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?
Woolly Mammoth 4 (66.7%)
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus 2 (33.3%)
Total Votes: 6
Woolly Mammoth v Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Topic Started: Apr 6 2018, 10:22 PM (337 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Woolly Mammoth - Mammuthus primigenius
The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), also called the tundra mammoth, is an extinct species of mammoth. This animal is known from bones and frozen carcasses from northern North America and northern Eurasia with the best preserved carcasses in Siberia. They are perhaps the most well known species of mammoth. This mammoth species was first recorded in (possibly 150,000 years old) deposits of the second last glaciation in Eurasia. They were derived from steppe mammoths (Mammuthus trogontherii). It disappeared from most of its range at the end of the Pleistocene (10,000 years ago), with a dwarfed race still living on Wrangel Island until roughly 1700 BC. The woolly mammoth is common in the fossil record. Unlike most other prehistoric animals, their remains are often not literally fossilised - that is, turned into stone - but rather are preserved in their organic state. This is due in part to the frozen climate of their habitats, and also to their massive size. Woolly mammoths are therefore among the best-understood prehistoric vertebrates known to science in terms of anatomy. Woolly mammoths lived in two groups which are speculated to be divergent enough to be characterised as subspecies. One group stayed in the middle of the high Arctic, while the other group had a much wider range. The Bering Land Bridge likely played an important role in structuring woolly mammoth populations, acting as an ecological barrier. Recent stable isotope studies of Siberian and New World mammoths has shown that there were also differences in climatic conditions on either side of the Bering Land Bridge, with Siberia being more uniformly colder and drier throughout the Late Pleistocene. While large, woolly mammoths were impressive animals, they were, in fact, not noticeably taller than present-day African elephants, though they were heavier. Fully grown mammoth bulls reached heights between 2.8 m (9.2 ft) and 4.0 m (13.1 ft); the dwarf varieties reached between 1.8 m (5.9 ft) and 2.3 m (7.5 ft). They could weigh up to 8 tonnes (8.8 tons). Woolly mammoths had a number of adaptations to the cold, most famously the thick layer of shaggy hair, up to 1 meter in length, with a fine underwool, for which the woolly mammoth is named. The coats were similar to those of muskoxen, and it is likely mammoths moulted in summer. They also had far smaller ears than modern elephants; the largest mammoth ear found so far was only 30 cm (12 in) long, compared to 180 cm (71 in) for an African elephant. Their skin was no thicker than that of present-day elephants, but unlike elephants, they had numerous sebaceous glands in their skin which secreted greasy fat into their hair, improving its insulating qualities. They had a layer of fat up to 8 cm (3.1 in) thick under the skin which, like the blubber of whales, helped to keep them warm. Woolly mammoths had extremely long tusks — up to 5 m (16 ft) long — which were markedly curved, to a much greater extent than those of elephants. It is not clear whether the tusks were a specific adaptation to their environment, but it has been suggested mammoths may have used their tusks as shovels to clear snow from the ground and reach the vegetation buried below. This is evidenced by flat sections on the ventral surface of some tusks. It has also been observed in many specimens that there may be an amount of wear on top of the tusk that would suggest some animals had a preference as to which tusk on which it rested its trunk.

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons).

Posted Image




Mammuthus
Apr 6 2018, 01:56 AM
Woolly mammoth vs Spinosaurus may be a little more interesting that using an Asian elephant actually.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

I tend to favour Proboscideans over theropod Dinosaurs if the combatants are similar in weight. Any reason not to in this one?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mammuthus
Member Avatar
Proboscidean Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Taipan
Apr 8 2018, 09:54 PM
I tend to favour Proboscideans over theropod Dinosaurs if the combatants are similar in weight. Any reason not to in this one?
It’s worth noting the Mammoths tusks are horrible for goring, and although larger than an Asian elephant is is still at least 1 tonne lighter than Spinosaurus. Perhaps causing blaunt trauma via sweeping motions could be an option, or just knocking the Theropod over and trying to crush it?

It would be really interesting to see how the Mammoth would approach this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Taipan
Apr 8 2018, 09:54 PM
I tend to favour Proboscideans over theropod Dinosaurs if the combatants are similar in weight. Any reason not to in this one?
It’s the exact opposite for me. I tend to favor carnivorous theropods over proboscideans at equal weights, but this case is an exception. I don’t find the spinosaurid’s weapons favorable against a woolly mammoth, especially when we consider the woolly mammoth’s thick fur and fat. Granted, the mammoth’s tusks aren’t really suitable for goring as mentioned above and they’d have to be used to beat the spinosaur to death, but I still consider the mammoth to be in better hands in this fight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lightning
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The spinosaurus' weapons are less formidable than those of other large theropods and are unsuitable for killing a similar sized animal, especially one covered in thick fur.

On the other hand, the mammoth's tusks are curved and unsuitable for goring.

But the mammoth can inflict blunt trauma with the tusks and perhaps slam and wrestle the spinosaurus onto the ground.

I struggle to see either killing the other but, if I had to choose, I say the mammoth wins.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kazanshin
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
If I need to put my money on one, I'd put it one the mammoth. It should be able to use swiping motions with its tusks to batter the spino or stomp it if it can knock it down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply