is not a giant lizard. In fact, far from it.
>Dinosaurs and reptiles are brainless
You cannot conclude that to dinosaurs, which are extinct. Also, some monitor lizards, crocodilians, and even lizards are quite cunning and intelligent too.
>Brains size= Intelligence
Not always the case either. Then, how can you explain there are so many dumb women still like Justin Bieber or bunch of anime fans fight over each other for meaningless arguments? Yes, they have big "brains". But, are they intelligent? I don't think so.
A more likely conclusion is that having a damaged tail is not a death sentence after all.
And as surprisingly smart monitor lizards can be, it doesn't even compare with how intelligent elephants are.
It is only a conjecture. I did not specify the damaged tail is the half of tail fell off completely. That is pretty bad for the creatures that use tails to balance their large bodies.
But there are other fossils records of t-rex teeth mark on some large dinosaurs' bones, best known are the adult triceratops, whose wound recovered afterward. Forgot to mention, several t-rexs fossil indicate signs of recovered bone fractures, most likely results from running and fighting.
I appreciate the grammatical correction.
Oh no, a grammatical error.
Not only did tyrannosaurus and triceratops live during the same time and same regions, but there are many instances of the two fighting based on the fossil records.
There was even an instance where a triceratops showed strong signs of having its head torn off by a tyrannosaurus.
Ah a battle as old as time itself.
Seems like a 50/50 shot depending on who gets the first hit in
rex's jaws are made for maximum trama tearing out huge chunks of meat and muscle where ever rex bit, a good bite to the leg or flank would be a crippled mammoth, plus rex did hunt near mammoth sized prey like Triceratops and Edmontosaurus
The Mammoth defiantly has the weight advantage if it could just knock the rex down with either a charge or trunk swat it could simply trample it breaking the rexes legs ribs or just outright kill it.
Depends on the species of Tyrannosaurus.
If only this were true.
I think both versions would have looked the same. Scales have been found with t.rex. feathers are strongly suggested because of other earlier members of its family. Either way, t. rex was more than large enough to have a very warm body without the need of feathers.
So t. rex seem to have been mostly scaly with some feathers on the head, neck and back.
>t. rex seem to have been mostly scaly with some feathers on the head, neck and back.
except we have skin impressions from the neck. No feathers.
it's only a matter of time before we get skin from the neck and back. There won't be feathers there either. We already have skin from the back of Tarbosaurus, it didn't have feathers there either.
you're assuming that part of the animal has feathers and part doesn't, and somehow ALL OF THE 20+ SKIN IMPRESSIONS WE HAVE SOMEHOW CAME FROM THE UNFEATHERED PART.
the odds of that happening are about 2 million to one against. There's a one in 2,000,000 chance you're right. And it keeps getting worse every time a new skin patch is found without feathers. And more will be found. There are several sitting unpublished in a certain museum at this very moment.
both times the size is related to poor fodder.
Herbivores that eat poor quality food need to be huge so they can eat lots of it. Huge animals digest worthless plants more efficiently.
During T. rex's time there was less oxygen in the air, and more CO2. The extra CO2 made plants grow larger, but also less nutritious. This loss of nutrition resulted in gigantic herbivores, and gigantic predators to kill them.
Mammoths are a bit different since elephants in general normally eat terrible food. The plants that mammoths evolved to eat were slightly less nutritious than modern plants because of different carbon isotope utilization.
grass is actually pretty nutritious compared to what these guys ate.
but yeah, in general the worse a food is the more the animal has to eat, and the more it has to eat the bigger it gets.
you can see the same thing with whales and whale sharks in the ocean. Abundant, relatively worthless food makes huge animals.
Well, I thought the size of those animals was due to the lack (or seeming lack) of gravity. The lack of a forces pushing downwards on their bodies because of buoyancy balancing them out an what not. I don't know.
why didn't they develop to eat other shit then? Because they were focussed on eat grass shit which kinda worked so their bodies just adapted as it is less of a change than changing the food source?
evolution doesn't work in reverse. Dollo's Law.
what happens is the animal specializes to eat a certain diet, and when that diet becomes scarce it can't undo the specializations, it has to become even more specialized.
for example imagine a cow. it's evolved to be large in order to eat grass. If grass suddenly becomes scarce, it can't just turn to eating meat or fruit because it simply doesn't have the organs necessary. It can only become even more specialized, say by eating bushes and small trees. This means even worse food than before, and the animal gets larger.
it's possible for smaller generalist feeders to change diets, but once an animal becomes a large specialist there's no going back. It can only get larger and more specialized in most cases.
this progression is called Cope's Rule. Animals tend to get larger in a lineage. And specialization of diet is usually the reason behind Cope's Rule.
>you can see the same thing with whales and whale sharks in the ocean.
but the food whales eat is on the bottom of the food chain and is being eaten by tons of different species which didn't evolve to show an abnormal size, right? also the "needs to be bigger to eat more" makes kinda sense but the bigger it is the more it needs to eat too. sounds like a never ending race, no? especially with the sizes some animals reach like whales and dinosaurs. do animals need less energy per pound the more pounds they have?
Let me just point out that Tyrannosaurus had a superior body as not only was he built to take down creatures the same size or larger, but he had a superior respritory system: a 4-chambered heart plus lungs sacks, which means he got far more oxygen out of the air and therefore more energy. Rex was pretty intelligent but also ravonous, which means more brute force and need to take down his prey with an additional advantage of figuring out basic strategy. The Mammoth is built for lasting in the cold and fending off small predators.
>but the food whales eat is on the bottom of the food chain and is being eaten by tons of different species which didn't evolve to show an abnormal size, right?
neither statement is strictly true, krill isn't the bottom of the food chain and there aren't that many animals evolved to eat it. But the principle is true enough. Grasshoppers and cows both eat grass, but grasshoppers aren't particularly large compared to a cow. So eating poor food doesn't necessarily make an animal gigantic, the quality of the food is already relative to the size of an animal. To a cow, grass is very poor food. To a grasshopper it's extremely good food.
>sounds like a never ending race, no?
exactly. Over time small animals evolve larger and then go extinct. It happens over and over. I imagine it sped up in my mind like flowers growing, blooming and dying at high speed over and over again. It's a constant pattern in most evolution.
>do animals need less energy per pound the more pounds they have?
>There is fossil evidence to indicate how these creatures hunted
>and by studying the brain structure which they can recreate by scanning the skull
I've looked at a few tyrannosaurus endocasts.
Frankly they were dumber than a box of hammers. One of the stupider animals to ever walk the earth. On a par with crocodiles or the average 4chan user. Meat robots. Big fleshy idiots.
>inb4 crocodiles are really smart they play and hunt in packs and use tools
>Grasshoppers and cows both eat grass, but grasshoppers aren't particularly large compared to a cow. So eating poor food doesn't necessarily make an animal gigantic, the quality of the food is already relative to the size of an animal.
so when an animal is forced to switch the food it eats the following evolution is influenced by the relative nutrition value compared to the size of the animal. a small animal eating grass isn't going to grow in size because it is relatively nutritious whereas a larger animal would grow even larger?
of course it's heavily simplified and there are numerous other factors that contribute. also i'm not a native speaker and i hope that first sentence is understandable.
>a small animal eating grass isn't going to grow in size because it is relatively nutritious whereas a larger animal would grow even larger?
where the idea holds true is in the relative size of the animal compared to animals it's related too, i.e. a cow is relatively larger than a rabbit, and a grasshopper is relatively larger than a cutworm, but we can't really compare cows to grasshoppers because other factors than diet control the size of insects as compared to mammals.
Also the switch to larger size comes with a change in diet. An animal that eats nuts and seeds and never switches to any other diet can stay the same size indefinitely. If it switches to eating grass it's going to need to get bigger though. And if it then switches to eating twigs and leaves it's going to get bigger still. And that's what usually drives the growth in size. At some point the preferred diet becomes scarce and the animal is forced to switch to less nutritious foods which forces them to get larger. Almost never does an animal's food become scarce so it switches to a better food source. Evolution favors the exploitation of extremely common foods which are usually not very nutritious.
when you switch to a less nutritious food source you need to eat more of it. That means your gut needs to be bigger. So the whole animal winds up being bigger to hold the bigger gut.
>would it not just be natural development for it to get bigger because it just eats so much?
no, that would fall into the category of Lamarckism, and that's not generally how evolution works.
for example you might gain 300 lbs by eating constantly, but that doesn't mean your kids will be larger than normal.
They sometimes do, but it is very rare.
These lions were able to pull it off, but not even really just because of their numbers. they used the cover of night and the acknowledgement that elephants have poor night vision. This elephant's fear, excitement and panic also played against it and was exploited by the lions.
>Not the source linked to the claim on the page
If I link to the source they'll just bitch about the paywall.
/an/ loves to pretend they have degrees in zoology or gardening or whatever, but not a damn one of you can back it up with a freaking JSTOR account. It's actually pretty funny. Pretending to have degrees and lecture at universities and stuff, but not having access to science at all.
can't tell if you're asking me which of the two is smarter, or if you want the smartest of each group.
to answer either interpretation - yes, avians are by far the smartest of the dinosaurs. The difference is like that between apes and geckos.
the smartest non-avian dinosaur would be Troodon, but it wasn't exactly brilliant. Its brain was somewhere between a crocodile and a pigeon, probably pretty fucking dumb.
The smartest avians are corvids and parrots, with crows, ravens and magpies being particularly intelligent. The smartest known avian was probably Alex the African grey parrot, but he's a case where training increased intelligence, similar to Koko the gorilla. Just like most gorillas aren't as intelligent as Koko, most parrots aren't as intelligent as Alex.
In all of these cases brain size was an accurate measure of relative intelligence. It probably held true with extinct animals as well.
Not sure how reliable those patches are since they are undescribed, but here it is:
"Sereno mentions that he has the specimen in his lab and that it lacks true scales, and suggests that these areas could have bore feathers in life."
"Undescribed palm-sized patch found with a rib and caudal vertebrae showing "bird-like" naked skin likened by Detrich and Currie to a plucked chicken or an elephant's hide."
Anyway, i think feathers in tyrannosaurus is still 50/50, specially because hell creek must be quite shitty at preserving feathers.
Sereno's is the only one of those that remains unpublished and undescribed.
Larson published an adequate description of "more than 12" patches including photographs.
Last year Larson published additional skin impressions from the BHI collection, they were published in lecture only.
>does being published mean there is an paper about those?
>And if thats the case, is it open acess?
you can find the text of Larson's initial publications on Amazon books as a free preview though.
just google "wyrex skin" and one of the links should take you to a search of the book it was first published in.
my mistake, it's a Google books preview.
Thanks anon, btw whats your opnion on tyrannosauroids integument in life?
my opinion is that tyrannosaurids lacked feathers of any kind.
My opinion is not in agreement with Holtz or pretty much any other expert on tyrannosauroids though. They however are convinced that Yutyrannus and Dilong are tyrannosauroids. I'm somewhat an expert on allosauroids, and I can't seen any particular reason feathered tyrannosauroids shouldn't actually be classified as allosauroids instead.
Allosauroid expert? Cool, i remember a post in tetzoo talking about yutyrannus being a allosauroid, but im no expert so i cant talk about yutyrannus being a tyrannosauroid or allosauroid.
Changing the topic, i dont know your opnion on this, but i dont subscribe to the whole "allosaurus using its jaws as an axe" theory. Slamming your jaw into prey doesnt look like a good way to inflict damage and shouldnt be good to the animal's teeth.
>but i dont subscribe to the whole "allosaurus using its jaws as an axe" theory
nobody does really. We just smile and nod because we all like Bob Bakker.
there was a pretty good paper published debunking the idea.
My own views are pretty simple. Bob based his hypothesis on the fact that the paroccipital processes of the exoccipital-opisthotic have a lot of ventral deflection in Allosaurus, producing greater than normal leverage when jerking the nose down. There's also a buttressing of the basal tubera of the basisphenoid. These morphologies have been found in some birds and also in sabertooth cats, and in both cases are interpreted as specialized muscles for stabbing or chopping downward with the head.
However they could just as easily be used for jerking the head down AFTER biting an animal, to rip off a chunk of flesh. So I think Bakker's interpretation is a bit weak, there are other better ways of looking at the occipital morphology of Allosaurus.
Hope im not pushing it too far, but i saw a interesting hypothesis in the web, about how allosaurus processed meat/bone, having some influences in how vultures process food:
I like Nash, and I agree with him right up to about the part where the animal is sawing through large bones using both tooth rows. Sawing meat seems pretty likely, but sawing bone would probably just knock the tallest teeth right out of the face.
It's interesting that he mentions the D-shaped cross section of Allosaurus' premaxillary teeth though. This is one of the features used to assign Dilong and Yutyrannus to the Tyrannosauroidea. The fact that it's also found in Allosaurus gives some indication of the problems that may exist in claiming feathers for tyrannosauroids. In fact the D-shaped basal cross section and premaxillary heterodonty aren't the only overlaps between allosauroids and tyrannosauroids. Most of the features of the skull used to ID tyrannosauroids are found in Allosaurus and/or its descendants.
>The premaxillary teeth at the front of the upper jaw are shaped differently from the rest of the teeth, smaller in size and with a D-shaped cross section.
from the Wikipedia article on Tyrannosauroidea.
>Allosaurus has teeth in the front of it's mouth that are D-shaped in cross section so, like tyrannosaurids, it could if it wanted to carefully pick meat off a skeleton without much incidental bone contact.
From Nash's blog post you linked.
This is just one of many features the two taxa share that were used to assign Yutyrannus and others to the Tyrannosauroidea. One of many reasons I believe Yutyrannus and others are incorrectly assigned.
I cant really talk about yutyrannus being a allosauroid since im a amateur, but would that really rule out feathers for tyrannosauroids? I mean, they are still coelurosaurs right?
Also, if you dont agree with allosaurus "sawing" bones, what do you think of the allosaurus coprolite and the pubic bone thats was bitten by some theropod he talked about?
And how cursorial do you regard allosaurus as? I remember scott hartman guessing a 20mph speed and saying they didnt have much in cursorial adaptations. Now, sure they dont look as cursorial as tyrannosauroids or some abelisaurids like carnotaurus, but they dont look as slown as the short legged torvosaurus and ceratosaurus from the same enviorment.
>they are still coelurosaurs right?
Advanced tyrannosaurids lack any coelurosaurian traits, so no. If their supposed coelurosaurian ancestors turned out to be allosauroids there's not much reason to think tyrannosaurs are coelurosaurians.
>what do you think of the allosaurus coprolite and the pubic bone thats was bitten by some theropod he talked about?
Allosaurus chewed and consumed bones, that's clear. I just don't see it sawing like a hacksaw on some thick old bone. If it did, it would still need to crush the bone up into smaller bits, and if it's capable of crushing bone, why saw it?
regarding the pubis, I've seen it many times. Last I knew it was in the collection of the Museum of Western Colorado, now Dinosaur Journey in Fruita. It doesn't really support his hypothesis because it WASN'T sawn to bits and swallowed. It was gnawed on some, but not cut up and eaten.
>how cursorial do you regard allosaurus as?
I don't have an opinion.
I would mention that speed is usually considered to be a function of tibia length as compared to femur length, and in that regard it's much faster than T. rex or other tyrannosaurids. Also afaik faster than Carnotaurus. Like other theropods, it was built for speed when it was young, but grew into a much slower adult. At any rate, the animals it preyed on as an adult weren't very fast.