Theropod vs modern mammal

33 RepliesAdd A Reply
Forum Topic

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:19 PM

This is a discussion about how theropods stack up afain modern carnivores at parity of course.

i will say who will come out on top in terms of groups. The mammals are: ursids, big felines, and big cainines.

i will break down every theropod group.

fisrt up. And remembe, this is at PARITY. For those of you who don't know what that means it is when the two  combatnts are the same size.

carcharadontosaurids vs mammal. 65/35 in favor of the Dino. Why? Because the carcharadons have such devaststing jaws that would tear apart the nammal, though it would be a good fight.

abeliosaurids vs mammal. This is tricky cause there are two kinds of them. Carnotaurus and others that scavenged or hunted small prey would loose pretty bad 70/30 in favor of the mammal.  Because of there weak jaws and lack of arms. Though the better ones like ekrixinotosaurus and majungatholus/saurus would still loose but would put up a good fight. 60/40 in favor of the mammal.

spinosaurid vs mammal: same as above. spinosaurids that are frail like suchonimus would loose 70/30 to mammals because of there frail bodies and weak jaws. Though better ones like spinosaurus and baryonx would put up one hell of a fight and would win a large minority of the time. 55/45. Because of their some what unimpressive jaws.

dromeosaurids vs mammals: the string arms, powerfu legs and deadly bites, it would prove too much for the mamma.67.5/36.5. 

Megalosaurids Vs mammals: the megalosaurida have a bulky build, strong bite, and very powerful arms, that will ensure them victory over the mammalian counterparts. 70/30 Dino.

 Tyrranisaurid vs mammal: this is strange, there are three kinds of tyrranosairids. The early ones who had a sleek build with slender but still strong jaws and powerful arms such as kileskus and guanlong, would slightly prevail more often. 65/35 Dino. Others like gorgosaurus and albertosaurus which are somewhat sleek but still have a fairly powerful bite would prevail with the same numbers. 65/35. Though the big ones like t.rex himself would prevail 70/30 over the mammals.

dilophosurids vs mammals: there bites are not overly impressive but there nothing to laugh at. The same can be said for the rest of them. there slenderness would prove a hindrance. 50/50.

troodontids vs mammals: these are like sleeke, weaker versions of dromeosaurids with smaller claws and weaker bites. But they still are a force to be wrecked with. 55/45 in favor of Dino.

Ceolophysids vs mammal: see above. 55/45 in favor of mammal.

therizenosaurid vs mammal: this is tough. their bites would just be annoyances but their claws would price a big problem. I'm not to sure on this one so I will say 50/50. 

Pro/compsognathids vs mammal. See dromeosaurid. And troodontid. 50/50.

allosaurids vs mammal: allosaurids have a decent bite, strong arms, and agile build, and hatchet bite. But iit isn't as bulky as the carcharadon.  This is a great predator. 65/35. In favor of Dino.

sinraptor/yangchuanosaurus/metricantosaurus: these are allosaurids on steroid. 70/30 Dino.

ok, theropods are the clea winner in this. They just bring to much to the fight but the mammals will go down swinging.

33 Responses to Theropod vs modern mammal

Lord Vader

LegendMember6270 XPFeb-08-2015 5:23 PM

At parity, leaning towards theropods. IMO, they had better jaws for combat, more tooth sticking out, and thicker hides.

 

That's just my opinion, so feel free to disagree.

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:26 PM

I'm not done gang on for a bit.

Lord Vader

LegendMember6270 XPFeb-08-2015 5:29 PM

Sorry

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:31 PM

It's ok. I want people to post their opinio, just when I'm done.

Spinofan

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:38 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing some older mammals involved in this, like Smilodon, Dire Wolf, Cave Bear, the pig from hell, etc; IMHO the felines would stand the best chance of any mammal in this scenario given their inherant speed and agility, not to mention intelligence but the bite force obviously favors the theropods. Still, Jaguars, for example, have been known to hunt and kill crocs which have among the most powerful bite forces of any living animals. So assuming equality of size I would suggest that the cats would be a force.

Lord Vader

LegendMember6270 XPFeb-08-2015 5:41 PM

Spinofan, let's not forget that theropods are significantly more agile than crocodiles on land. 

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:42 PM

I will make a thread like that later.

and jags kill small caimains from ambush.

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:43 PM

And there arms are much stronger.

Lord Vader

LegendMember6270 XPFeb-08-2015 5:52 PM

Are you done now? If not, I agree with this so far. If yes, I agree with this, nice job.

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:54 PM

I'm tired. Im not done yet.

Spinofan

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:54 PM

Theropods are absolutely more agile than crocs on land. In fact I would suggest that Raptors would rival the cats in agility. I also realize that Jags kill crocs from ambush because they are natural ambush predators as are most cats. Mind you, I am not saying that the cats are the clear winners. I am simply trying to say that is no rollover for the dinosaurs.

Lord Vader

LegendMember6270 XPFeb-08-2015 5:56 PM

Understood Spinofan. They wouldn't be a pushover by any means, but the theropods would still most likely come out on top more often than not.

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 5:57 PM

Ok.

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 6:00 PM

Done.

Cryolophosaurus

NoobMember0 XPFeb-08-2015 9:09 PM

Tyrant, you did jack-for research on the Abelisaurs, as well as the Dilophosaurs. 

The Only Abelisaur that is as weak as you say here would be Rugops which is the only Abelisaur that was a pure scavenger. The other Abelisaurs have since been studied by Robert Bakker whoose findings have suggested that the Abelisauridae were Sauropod hunters. Likely useing either swift repeated bites,or strong gripping bites (depending on how the skull was built). Both bites would have been very deadly and effective, but to elaborate what these two come down too. The swift biters would have been equivlent to the Allosaurs and Charcharodontosaurs, and the gripping biters would be equivlent to the Dromeosaurs and Tyrannosaurs. And I only meen what I just said in context of how they would have likely used there jaws, not that they were exactly the same as their references.

Now onto the Dilophosaurs... I just dont know where to begin with this one.

Ok, to start off with, yes there is alot of controversy surrounding the Dilophosaurus and if it was a hunter or a scavenger. In my personal opinion from what I have read and seen on this topic, it is not as impossible as the scavengers say it is for the Dilophosaurus to hunt useing its jaws. Because while the front of the jaws wernt esspecialy sturdy, the back of the jaws were very sturdy and could take the strain of holding onto prey. So it is my personal opinion that the Dilophosaurus was without a doubt a hunter because it also had speed, and those lethal claws and talons. And when it comes to Cryolophosaurus... I shouldnt even have to make a case for them.  

 

" It is better to be reviled than ignored, agleast then you know your spreading good in this world." 

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 3:26 AM

Abeliosaurids like carnotaurus and ruogops were scavengers or hunters of small prey. They could fight. The heavy hitters like rajasaurus, ekrixinotosaurus and others who actually hunted sauropods would be at an advantag. Don't put words in my mouth.

i never said dilophosaurids were scavenger. I said they would have a decent chanxe against mammals. 

Cryolophosaurus

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 9:46 AM

Where are you getting your info on carnotaurus. As I already stated earlier, Rob Bakker has analyzed the carnotaurus and has concluded that it hunted sauropods. From his findings it would appear that on massive prey, the carnotaurus would have bit into prey with it's upper jaws. Then would pull on it's prey, which given its teeth were slender and serated, meant attacking prey in this style would be devastating to both large and small prey.

The only abelisaur that is as weak as you claim is rugops. The only part of the carnotaurus skull that is as weak as you say is the end of the lower jaw. The upper jaw is extremely sturdy, which means it could take alot of strain, such as the strain of struggling prey.

If after all of this info you still believe your original statement to be true. Then I will have to question your ability to do proper research and make scientifically accurate debates.

" It is better to be reviled than ignored, agleast then you know your spreading good in this world." 

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 12:51 PM

You dont have to be mean.

Cryolophosaurus

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 1:26 PM

I'm not mean, I'm a scientist who is just about in college for this exact field. I only speak in this manner because it is getting harder and harder to take the accuracy of your debates seriously. 

It seems as if you calculate these debates off of your personal opinion more than actual scientific knowledge.

Call me mean for saying this if you will, but as a no-nosense and blunt person. I'm not going to sugar coat the reality of the situation at hand.

" It is better to be reviled than ignored, agleast then you know your spreading good in this world." 

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 1:38 PM

I do my research just like everyone else. Now all I said is that some abeliosaurids like ruogops and carnotaurus weren't adapted for fighting. Hunting is a different story. 

How do you feel about all the other animals I have put into this thread? Or is that incorrect Too?

Cryolophosaurus

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 2:02 PM

I will edit this with a response once I decipher what you just said into unbreken english, so say an hour-hour and a half.

" It is better to be reviled than ignored, agleast then you know your spreading good in this world." 

Lord Vader

LegendMember6270 XPFeb-09-2015 2:34 PM

Cryo, easy. You're coming off as a bit hostile. I see that TK is ticking you off, but just take it easy. Not everyone is expert. Some people do research and build their own opinions off that research. 

 

The deciphering bit though, not cool. 

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 2:35 PM

the ticking off is going both ways but i will not argue.

Carnosaur

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 5:11 PM

hmm, i dunno why we would call R. primus 'weak' when we only have material from a juvenile animal. Seems a bit unbalanced, to me at least.

@Cryo, while i do agree some sources backing the info would be nice,  i do believe the way you're going after TK seems a bit harsh.

anyway, let's take a look at your argument.

"As I already stated earlier, Rob Bakker has analyzed the carnotaurus and has concluded that it hunted sauropods. "

Bakker also suggested that C. sastrei was a small game specialist due to its jaw mechanics due to how kinetic its skull was (Mazetta 1998)

I've seen no recent literature regarding C. sastrei as a sauropod hunter. In fact, another member on a different forum said this about the supposed "sledgehammer" feeding mechanisms you seem to be alluding to. Here's what he has to say:

" I’ve got some doubts about the proposed "sledgehammer hypothesis".
When people use it (e.g. Bakker 1998), usually Allosaurus comes up as an analogy, but this is problematic, because they are actually very different in a number of features:

Firstly, Carnotaurus doesn’t have downturned paroccipital processes to enhance the ventroflexive ability of its head and neck as is the case in Allosaurus (Bakker 1998, Antón et al. 2003, Snively et al. 2007, 2013). Rather its paroccipital processes are directed laterally (Bonaparte 1990) as is the case with basal ceratosaurs. Naturally, that alone already implies major differences in muscle arrangement between the two (but there’s far more to it than that).

Secondly, the proportions of their skull. It is true neither of them has a particularly large head and both are deep-skulled, but the similarities end there. Compared toAllosaurus (Madsen 1976), the skull of Carnotaurus is completely differently proportioned, being almost as tall as it is long, having a much shorter rostrum and being proportionately wider. This is not a design that would be particularly suitable for relying on impact feeding as it reduces the velocity which can be reached at the toothrow.

Thirdly, their necks:
That of Allosaurus has been described as particularly flexible (Snively et al 2007, 2013), that of Carnotaurus was likely rather rigid due to tis very robust osteology (Méndez 2014). The supposed slashing and striking for Allosaurus is a motion that would require a fair degree of flexibility–this was even one of the key points of criticism brought forth against it (Antón et al. 2003).
That’s not everything though. The neck of Carnotaurus is a highly unusual structure with huge, dorsally tall epipophyses but tiny, atrophied neural spines. 

So with all these differences I would highly doubt we can really compare them. There is more of course, for example the entire postcranium, but I’m focusing on the head and neck here.

Carnotaurus’ wide, robust neck, proportionately shorter and more brevirostrine skull, differences in basicranial muscle insertions and the large epipophyses suggest it held onto prey with its jaws, not that it slashed at it. It is plausible it did that in a very explosive motion of course, but I don’t think it was suited for dealing considerable damage with a powerful strike alone."

i'd say i have to wholely agree with him.

Given the fact that carnotaurus was probably a rather fast animal (Mazzetta 998) it's entirely plausible that it was a small to mid game specialist, but that's just my own hypothesis.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 5:43 PM

as i have said time and time agin, i cant post links!!! which means i cant post sources. so please stop asking.

Cryolophosaurus

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 6:16 PM

Carnosaur, while I was only pointing out Carnotaurus for my previous statements, I find that the Abelisaurs were not given fair representation. And yes, I realise that Carnotaurus may not have had the skull for such hunting. But with how little the Carnotaurus has examined, and the fact that we only have a single specimen that may have a skull/neck deformity that dosnt represent the whole species. As a fellow scientist that is far more informed than myself, you must realise that there is necessary room for such doubt.

" It is better to be reviled than ignored, agleast then you know your spreading good in this world." 

Carnosaur

NoobMember0 XPFeb-09-2015 6:32 PM

No pathologies were described in Bonaparte 1985 in the cranial region, so i don't see any reason to think such.

what we have of C. sastrei is a reasonaby, an pretty darned well preserved single skeleton. what that does is give us a clear insight onto how it was shaped, how it moved, etc. We have more of carnotaurus then we do for a lot of other taxon, so i do believe what we have, and what has been put through the wringer via multiple scholarly articles, is quite solid.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-10-2015 6:04 AM

I don't see how you say carnotaurus hunoted sauropods with its small teeth and very short jaws and lack of arms.

Carnosaur

NoobMember0 XPFeb-10-2015 8:26 AM

TK,, "lack of arms" doesn't denote abelisaurs as not sauropod hunters -- in fact any animal of appropriate size could theoreticaly do so,if it was driven to i supppose. Allosaurs just have better weaponry to desl with them (at least it has been proposed) then other theropods do.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Tyrant king

NoobMember0 XPFeb-10-2015 12:34 PM

when you are hunting a sauropod and it knocks you over your gonna wish you had arms. And of course most preds could hunt a sauropod of approprivate size. 

Add A Reply

Sign in to add a reply to this topic!

Sci-Fi Movies All Fandoms
Alien & Predator Alien & Predator Fandom
Godzilla & Kaiju Godzilla & Kaiju Fandom
Jurassic Park / World Jurassic Park Fandom
Marvel & DC Marvel & DC Fandom
Star Wars Star Wars Fandom
Hot Forum Topics
New Forum Topics
Highest Forum Ranks Unlocked
Chris
Chris
43% To Next Rank
Atman
Svanya
Svanya
86% To Next Rank
2K
Dark Nebula
Dark Nebula
78% To Next Rank
Conversationalist
ErlikosaurusIsCool420
ErlikosaurusIsCool420
57% To Next Rank
Initiate
Gabriel Salomon
Gabriel Salomon
34% To Next Rank
Initiate
Latest Activity

Scified is an entertainment media network covering the latest news on the most popular, upcoming science fiction movies, games and television. All content is property of Scified.com unless otherwise stated. Images and names of content we promote, discuss, review or report are property of their respective owners. Scified is independantly owned and operated by a team of dedicated sci-fi movie fans, who strive to provide the best information and community experience for other like-minded sci-fi movie enthusiasts.

© 2022 Scified.com

Brilliantly

SAFE!

2022
Sign in with your E-Mail


Log in to view your personalized notifications across Scified!

Alien Alien-Covenant.com
Godzilla Godzilla-Movies.com
Jurassic World JurassicWorld3.net
Aliens vs. Predator AliensVersusPredator.net
Predator Predator4-Movie.com
Latest Activity
Forums
Search Scified
Sci-Fi Movies