If modern day mammals were transported to the Triassic period

>>2335034
Dinos would lose their habitats to deforestation then start trying to scavenge food around suburbs before getting shot

>>2335034
it depends the Triassic was a long ass time, the entire Cenozoic era is only around 10 million years longer then the Triassic as it is defined today

>>2335034
They'd certainly out compete whatever proto-mammals were running around and destroy the mammalian timeline.

>>2335034

all the recent science i've seen dates the origin of placental mammals around 145mya to 65mya (so the somewhere in the cretaceous).... based on that, everything in the triassic would die to a plague of rats.

>>2335885
rats are good pets and all, but damn are they ecosystem destroyers

>>2335890

yup. iirc i'm pretty sure Pangaea didn't start to break up until the mid-Triassic. so nothing living would be able to out compete them, and geography wouldn't stop them either. it'd be pretty bad.

File: harpia.jpg (25KB, 440x365px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 440x365px

>>2335034
what about this badass?

>>2335034
what are the rules here? Do you mean all mammals or are we hypothetically putting a single species?

File: latest.jpg (41KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x337px

>>2335034
It won't be dinosaurs they have to worry about in thr Triassic
Pic related is 7meters long

>>2335034
Rats, Wolves, Humans, Pigs, and Raccoons would all do quite well.

>>2336769
Wolves aren't very good hunters. They'd be destroyed by other predators.

smaller herbivore animals could probably out-eat, out-range and out-breed the herbivore dinosaurs, denying them of food.
Large herbivorous dinosaurs die off, large carnivores follow suit because they can't sustain themselves on the smaller animals

>>2336780
Might do okayish as scavengers.

>>2335034
First you have to ask yourself

>What are animals?

>>2336786
Hello there Vsauce

>>2336782
There is no guarantee modern herbivores could digest Triassic flora

>>2336959
well you you want to get technical, viruses from both eras would probably end up genociding everything

>>2336785
Nah. Coyotes maybe. They know how to dodge and weave like jackals and they're fast. Wolves are too big, bulky and slow in comparison. They most likely couldn't outrun predators and would do little damage if they absolutely had to fight.

African wild dogs also maybe because they're quick fuckers, one of the most successful if not the most successful predators of their size and they use better tactics than wolves. But they do get demolished by lions when they're territories are forced too close together, so maybe not.

The thing with coyotes and jackals is that they can out wit, keep a distance and dodge when they're fuckin around with lions and other predators.

>>2336959
Individual species, maybe.

Overall? Plenty that would be edible. We're not talking about dramatic biochemical differences. Carbs, proteins and fats are carbs, proteins and fats.

File: ezgif-3-72ca4edfe2.gif (1MB, 600x323px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x323px

>>2335039

Didn't Terrorbirds get outcompeted by big cats as soon as a landbridge formed that allowed the cats to cross over?

>>2335595
Not necessarily, those proto-mammals would be better suited to the environment they were in and were smaller - basically better at not being eaten by the dinos as the modern, larger mammals.

Then again rats
>>2335885

Well grass eating herbivores would all starve. Grass didn't exist 200mya

>>2337089
Honestly rats would have a ton more predators. The whole reason mammals stayed small for so long was predation. Maybe the larger mammalian predators would do well. Specially the pack hunters.

Rats and other small mammals would pretty much get handed the nocturnal ecological niche in a silver platter.

The predator niche would be a toss-up, depending on how well they can adapt to the extreme heat.

Big herbivores are fucked and sauropods continue on their merry way, however.

>>2337089
>>2337095


rats would probably be able to fuck up the life cycles of everything around them, even their predators, due to even most of our mammalian ancestors of the time laying soft-shelled eggs. rats would also be breeding so fucking quickly vs everything around them that i doubt predation would make much of a dent in the horde.

the triassic also would have been very, very hot vs now with much higher levels of co2 and less oxygen... a huge reason dino ancestors took over vs our ancestors is that the dino line had skin that was much more impermeable to water, so they had a great advantage in the hot, dry world of the early triassic. most big mammals from today would most likely die from the conditions.

my money is on rats being able to chew through anything + crap out more of themselves much much faster than the competition = rat world

>>2337135

to add this is assuming that rats would be able to breath and/or thrive in that atmosphere at all... the atmospheric pressure was different, co2 and oxygen levels very different, and that combo can lead to some interesting effects pretty quick. it could be that proper mammals aren't capable of living in those conditions, and that's why things closer to proper mammals didn't evolve until the atmosphere changed in the jurassic and cretaceous. but i don't know enough to speculate beyond that.

>>2337143
I like you with your climatology and ecology and such.

the climate was different, many mammals depend on grasses or grass feeding prey which weren't predominant back then, the air pressure was higher, most species wouldn't have a niche

>rat world
More like Coelophysis world. Literally every small predatory dinosaur preyed almost exclusively on small mammals. My predict is that because of the sheer amount of rats, the Coelophysis family produces the first T-Rex like thing.

>>2335034
They'd suffocate and overheat.

Monkeys might actually do well.
Did anything in the whole dinosaur era even really hunt decent sized fast arboreal animals?

I mean they wouldnt be invincible or anything, but what even could catch a monkey up in a tree?

File: Postwhatevs+used+roll+picture+postwhatevs+rolled+image+it+s+so+you+have+_919cfbb79eaff0d361d14e679f4dec38.jpg (225KB, 1280x897px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1280x897px

>>2335034
>Triassic had very few dinosaurs which were mainly small, like eoraptor.
>Mainly the era of general Archosaurs (e.g. prestosuchus) and what was left of the great synopsids(mammal like reptiles, but not true mammals)
Modern mammals would easily outcompete the very primitive creatures of the time.

Hell, this would probably mean dinosaurs never get to truly exist(at least not beyond being small bipedal land scavengers or small prey hunters; if not out done by foxes, jackals, badgers, bobcats, etc).
Of course, I am excluding humans, which are in fact mammals...

>>2335034
Well they wouldn't be able to breathe properly as their lungs require the current % of O2 and CO2 as compared to in the triassic period

>>2335885
This. Rats carrying diseases would be fatal for dinos. Most are too large and goofy to kill rats or avoid them, and they wouldn't adapt fast enough to create a line of dinos immune to disease. People can barely avoid rats without creating shelter to act as a barrier.

All it takes is one black plague type disease with rat transmission that affects dinos and it's game over. That and rat swarms would be dangerous as hell.

the lack of small dino fossils in the record is subject to preservation bias. there really aren't many good mammal fossils in mesozoic for the same reason.

File: pride.jpg (29KB, 477x226px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 477x226px

>>2335034
There is really no reason to assume modern mammals could not compete or even outcompete triassic animals in the same environments. Modern mammals are pretty effective at dominating the world right now.

At best, triassic animals like postosauchus or desmatosuchus could rival enough to still exist. But the environments and perhaps even the rest of the world would primarily be ruled by modern mammals.

>>2337608
>there really aren't many good mammal fossils in mesozoic for the same reason
There's more known Mesozoic mammal species than there are dinosaur species.

>>2337629
2/10

File: P3180135 (800x600).jpg (178KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 800x600px

>>2337631
this isn't secret information, you can look it up yourself if you dare.

>>2337637
0/10 trying too hard

>>2337669
Read more. Argue less.

>>2337674
-4/10

>>2335885
I may be stupid for not understanding the connection, but can you explain?

File: 0eb80c1c4e9c0d91eccbfe5b0ec076a9.jpg (36KB, 736x421px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 736x421px

>>2337593
>Hell, this would probably mean dinosaurs never get to truly exist(at least not beyond being small bipedal land scavengers or small prey hunters; if not out done by foxes, jackals, badgers, bobcats, etc).

Terror birds were pretty much the last ditch evolutionary effort to rule as the dinosaurs long before them. They were much larger, stronger, smarter, and heavier built than primitive small dinosaurs from the Triassic. However, they were almost quickly extinct due to modern mammals eventually evolving to outcompete them in the forms we see today (wolves and large cats).

Thus if the terror birds could not survive or even last during actual competition with modern mammals, primitive small non avian dinosaurs like eoraptor would have little to no chance.

>>2337938
The irony being there were more species and individual mammals alive during the age of dinosaurs than there were dinosaurs.

and now, during the age of mammals, there are far more species and individuals of dinosaurs than there are mammals.

your ideas of "outcompeting" are exactly backwards. Mammals ruled the age of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs rule the age of mammals.

>>2337938
Of course what you really mean is that mammals took over terrestrial niches for megafauna.

this was a popular measure of dominance in the 1930's, which is of course about when your education dates from.

The problem is the animals that fill megafaunal niches tend to be less diverse and less populous. This is because the environment can support fewer large animals, so there's less of them. Meaning the animals you see as ruling are in fact going extinct.

This was true of terrestrial dinosaurs and it's now true of giant mammals. Both are/were going extinct. In fact the animals that survive extinction are tiny, common, and diverse.

so the ones you see as 'ruling' are in fact failing, and the ones you think are failing are in fact 'ruling.'

>>2337938
now if you're wondering why biologists of the 1930's and 40's cared so much about large animals, the answer is simple:

they were only interested in evolution as far as it explained the human condition. They felt that large animals were worthy of study because humans were above small animals.

This of course is a meaningless conceit, but it's exactly the same attitude you display when you talk about wolves and large cats 'outcompeting' terror birds.

The only vantage where your statements make any sense is one in which humans are the end goal of evolution, and rule the world.

otherwise your example is no more meaningful than an example of a moth driven to extinction by hummingbirds. Which while perhaps interesting, doesn't account for the fact that moths remain far more speciose and populous than birds.

>>2337943
>>2337958
>>2337972
Not even that anon but you bothered me so much i had to post this.
You just assumed he said something and developed your thoughts based on that asumption (and believing another assumption was right) in a level rarely seen even on 4chan. I'm am awed.

File: dinosaur steals cats food.webm (2MB, 855x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 855x480px

>>2335034
>this pic
>implying

>>2337988
I didn't assume anything.
He factually said a thing. You can read it yourself.

He used an example of the largest bird in existence at the time going extinct supposedly at the hands and claws of some of the largest mammals in existence at the time and then pretended that example said anything about the rest of the normal-sized birds and mammals.

which of course is false.

Just because elephants are going extinct doesn't imply that rats are. Just because ostrich populations decline doesn't imply birds are going extinct. The entire premise of his example is ludicrous, and anthropocentric.

I didn't even bother with his comparison to the Triassic since he (and most of /an/) apparently isn't aware that dinosaurs didn't exist until the very end of the Triass, and very promptly grew to sizes much larger than terror birds. I don't have time to teach him everything.

>>2337988
He's a troll. Don't feed it.

>>2337743
That's my fucking damn point Sherlock

>>2337085
>>2337938
According to a documentary on Youtube they were able to coexist with mammals for millions of years, and were able to establish themselves in North America, and probably died because of climate changes. Maybe in combination with competition. But competition alone didn't kill them.

>>2338002
Bats are more successful than birds, stay mad avianshit
Mammalian pride worldwide

>>2338034
there are about 10,000 species of bird
about 1,200 of bat.

bats are the most successful group of mammals by diversity, but they're 1/10th as successful as birds by the same measure.

populations I'm not even going to bother trying to compare. Birds outnumber bats by 10-20 BILLION depending on time of year.

File: tmp.png (42KB, 283x320px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 283x320px

>>2337943
By this logic, we are still in the reign of arthropods, as for they make the vast majority of species and individuals on the planet. Yet they are mainly overpopulated low tier animals (as expected in an ecological food web) that generally do not actually dominate(with minor exceptions like the Christmas islands for example, which is dominated by native land dwelling crabs).
They simply exist in our shadows, so to speak

Hell, this would mean humans do not currently rule the earth, which is pretty much ridiculous.
>>2337958
I used the terror bird extinction as an example of terrestrial dinosaurs trying to compete with modern mammals for the same resources. Small triassic theropods like eoraptor would likely suffer the same fate against modern mammals like foxes, cats, coyotes, and wolverines out for the same resources.

Considering how new and primitive dinosaurs were during the triassic, they simply do not stack up to par.

>>2338039
>comparing THE youngest order to an entire class
>including all short of flightless retards
>Birds outnumber bats by 10-20 BILLION
>including the enormous population of poultry that apparently sits around 50 billions
>hurrr its just one tenth as successful because humans like omelettes

Even so, one tenth as successful on 1/100th of the time

Holy shit AIDF on full force, stop embarrassing yourself

>>2338045
>By this logic, we are still in the reign of arthropods,
does this bother you?
>do not actually dominate
they dominate by any measure except your pretend one where they have to be top predators to matter.
>this would mean humans do not currently rule the earth
scientifically speaking we do not.
>Small triassic theropods
yes, as I pointed out you're ignoring medium and large ones.

and you're ignoring the fact that dinosaurs weren't important predators in their faunas, though I understand that's in response to another anon.

>>2338051
I wasn't counting domestic birds.

Either way your claim is proven false. Which I suppose explains your anger.

>>2338045
we are in the reign of arthropods. they are the most successful group, and it doesn't seem like it will ever change

>>2335039
>then start trying to scavenge food around suburbs before getting shot
Hmm, that sounds like a particular biped

>>2338034
this is some impressive denial

>>2338065
Black bears?

>>2338051
you're a living breathing cancer and should neck yourself for the betterment of the species

File: bobcat1.jpg (69KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x480px

>>2338052
>>2338064
There are many more poor people than the rich 1%...Yet who truly rules?


Also, modern mammal have pretty much filled almost all terrestrial niches, leaving the primitive triassic dinosaurs with little options that would not be in competition with modern mammals.

>>2338194
>who truly rules?
ah, you can't tell politics from science.
I'll give you a hint.
In science, "ruling" doesn't mean anything.

>leaving the primitive triassic dinosaurs with little options that would not be in competition
competition isn't what would kill them.

though again, dinosaurs weren't a significant fraction of Triassic faunas, they didn't exist for most of the Triassic.

also mammals have no analogs to Herrerasaurus or even Dilophosaurus depending on your opinions on dating.

even Coelophysis would likely be a more formidable predator than any mammal currently alive.

>>2338194
you also have to keep in mind that 99% of the planet was dead desert back then.

the few niches that existed wouldn't be friendly to mammals, either because of heat, or aridity, or lack of grass, trees and fruits.

it was a very different world, not one mammals evolved to survive in. Almost all mammals would immediately starve to death for lack of grass for instance. The ones that would survive would be detrivores like rats and small predators/scavengers/omnivores like raccoons or opossums.

>>2337610
>postosauchus
Posotosuchus wasn't even the largest Triassic carnivore, Saurosuchus and Prestosuchos grew up to 7 meters long. The fossils record is also incomplete, we have no idea what other fauna inhabited that environment

>>2338072
You're half right anon.

>>2337089
At the same time the mammals would be invasive species and the dinos and proto mammals weren't evolved to deal with them.

>>2337943
>there were more species and individual mammals alive during the age of dinosaurs than there were dinosaurs.
Source?

Mammals are the perfect best vertebrate. You never get swarms of lizards or even frogs running around. Mammals are so active.

How would Primates fair? Would Gorillas be able to stand against raptors or would they just get eaten?

>>2339320
what about birds?

>>2337483
>but what could catch a monkey up in a tree
actually, thats a pretty good point.

Pretty damn well. The mammal brain is incredibly advanced and often much larger by body mass than any reptile that has ever lived. Mammals are also the most adaptable of vertebrates, so a sudden change of environment, pretty and predator would be easier for a mammal to adapt to than for a reptile.