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
Tyrannosaurus rex v Ankylosaurus magniventris
Topic Started: Jan 28 2012, 10:08 PM (48,655 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago. It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

Ankylosaurus magniventris
Ankylosaurus is a genus of ankylosaurid dinosaur, containing one species, A. magniventris. Fossils of Ankylosaurus are found in geologic formations dating to the very end of the Cretaceous Period (about 66.5–65.5 Ma ago) in western North America. Although a complete skeleton has not been discovered and several other dinosaurs are represented by more extensive fossil material, Ankylosaurus is often considered the archetypal armored dinosaur. Other ankylosaurids shared its well-known features—the heavily-armored body and massive bony tail club—but Ankylosaurus was the largest known member of the family. In comparison with modern land animals the adult Ankylosaurus was very large. Some scientists have estimated a length of 9 meters (30 ft). Another reconstruction suggests a significantly smaller size, at 6.25 m (20.5 ft) long, up to 1.5 m (5 ft) wide and about 1.7 m (5.5 ft) high at the hip. Ankylosaurus may have weighed over 6,000 kilograms (13,000 lb), making it one of the heaviest armored dinosaurs yet discovered. The body shape was low-slung and quite wide. It was quadrupedal, with the hind limbs longer than the forelimbs. Although its feet are still unknown, comparisons with other ankylosaurids suggest Ankylosaurus probably had five toes on each foot. The skull was low and triangular in shape, wider than it was long. The largest known skull measures 64.5 centimeters (25 in) long and 74.5 cm (29 in) wide.

Posted Image

______________________________________________________________________________

Prehistoric Cat
 
Tyrannosaurus VS Ankylosaurus
Edited by Taipan, May 25 2018, 11:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 06:41 AM
you appear to be missing the point.

predators are aware of potential prey's defensive weaponry. they employ tactics to get around them... be it ambush or whatever. tyrannosaurus is no exception to this, and attacking the tail would be extremely foolish. even if it couldn't get at the head or legs, it's better off not attacking the tail
Why is that?

Assuming ankylosaurus is maneuverable enough, the alternative would be being hit by the tail, which seems worse, does it not?
Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 06:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
let me ask you this; do lions attack the horns of cape buffalo? wildabeest?
the answer is no, because they 'know' those horns can seriously maim and/or kill them. tigers don't do it with gaur, wolves don't do it with elk/bison/deer, why would tyrannosaurus be any different?
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 20 2014, 06:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 AM
let me ask you this; do lions attack the horns of cape buffalo? wildabeest?
the answer is no, because they 'know' those horns can seriously maim and/or kill them. why would tyrannosaurus be any different?
A few differences between this and that.

1. The lion has the option of avoiding the horns, and this scenario is based on the assumption that tyrannosaurs does not.
2. The lion would not be capable of effectively disabling those horns, and there are also two of them.
3. The wildebeest's horns are not more vulnerable than the rest of their body.
4. They're horns, not tails.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
First, T. rex may have been able to attack the horns of Triceratops for the reason that those are not mounted on something swinging at high speed. Rather, they are puncturing weapons, with a long shaft that is an easier target. And IIRC, many of those are actually pathologies, which means that the attack was unsuccessful. Also, this method would make sense for cooperative hunting rather than solitary hunting.

But there’s no point in overgeneralizing, weapons are not all the same. It may make sense to attack and disable one weapon, that doesn’t mean the same is the case with another.
For example, if someone is fighting you with a spear, you might be able to grab that, but that doesn’t mean you could grab a club or sword swung at you all the same.
The fighting dinosaurs had the arm of Velociraptor in its mouth, true. But that isn’t the primary weapon of the drom. the primary weapon was the one that was puncturing its neck at the same time.

The swinging tail of Ankylosaurus is not going to be motionless for long between oscillations, the relatively thin shaft with the musculature concentrated near the tail base is the reason for that actually. And how fast do people think T. rex could cover the necessary distance and extend its heavy head and neck to strike??

So under the assumption that it can not avoid it, is it going to be able to bite the tail? I’m not sure of that.
Edited by theropod, Oct 20 2014, 07:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 06:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 AM
let me ask you this; do lions attack the horns of cape buffalo? wildabeest?
the answer is no, because they 'know' those horns can seriously maim and/or kill them. why would tyrannosaurus be any different?
A few differences between this and that.

1. The lion has the option of avoiding the horns, and this scenario is based on the assumption that tyrannosaurs does not.
2. The lion would not be capable of effectively disabling those horns, and there are also two of them.
3. The wildebeest's horns are not more vulnerable than the rest of their body.
4. They're horns, not tails.
lol you're missing the point entirely. predators don't try and disable prey's defensive weaponry(horns are analagous with ankys club in this situation) because the likelyhood of them getting maimed is high. predators attack to kill, not to engage in knock down drag outs with prey. Tyrannosaurus is no different. there's absolutely no reason for tyrannosaurus to attack the tail. the risk of it being seriously injured is too high, and not worth the risk involved.

in a face to face fight, rex is going for the head, or the legs. not the tail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 07:05 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 06:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 AM
let me ask you this; do lions attack the horns of cape buffalo? wildabeest?
the answer is no, because they 'know' those horns can seriously maim and/or kill them. why would tyrannosaurus be any different?
A few differences between this and that.

1. The lion has the option of avoiding the horns, and this scenario is based on the assumption that tyrannosaurs does not.
2. The lion would not be capable of effectively disabling those horns, and there are also two of them.
3. The wildebeest's horns are not more vulnerable than the rest of their body.
4. They're horns, not tails.
lol you're missing the point entirely. predators don't try and disable prey's defensive weaponry(horns are analagous with ankys club in this situation) because the likelyhood of them getting maimed is high. predators attack to kill, not to engage in knock down drag outs with prey. Tyrannosaurus is no different. there's absolutely no reason for tyrannosaurus to attack the tail. the risk of it being seriously injured is too high, and not worth the risk involved.

in a face to face fight, rex is going for the head, or the legs. not the tail.
You are the one missing the point. If a predator has the opportunity to cripple their prey's defenses without injuring themselves, they will take it, especially if their other option amounts to letting themselves get severely injured. Besides, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing with you. You're obviously not understanding my stance. Of course tyrannosaurus would normally target the head, no one said otherwise. But I'm not talking about a normal scenario, now am I?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 07:16 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 07:05 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 06:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 AM
let me ask you this; do lions attack the horns of cape buffalo? wildabeest?
the answer is no, because they 'know' those horns can seriously maim and/or kill them. why would tyrannosaurus be any different?
A few differences between this and that.

1. The lion has the option of avoiding the horns, and this scenario is based on the assumption that tyrannosaurs does not.
2. The lion would not be capable of effectively disabling those horns, and there are also two of them.
3. The wildebeest's horns are not more vulnerable than the rest of their body.
4. They're horns, not tails.
lol you're missing the point entirely. predators don't try and disable prey's defensive weaponry(horns are analagous with ankys club in this situation) because the likelyhood of them getting maimed is high. predators attack to kill, not to engage in knock down drag outs with prey. Tyrannosaurus is no different. there's absolutely no reason for tyrannosaurus to attack the tail. the risk of it being seriously injured is too high, and not worth the risk involved.

in a face to face fight, rex is going for the head, or the legs. not the tail.
You are the one missing the point. If a predator has the opportunity to cripple their prey's defenses without injuring themselves, they will take it, especially if their other option amounts to letting themselves get severely injured. Besides, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing with you. You're obviously not understanding my stance. Of course tyrannosaurus would normally target the head, no one said otherwise. But I'm not talking about a normal scenario, now am I?
give me 5 instances of extant animals 'crippling' their preys defenses, and i'll let it be. you haven't provided any good evidence to support tyrannosaurus attacking the tail, so i'm inclined to believe it wouldn't happen based on the examples i've presented.
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 20 2014, 07:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 07:20 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 07:16 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 07:05 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 06:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 06:48 AM
let me ask you this; do lions attack the horns of cape buffalo? wildabeest?
the answer is no, because they 'know' those horns can seriously maim and/or kill them. why would tyrannosaurus be any different?
A few differences between this and that.

1. The lion has the option of avoiding the horns, and this scenario is based on the assumption that tyrannosaurs does not.
2. The lion would not be capable of effectively disabling those horns, and there are also two of them.
3. The wildebeest's horns are not more vulnerable than the rest of their body.
4. They're horns, not tails.
lol you're missing the point entirely. predators don't try and disable prey's defensive weaponry(horns are analagous with ankys club in this situation) because the likelyhood of them getting maimed is high. predators attack to kill, not to engage in knock down drag outs with prey. Tyrannosaurus is no different. there's absolutely no reason for tyrannosaurus to attack the tail. the risk of it being seriously injured is too high, and not worth the risk involved.

in a face to face fight, rex is going for the head, or the legs. not the tail.
You are the one missing the point. If a predator has the opportunity to cripple their prey's defenses without injuring themselves, they will take it, especially if their other option amounts to letting themselves get severely injured. Besides, I'm not even sure why I'm arguing with you. You're obviously not understanding my stance. Of course tyrannosaurus would normally target the head, no one said otherwise. But I'm not talking about a normal scenario, now am I?
give me 5 instances of extant animals 'crippling' their preys defenses, and i'll let it be. you haven't provided any good evidence to support tyrannosaurus attacking the tail, so i'm inclined to believe it wouldn't happen based on the examples i've presented.
Five examples? There are no modern vertebrates specialized in using their tail as a weapon, so five is... eh...

Though there is an invertebrate with a weaponized tail that I know of. Scorpions. And it has been documented that animals that prey on or otherwise enter conflict with scorpions will sometimes sever the scorpion's tail. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's pretty similar in that the weapon in question is a tail, and that not disabling the tail would carry the risk of getting struck by it.
Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 07:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
lol it doesn't matter if the defensive weaponry is on the head or tail. i've already stated why. but, to reiterate;predators avoid said defenses, regardless of where it is located on the body. your post solidified the fact that you cannot give 5 examples, and instead went on about invertebrates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:25 AM
lol it doesn't matter if the defensive weaponry is on the head or tail. i've already stated why. but, to reiterate;predators avoid said defenses, regardless of where it is located on the body. your post solidified the fact that you cannot give 5 examples, and instead went on about invertebrates.
What are you talking about?

Though an ankylosaur tail and a scorpion tail have significant differences, they are much, much more similar to each other than to horns, jaws, tusks, claws, etcetera. The fact that the scorpion, one of the few extant animals with a weaponized tail, often has its tail disabled by its predators is solid evidence that predators will take the opportunity to disable a weaponized tail to prevent its use.

You seemed so keen to compare ungulate horns with ankylosaur tails and lions with tyrannosaurs, but don't even recognize the similarity between an ankylosaur's tail and a scorpion's tail. Or you do, in which case you're selectively dismissing evidence for no reason.
Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 08:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 08:38 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:25 AM
lol it doesn't matter if the defensive weaponry is on the head or tail. i've already stated why. but, to reiterate;predators avoid said defenses, regardless of where it is located on the body. your post solidified the fact that you cannot give 5 examples, and instead went on about invertebrates.
What are you talking about?

Though an ankylosaur tail and a scorpion tail have significant differences, they are much, much more similar to each other than to horns, jaws, tusks, claws, etcetera. The fact that the scorpion, one of the few extant animals with a weaponized tail, often has its tail disabled by its predators is solid evidence that predators will take the opportunity to disable a weaponized tail to prevent its use.

You seemed so keen to compare ungulate horns with ankylosaur tails and lions with tyrannosaurs, but don't even recognize the similarity between an ankylosaur's tail and a scorpion's tail. Or you do, in which case you're selectively dismissing evidence for no reason.
incorrect. scorpions inject venom to kill their prey, and helps aid in digestion. depending on the specie, the sting has little effect on animals much larger then themselves. the function of ankys tail is rather obvious, and i don't feel like repeating myself.

don't put words in my mouth. i never once stated lions = tyrannosaurus, merely used the lion as an analogy in predation habits & tactics.
yes, drawing parellels to ungalate horns to ankylosaurus' tail is acceptable. both are made up of bone, and primarily serve as defensive weaponry. that's a far better analogy then a scorpion, who's tail serves an entirely different purpose, and is made up of different substances.

i'm selectively dismissing evidence? show me where, please. because it seems to me you haven't provided any, and are now taking an aggressive stance that was by no means warranted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:50 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 08:38 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:25 AM
lol it doesn't matter if the defensive weaponry is on the head or tail. i've already stated why. but, to reiterate;predators avoid said defenses, regardless of where it is located on the body. your post solidified the fact that you cannot give 5 examples, and instead went on about invertebrates.
What are you talking about?

Though an ankylosaur tail and a scorpion tail have significant differences, they are much, much more similar to each other than to horns, jaws, tusks, claws, etcetera. The fact that the scorpion, one of the few extant animals with a weaponized tail, often has its tail disabled by its predators is solid evidence that predators will take the opportunity to disable a weaponized tail to prevent its use.

You seemed so keen to compare ungulate horns with ankylosaur tails and lions with tyrannosaurs, but don't even recognize the similarity between an ankylosaur's tail and a scorpion's tail. Or you do, in which case you're selectively dismissing evidence for no reason.
incorrect. scorpions inject venom to kill their prey, and helps aid in digestion. depending on the specie, the sting has little effect on animals much larger then themselves. the function of ankys tail is rather obvious, and i don't feel like repeating myself.

don't put words in my mouth. i never once stated lions = tyrannosaurus, merely used the lion as an analogy in predation habits & tactics.
yes, drawing parellels to ungalate horns to ankylosaurus' tail is acceptable. both are made up of bone, and primarily serve as defensive weaponry. that's a far better analogy then a scorpion, who's tail serves an entirely different purpose, and is made up of different substances.

i'm selectively dismissing evidence? show me where, please. because it seems to me you haven't provided any, and are now taking an aggressive stance that was by no means warranted.
1. While the venom may not be particularly lethal to much larger animals, it can be quite painful and dangerous to a similarly sized or somewhat larger animals. It is a rather effective deterrent. And even if it's not as dangerous, what difference would that make? There would be a higher incentive to disable a more dangerous weapon.

2. Of course you didn't say "lions = tyrannosaurus", because that's an equal sign. Joking aside, you did compare the two indirectly, if not directly. Don't try to say you didn't. Your argument needed to compare lions with tyrannosaurs at least partially because otherwise it wouldn't argue for the tyrannosaurus's behavior at all. And no, it's not a better analogy. The structure and substance is not important here, the defensive function is. And a tail has more in common with a tail than it does with horns. That much should be obvious, and trying to argue that it's the other way around is ludicrous.

3. See, there you go again. By claiming that my example is not evidence, you are, in effect, dismissing it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 09:02 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:50 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 08:38 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:25 AM
lol it doesn't matter if the defensive weaponry is on the head or tail. i've already stated why. but, to reiterate;predators avoid said defenses, regardless of where it is located on the body. your post solidified the fact that you cannot give 5 examples, and instead went on about invertebrates.
What are you talking about?

Though an ankylosaur tail and a scorpion tail have significant differences, they are much, much more similar to each other than to horns, jaws, tusks, claws, etcetera. The fact that the scorpion, one of the few extant animals with a weaponized tail, often has its tail disabled by its predators is solid evidence that predators will take the opportunity to disable a weaponized tail to prevent its use.

You seemed so keen to compare ungulate horns with ankylosaur tails and lions with tyrannosaurs, but don't even recognize the similarity between an ankylosaur's tail and a scorpion's tail. Or you do, in which case you're selectively dismissing evidence for no reason.
incorrect. scorpions inject venom to kill their prey, and helps aid in digestion. depending on the specie, the sting has little effect on animals much larger then themselves. the function of ankys tail is rather obvious, and i don't feel like repeating myself.

don't put words in my mouth. i never once stated lions = tyrannosaurus, merely used the lion as an analogy in predation habits & tactics.
yes, drawing parellels to ungalate horns to ankylosaurus' tail is acceptable. both are made up of bone, and primarily serve as defensive weaponry. that's a far better analogy then a scorpion, who's tail serves an entirely different purpose, and is made up of different substances.

i'm selectively dismissing evidence? show me where, please. because it seems to me you haven't provided any, and are now taking an aggressive stance that was by no means warranted.
1. While the venom may not be particularly lethal to much larger animals, it can be quite painful and dangerous to a similarly sized or somewhat larger animals. It is a rather effective deterrent. And even if it's not as dangerous, what difference would that make? There would be a higher incentive to disable a more dangerous weapon.

2. Of course you didn't say "lions = tyrannosaurus", because that's an equal sign. Joking aside, you did compare the two indirectly, if not directly. Don't try to say you didn't. Your argument needed to compare lions with tyrannosaurs at least partially because otherwise it wouldn't argue for the tyrannosaurus's behavior at all. And no, it's not a better analogy. The structure and substance is not important here, the defensive function is. And a tail has more in common with a tail than it does with horns. That much should be obvious, and trying to argue that it's the other way around is ludicrous.

3. See, there you go again. By claiming that my example is not evidence, you are, in effect, dismissing it.
i could say the same with how wolves hunt bison and deer, tiger predation on gaur & deer, leopard predation on primates & warthogs, the list goes on and on. predators hunt animals differently if it's got defensive weaponry, or if its a runner, etc. that was my point, but you seem to have glazed over that.

your logic of 'the structure and function doesn't matter, but defensive purposes do' is flawed from the get-go, because ungulates use their horns for defense. your argument hinges solely on the scorpion having a defensive weapon on its tail.
are you insinuating cape buffalo horns aren't analogous here, simply because their not located on the tail? lol
just a little fyi, scorpion tails are morphologically & anatomically different then the tail of anky. not the best analogy, but you already stated that.
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 20 2014, 09:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 09:15 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 09:02 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:50 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 08:38 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 08:25 AM
lol it doesn't matter if the defensive weaponry is on the head or tail. i've already stated why. but, to reiterate;predators avoid said defenses, regardless of where it is located on the body. your post solidified the fact that you cannot give 5 examples, and instead went on about invertebrates.
What are you talking about?

Though an ankylosaur tail and a scorpion tail have significant differences, they are much, much more similar to each other than to horns, jaws, tusks, claws, etcetera. The fact that the scorpion, one of the few extant animals with a weaponized tail, often has its tail disabled by its predators is solid evidence that predators will take the opportunity to disable a weaponized tail to prevent its use.

You seemed so keen to compare ungulate horns with ankylosaur tails and lions with tyrannosaurs, but don't even recognize the similarity between an ankylosaur's tail and a scorpion's tail. Or you do, in which case you're selectively dismissing evidence for no reason.
incorrect. scorpions inject venom to kill their prey, and helps aid in digestion. depending on the specie, the sting has little effect on animals much larger then themselves. the function of ankys tail is rather obvious, and i don't feel like repeating myself.

don't put words in my mouth. i never once stated lions = tyrannosaurus, merely used the lion as an analogy in predation habits & tactics.
yes, drawing parellels to ungalate horns to ankylosaurus' tail is acceptable. both are made up of bone, and primarily serve as defensive weaponry. that's a far better analogy then a scorpion, who's tail serves an entirely different purpose, and is made up of different substances.

i'm selectively dismissing evidence? show me where, please. because it seems to me you haven't provided any, and are now taking an aggressive stance that was by no means warranted.
1. While the venom may not be particularly lethal to much larger animals, it can be quite painful and dangerous to a similarly sized or somewhat larger animals. It is a rather effective deterrent. And even if it's not as dangerous, what difference would that make? There would be a higher incentive to disable a more dangerous weapon.

2. Of course you didn't say "lions = tyrannosaurus", because that's an equal sign. Joking aside, you did compare the two indirectly, if not directly. Don't try to say you didn't. Your argument needed to compare lions with tyrannosaurs at least partially because otherwise it wouldn't argue for the tyrannosaurus's behavior at all. And no, it's not a better analogy. The structure and substance is not important here, the defensive function is. And a tail has more in common with a tail than it does with horns. That much should be obvious, and trying to argue that it's the other way around is ludicrous.

3. See, there you go again. By claiming that my example is not evidence, you are, in effect, dismissing it.
i could say the same with how wolves hunt bison and deer, tiger predation on gaur & deer, leopard predation on primates & warthogs, the list goes on and on. predators hunt animals differently if it's got defensive weaponry, or if its a runner. that was my point, but you seem to have glazed over that.

your logic of 'the structure and function doesn't matter, but defensive purposes do' is flawed from the get-go, because ungulates use their horns for defense. your argument hinges solely on the scorpion having a defensive weapon on its tail.
are you insinuating cape buffalo horns aren't analogous here, simply because their not located on the tail? lol
I am implying that horns are less analogous because they are:

1. Not vulnerable to being disabled by a predator like a tail is.
2. Very close to an actually vulnerable area, the head and throat, which would be easier to attack than the horns.
3. Not the only defensive weapon wildebeest or cape buffalo have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrant
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think its fair to compare a tyrannosaurus's hunting strategy to an extant animals, as it actually has the capacity to bite off horns and armored limbs.

I am not sure whether a t.rex could actually bite down on ankylosaurus tail or even try it, but it definitely would have a better chance of doing so than a lion would with a buffaloes horn.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.