Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who wins?
Mandrill 7 (77.8%)
Andalgalornis steulleti 2 (22.2%)
Total Votes: 9
Mandrill v Andalgalornis steulleti
Topic Started: Mar 18 2014, 08:13 PM (2,060 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Mandrill - Mandrillus sphinx
The mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) is a primate of the Old World monkey (Cercopithecidae) family, closely related to the baboons and even more closely to the drill. It is found in southern Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and Congo. Mandrills mostly live in tropical rainforests and forest-savanna mosaics. They live in groups called "hordes". Mandrills have an omnivorous diet consisting mostly of fruits and insects. Their mating season takes place from June to October. Males average 25–35 kg (55-77 lb); females are less than half that weight (11–14 kg, or 25-30 lb). Unusually large males can weigh 50 kg (110 lb). The average male is 81–90 cm (32–36 in) and the female is 56–66 cm (22–26 in), with the tail adding another 5–8 cm (2–3 in). They can survive up to 31 years in captivity. Females reach sexual maturity at about 3.5 years. The mandrill has one of the greatest sexual dimorphisms among the primates.

Posted Image

Andalgalornis steulleti
Andalgalornis was a genus of flightless predatory birds of the family Phorusrhacidae (often called "terror birds") that lived in Argentina. The type and only species is A. steulleti. Andalgalornis is known from an incomplete skeleton and some single bones found from sites in the Entre Ríos and Catamarca Provinces of northeast and northwest Argentina. The fossils were uncovered from the Miocene to Early Pliocene Andalgala Formation. It was amid-sized terror bird, standing about 4.5 feet tall (1.4 meters) and weighing some 90 pounds (40 kg). Like all terror birds, its skull was enormous relative to its body (spanning 14.5 inches, or 37 centimeters, in length), with a deep narrow bill armed with a powerful, hawk-like hook.. The subfamily to which the genus belonged, the Patagornithinae, contained species that were of quite slender build; it looked much like the larger phorusrhacid Phorusrhacos, but it was more elegant and smaller and had a proportionally higher beak, the most massive in proportion to body size of all phorusrhacids. A recent analysis of CT scans of the skull of Andalgalornis suggests that the beak was strong dorsoventrally (in the vertical plane) but relatively weak mediolaterally on either side. The beak's weakness suggests that the bird could not have taken down large prey, but consumed smaller, more easily manageable and less risky prey. However, the beak's dorsoventral strength may have enabled Andalgalornis to quickly strike down on its prey in a repeated attack-and-retreat hunting strategy. A study of its neck vertebrae showed that they were built for striking.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Bird wins IMO
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i favor Andalgalornis. it is larger and its beak can deliver significant damage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
221Extra
Member Avatar
Deny, deny, deny.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
After doing some digging in the profile of this Bird & scanning through the Smilodon vs Kelenken thread, these Terror Birds do not seem well equipped for taking on such formidable & large opponents:

Ursus arctos
Dec 26 2012, 05:22 PM
Kelenken is a far larger species, but this is still noteworthy IMO:
Our biomechanical analyses reveal that if Andalgalornis used its beak in the dispatch of relatively large prey, then it must have been applied with considerable precision in order to avoid sustaining high lateral loads. We suggest that Andalgalornis consumed relatively small prey (i.e., smaller than itself) that could be killed and consumed more safely. If Andalgalornis did take large prey, then it most likely applied multiple well-targeted strikes in a repetitive attack-and-retreat strategy. Restraining struggling prey with their feet also was potentially an option, despite the absence of sharp talons.
From here.

While it is likely that the maximum size of prey taken by Smilodon fatalis was smaller than that by P. leo or P. tigris (based on this source) it looks like a safe assumption that S. fatalis was adapted for taking larger prey.

I don't know in which ways/how much Kelenken may have differed from Andalgalornis besides greater size. Based on the picture of a Kelenken skull, it looks relatively dorsoventrally compressed, and thus was probably less well adapted to withstanding stresses in this direction.


Taipan
Jan 8 2012, 02:14 PM

Terror bird bite

To see how strong the terror bird's bite might have been,the researchers worked with zookeepers at the La Plata Zoo to get a seriema andan eagle to chomp down on their bite meter.

"Combining all this information, we discovered that the bite force of Andalgalornis was a little lower than we expected and weaker than the bite of many carnivorous mammals of about the same size,"Degrange said. "Andalgalornis may have compensated for this weaker bite by using its powerful neck muscles to drive its strong skull into preylike an axe."

Altogether, these findings suggest Andalgalornis was no slugger like feathered Joe Frazier. Its skull, though strong vertically, wastoo weak from side to side, and the hollow beak was in danger of catastrophic fracture if the bird grappled too vigorously with large struggling prey.

Instead, the researchers found that if Andalgalornis tackled large prey, it needed an elegant style more like Muhammad Ali, using arepeated attack-and-retreat strategy, landing well-targeted, hatchet-like jabs. Once killed, the prey would have been ripped into bite-sized morsels by thepowerful neck pulling the head straight back or, if possible, swallowed whole.

"Our team is just beginning our studies of terrorbirds," Witmer told LiveScience. "We're also looking at what is goingon inside the skull, to get insights into their brains and sensory systems. Onething we're finding is that their brain structure suggests they had all thetools to be active pursuit predators. Sometimes others have thought they might have been scavengers, like giant vultures, but what we're seeing suggests they could have been fairly adept and agile."

The scientists detailed their findings online Aug. 18 in thejournal PLoS ONE

http://www.livescience.com/animals/terror-birds-killed-boxing-jabs-muhammad-ali-100818.html



That hit & run tactic really does not strike me as effective against large opponents, especially those who can grapple & move their feet well. That coupled with this Bird's slender build & it being likened to that of a 'gigantic' Seriema leads me to believe it will get overpowered quite quickly. The Terror Bird is just outmatched & it's size advantage is rather insignificant to make a difference, imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Can anyone make a size comparison?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mauro20
Member Avatar
Badass
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mandrill wins, for the reasons mentioned by 221extra.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
I'll go with the Mandrill for this one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
221extra
Mar 19 2014, 02:33 PM


That hit & run tactic really does not strike me as effective against large opponents, especially those who can grapple & move their feet well. That coupled with this Bird's slender build & it being likened to that of a 'gigantic' Seriema leads me to believe it will get overpowered quite quickly. The Terror Bird is just outmatched & it's size advantage is rather insignificant to make a difference, imo.
I think that this bird would be and appear significantly more robust than a Seriema, probably more or less as much as the Mandrill is more robust than 2 kg monkeys.
Anyway 221 extra, don't you think that a mandrill should be considered relatively less formidable than baboons, since they don't fight nearly as much and are less aggressive (correct me if I'm wrong)?

I think this fight is interesting becouse (likely, regarding the bird) both the animals involved use face biting in intraspecific competition. What I see, at least at the start of the fight, a very brutal clash of "faces", in which I'm confident that the bird's strike would deliver more damage than the mandrill's slash, also considering this:

Posted Image

Also, the more predatory behaviour and killing experience of the bird must be taken into account, while having the bigger weapon (40 cm skull...) would definetly help.

I'm not actually sure of who would win, just wanted to balance 221 extra's thought.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
221Extra
Member Avatar
Deny, deny, deny.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Mar 20 2014, 09:45 AM
221extra
Mar 19 2014, 02:33 PM


That hit & run tactic really does not strike me as effective against large opponents, especially those who can grapple & move their feet well. That coupled with this Bird's slender build & it being likened to that of a 'gigantic' Seriema leads me to believe it will get overpowered quite quickly. The Terror Bird is just outmatched & it's size advantage is rather insignificant to make a difference, imo.
I think that this bird would be and appear significantly more robust than a Seriema, probably more or less as much as the Mandrill is more robust than 2 kg monkeys.

Regardless, these Birds weren't noted for being powerfully built:

"The subfamily to which the genus belonged, the Patagornithinae, contained species that were of quite slender build; it looked much like the larger phorusrhacid Phorusrhacos, but it was more elegant and smaller and had a proportionally higher beak, the most massive in proportion to body size of all phorusrhacids. "

That as I've mentioned combined with it's beak (which has been suggested to be more effective for much smaller prey) make it appear ill suited to take on a powerful & formidable armed Mandrill.
Vobby
Mar 20 2014, 09:45 AM
Anyway 221 extra, don't you think that a mandrill should be considered relatively less formidable than baboons, since they don't fight nearly as much and are less aggressive (correct me if I'm wrong)?

No, their more powerful build, bigger size, & even larger canines more than make up for that, tho you are right that Mandrills seem to have less conflict:
Quote:
 
Do Mandrills Reconcile?
Mandrills seem to be an ideal candidate in which to investigate reconciliation since they
meet some but not necessarily all of the requisites proposed by de Waal (2000) and Aureli et
al. (2002). Several lines of evidence suggest that mandrills are not likely to reconcile their
conflicts, males in particular, which have been the focus of the majority of the previous
research. First, adult males spend little time in each other’s company (Setchell & Wickings,
2005). Second, they do not seem to form cooperative alliances or coalitions (Setchell &
Wickings, 2005), which is thought of as one of the most important aspects of a valuable
relationship (van Schaik & Aureli, 2000). Third, in a despotic species such as mandrills, fear
of approaching the dominant individual may reduce the likelihood of reconciliation (de Waal & Mandrill Reconciliation

15
Ren, 1988). Preuschoft and van Schaik (2000) predicted that in despotic species, dominant
individuals may not rely on cooperation from subordinate individuals, since if dominants
needed the support of subordinates, the subordinates would possess some leverage (e.g.,
withholding cooperation; Vehrencamp, 1983) that they could manipulate to force the dominant
individual to become more egalitarian. Finally, mandrills may not display enough aggression
to warrant the development of post-conflict reunions; formal indicators of dominance and
submission may mitigate open conflicts.
In contrast, other evidence suggests that mandrills would be likely to reconcile. First,
juvenile and adolescent males have high rates of play and other affiliative interactions with one
another (Charpentier, Peignot, Hossaert-McKey, & Wickings, 2004). Play may be a valuable
aspect of mandrill relationships, considering the importance of play in developing social and
survival skills. Second, mandrills are terrestrial foragers and primarily herbivorous (Mellen et
al., 1981). They may be tolerant of conspecific proximity because resources are scattered, and
this tolerance may be sufficient to constitute relationships with enough value to warrant their
repair. Third, even though physical conflict is rare in adult male mandrills (Setchell &
Wickings, 2005), adolescent males engage in a relatively high rate of aggression (Charpentier
et al., 2004).

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5081&context=etd




Vobby
Mar 20 2014, 09:45 AM

I think this fight is interesting becouse (likely, regarding the bird) both the animals involved use face biting in intraspecific competition.

Vobby, I've provided plenty of evidence of Baboons biting down with their canines in interspecific conflict, read these posts:

http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8409773&t=9360260

http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8564574&t=9360260

http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8581292&t=9341638
(The account of 2 male Baboons killing a tom Leopard, provided in full detail by Gato, interesting to note that the Baboons bit down on the jugular & spine of that Leopard)

In those instances, the Baboon bites down on body parts as opposed to slicing with it's canines at an opponents face.

Vobby
Mar 20 2014, 09:45 AM

What I see, at least at the start of the fight, a very brutal clash of "faces", in which I'm confident tat the bird's strike would deliver more damage than the mandrill's slash, also considering this:

That scenario is unlikely based off what I posted, tho 2 adult (male & female) Mandrills have been documented attacking the face of a young bay duiker, one attacking the head & one pulling the legs, their was a bite that punctured the skull, go read the Mandrill profile for further detail. Their is other mentions of similar attacks from captive Mandrills but those IIRC, involved small prey such as mice, lizards, frogs, etc. I'd imagine when dealing with a formidable opponent like Baboons do, the Mandrill would employ similar methods of attack.
Vobby
Mar 20 2014, 09:45 AM


Posted Image

That is no surprise, when a Buck attacks another Buck, their antlers meet, similar scenarios with Buffalo vs Buffalo, their horns meet, when Baboons canines are a offensive weapon 1st & foremost, their is no really protection from a bite or slash from the canines, their canines don't tangle like a Deer's antlers or a Bull's horns . Tho, Other instances come into play such as the Baboons use of it's dexterous limbs. Regardless, I think we can agree intraspecific conflict is usually more ritualized than anything else, & usually is not reflective i interspecific conflict.
Vobby
Mar 20 2014, 09:45 AM


Also, the more predatory behaviour and killing experience of the bird must be taken into account, while having the bigger weapon (40 cm skull...) would definetly help.

Also these facts:

"Altogether, these findings suggest Andalgalornis was no slugger like feathered Joe Frazier. Its skull, though strong vertically, wastoo weak from side to side, and the hollow beak was in danger of catastrophic fracture if the bird grappled too vigorously with large struggling prey."


"Our biomechanical analyses reveal that if Andalgalornis used its beak in the dispatch of relatively large prey, then it must have been applied with considerable precision in order to avoid sustaining high lateral loads. We suggest that Andalgalornis consumed relatively small prey (i.e., smaller than itself) that could be killed and consumed more safely. If Andalgalornis did take large prey, then it most likely applied multiple well-targeted strikes in a repetitive attack-and-retreat strategy. Restraining struggling prey with their feet also was potentially an option, despite the absence of sharp talons."

This Terror Bird is not equipped to take on such a large, formidable opponent, it risks mortally injuring itself in the process! To win the Bird needs a lucky hit, & luck is luck, which ain't often!
Edited by 221Extra, Mar 20 2014, 05:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bandog
Member Avatar
Everything else is just a dog.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vobby, the extract you posted is confusing me. It states that canine teeth are an ineffective defense organ and the goes on to say that mutal biting is more common in baboons than non mutual biting and that both animals are likely to be injured.
Sounds effective to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
@bandog I think that that extract tries to state that, when a baboon attacks a conspecific with its canines, it's not only the canines that are going to meet, but the whole face too, so that to be aggressive is particularly risky.

@221 extra in the end I think we agree for the most part: Andalgalornis is more slender than Phorusrhacos and the same applies for its beak, wich seems to be higherand narrower. That study (let's post it)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011856

is useful and very likely right with its conclusions, that consider Andalgalornis being specialized towards small preys. Although I disagree about the fact that a predator must be able to shake its prey, and therefor sustaining high lateral loads, in order to kill big animals: reptiles like varanids and allosauroids demonstrate the opposite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bandog
Member Avatar
Everything else is just a dog.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why would that be specific to canines though? Surely any predator that cannot restrain the head by other means faces this problem.
I don't know which I'd rather be bitten by, a baboons canines or a 40cm predatory bird skull.
With this matchup, I can't really decide. My gut says go for the baboon but I know very little about terror birds and nothing about this species (except the skull size lol )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vivyx
Member Avatar
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Due to the reasons 221extra had posted, the mandrill should win this more often than not. Also, the bird's long neck will be an easy target for the mandrill to fit it's long canines in.
Edited by Vivyx, Mar 6 2016, 05:56 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply