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 (48,654 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:
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 09:27 AM
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.
of course the horns aren't the only defensive weapons of buffalo & wildabeest, just like anky's tail isn't its only weapon. however, ungulate horns & anky's tail have primarily one purpose: defense. it's also a sexually selective characteristic in ungulates, while this would be speculation when applied to anky. the scorpions tail evolved the way it did for one reason: dispatching prey. defense is a secondary thing that's a rather useful deterrant.

by your logic, triceratops horns aren't good defensive weapons, because they're in an area predators can attack, when we have evidence Tyrannosaurus at least attempted to dispatch via attacking them( stated by you) while we have evidence suggesting they were useful as predator deterrants as well.

defensive weaponry located on the head =/= poor weaponry.

you're comparing an invertebrate with a tail evolved to hunt, with a vertebrate with a tail evolved for defense. need i say more?
Tyrant
Oct 20 2014, 09:31 AM
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.
i was using it as an analogy only for the purpose of showing predators hunt prey species differently, based on defensive weaponry prey posses, or it's just a runner. this can be applied to a multitude of carnivorous species, not just the lion.
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 20 2014, 09:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 09:43 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 09:27 AM
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.
of course the horns aren't the only defensive weapons of buffalo & wildabeest, just like anky's tail isn't its only weapon. however, ungulate horns & anky's tail have primarily one purpose: defense. it's also a sexually selective characteristic in ungulates, while this would be speculation when applied to anky. the scorpions tail evolved the way it did for one reason: dispatching prey. defense is a secondary thing that's a rather useful deterrant.

by your logic, triceratops horns aren't good defensive weapons, because they're in an area predators can attack, when we have evidence Tyrannosaurus at least attempted to dispatch via attacking them( stated by you) while we have evidence suggesting they were useful as predator deterrants as well.

defensive weaponry located on the head =/= poor weaponry.

you're comparing an invertebrate with a tail evolved to hunt, with a vertebrate with a tail evolved for defense. need i say more?
Actually, its tail was the only defensive weapon against a tyrannosaurus. Unless you can describe another.

Regardless, your arguments are flawed. The reason the scorpion's tail evolved and its main purpose are not relevant. The scorpion's invertebrate status is also irrelevant. It does use its tail in defense, which ankylosaurus also does, and it's a tail, just like ankylosaurus's tail.

You're also making incorrect assumptions about my logic (to the point of constructing a strawman). My logic does not say the triceratops's horns would not be a good defensive weapon, it states that a predator would have less reason to attack the horns themselves than they would to attack a weaponized tail, which is true. And despite that, the tyrannosaurus would still bite the horns. And if tyrannosaurus was willing to do that, what makes you think it wouldn't be willing to attack the tail, a much better and more vulnerable target?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
breaking the text wall, it was getting annoying...

wait, so my argument is flawed because i stated anatomical & morphilogical differences, which is rather important? your argument hinges on the scorpions defensive appendage being on its tail, so it must be analogous to a tail evolved for an entirely different purpose?

placement of a defensive appendage is in itself irrelevant, because predators avoid that end of the animal regardless. that's with the exception of the scorpion... the only exception you've given to support your claim.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:03 AM
breaking the text wall, it was getting annoying...

wait, so my argument is flawed because i stated anatomical & morphilogical differences, which is rather important? your argument hinges on the scorpions defensive appendage being on its tail, so it must be analogous to a tail evolved for an entirely different purpose?

placement of a defensive appendage is in itself irrelevant, because predators avoid that end of the animal regardless. that's with the exception of the scorpion... the only exception you've given to support your claim.
Your argument is invalid because why it developed and it's non-defensive purpose are not relevant to how it uses its tail defensively.

And it's not just about it being a tail. They are both similar in that they are defensive appendages that are relatively vulnerable compared to the body itself and are not close to other vulnerable areas. This contrasts with horns, which are less vulnerable than the body itself, are firmly attached to the head and thus are very close to the head and throat, which are the most vulnerable areas on the body.

There's no reason to attack the horns because attacking the head and throat would be much, much easier. Contrast that with the hypothetical "agile anky" scenario, where the ankylosaurus could keep its tail between itself and the tyrannosaurus at all times, and thus the most vulnerable part of the body is the tail itself (whereas the horns would be the least vulnerable). As I've said before, the alternative would be the tyrannosaurus letting itself get hit, and I don't think a tyrannosaurus would let itself get hit instead biting off the tail.
Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 10:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:34 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
the tail? that thing with armor covering it, and tipped with a bony club? i suppose you still think it's going to bite it off lol. no, tyrannosaurus is going to avoid the tail, not go after it.
ankylosaurus isn't very agile to begin with, but it can swing the tail at high velocity. Rexy is going to avoid it. that's all there is to it, really
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:45 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:34 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
the tail? that thing with armor covering it, and tipped with a bony club? i suppose you still think it's going to bite it off lol. no, tyrannosaurus is going to avoid the tail, not go after it.
ankylosaurus isn't very agile to begin with, but it can swing the tail at high velocity. Rexy is going to avoid it. that's all there is to it, really
Tyrannosaurus has the bite force to bite it off, and certainly the bite force to disable its use as a weapon.

Think of it this way: if you were a hungry tyrannosaurus and the only meal for miles is an ankylosaurus that keeps swinging its tail at you whenever you try to take a bite, what would you do if you couldn't avoid the tail? Would you attack the ankylosaurus anyway, knowing that you would be hit? No, you would probably bite the tail. While it's not moving as quick if you're smart.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:45 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:34 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
the tail? that thing with armor covering it, and tipped with a bony club? i suppose you still think it's going to bite it off lol. no, tyrannosaurus is going to avoid the tail, not go after it.
ankylosaurus isn't very agile to begin with, but it can swing the tail at high velocity. Rexy is going to avoid it. that's all there is to it, really
Tyrannosaurus has the bite force to bite it off, and certainly the bite force to disable its use as a weapon.

Think of it this way: if you were a hungry tyrannosaurus and the only meal for miles is an ankylosaurus that keeps swinging its tail at you whenever you try to take a bite, what would you do if you couldn't avoid the tail? Would you attack the ankylosaurus anyway, knowing that you would be hit? No, you would probably bite the tail. While it's not moving as quick if you're smart.
rolleyes proof for that? tyrannosaurus had a bite force of ~5 tons. this is enough to break bone, but slice through armor, vertebrae, and take it clean off? unlikely. i don't like repeating myself, but you think rexy's only options are to bite the tail off or get clobbered? the answer is no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:57 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:45 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:34 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
the tail? that thing with armor covering it, and tipped with a bony club? i suppose you still think it's going to bite it off lol. no, tyrannosaurus is going to avoid the tail, not go after it.
ankylosaurus isn't very agile to begin with, but it can swing the tail at high velocity. Rexy is going to avoid it. that's all there is to it, really
Tyrannosaurus has the bite force to bite it off, and certainly the bite force to disable its use as a weapon.

Think of it this way: if you were a hungry tyrannosaurus and the only meal for miles is an ankylosaurus that keeps swinging its tail at you whenever you try to take a bite, what would you do if you couldn't avoid the tail? Would you attack the ankylosaurus anyway, knowing that you would be hit? No, you would probably bite the tail. While it's not moving as quick if you're smart.
rolleyes proof for that? tyrannosaurus had a bite force of ~5 tons. this is enough to break bone, but slice through armor, vertebrae, and take it clean off? unlikely. i don't like repeating myself, but you think rexy's only options are to bite the tail off or get clobbered? the answer is no.
1. Ankylosaurus's tail was significantly less armored than most of its body, and I never said it would be easy to sever it.

2. I can remember much higher estimates than 5 tons.

3. I did not say it they are the only options, I am saying that it would bite the tail if it only had those options, which in this scenario it does.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 11:08 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:57 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:45 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:34 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
the tail? that thing with armor covering it, and tipped with a bony club? i suppose you still think it's going to bite it off lol. no, tyrannosaurus is going to avoid the tail, not go after it.
ankylosaurus isn't very agile to begin with, but it can swing the tail at high velocity. Rexy is going to avoid it. that's all there is to it, really
Tyrannosaurus has the bite force to bite it off, and certainly the bite force to disable its use as a weapon.

Think of it this way: if you were a hungry tyrannosaurus and the only meal for miles is an ankylosaurus that keeps swinging its tail at you whenever you try to take a bite, what would you do if you couldn't avoid the tail? Would you attack the ankylosaurus anyway, knowing that you would be hit? No, you would probably bite the tail. While it's not moving as quick if you're smart.
rolleyes proof for that? tyrannosaurus had a bite force of ~5 tons. this is enough to break bone, but slice through armor, vertebrae, and take it clean off? unlikely. i don't like repeating myself, but you think rexy's only options are to bite the tail off or get clobbered? the answer is no.
1. Ankylosaurus's tail was significantly less armored than most of its body, and I never said it would be easy to sever it.

2. I can remember much higher estimates than 5 tons.

3. I did not say it they are the only options, I am saying that it would bite the tail if it only had those options, which in this scenario it does.
we're at 'not as well armored' is a subjective term, again...

tyrannosaurus has had estimates as high as 23 tons tacked on it, and we all know that's a load of bull. 5-7 tons is the median i place it at, perfectly reasonable too.
i'm tiring of this discussion, as it's going nowhere quick.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 11:14 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 11:08 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:57 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:52 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:45 AM
Dilophosaurus
Oct 20 2014, 10:34 AM
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 10:27 AM
ankylosaurus isn't what you would call vunerable due to its armored carapace, which makes predators hunting it slim to none.

either you're being unbelievably dense on purpose, or you just don't understand predators don't deal with their preys defensive appendages. bringing up the vunerability issue is baseless. common sense dictates predators steer clear of horns/ claws/ clubs to reduce the risk of injury. wolves are bone crushers, yet they don't attack the horns of their prey. why, i've stated above. i don't see what you aren't getting about this concept, but arguing that tyrannosaurus is going to attack the tail without getting decimated is ridiculous
Predators like to avoid defensive features on their prey, true, but they also go after the most vulnerable area. In this particular case, the most vulnerable area tyrannosaurus can reach with minimal chance of severe injury is the tail itself. And yes, I understand, predators don't attack horns. But horns and tails are very, very different even when both are used for defensive purposes.

Or are you trying to argue that tyrannosaurus couldn't disable the tail, rather than wouldn't try to?
the tail? that thing with armor covering it, and tipped with a bony club? i suppose you still think it's going to bite it off lol. no, tyrannosaurus is going to avoid the tail, not go after it.
ankylosaurus isn't very agile to begin with, but it can swing the tail at high velocity. Rexy is going to avoid it. that's all there is to it, really
Tyrannosaurus has the bite force to bite it off, and certainly the bite force to disable its use as a weapon.

Think of it this way: if you were a hungry tyrannosaurus and the only meal for miles is an ankylosaurus that keeps swinging its tail at you whenever you try to take a bite, what would you do if you couldn't avoid the tail? Would you attack the ankylosaurus anyway, knowing that you would be hit? No, you would probably bite the tail. While it's not moving as quick if you're smart.
rolleyes proof for that? tyrannosaurus had a bite force of ~5 tons. this is enough to break bone, but slice through armor, vertebrae, and take it clean off? unlikely. i don't like repeating myself, but you think rexy's only options are to bite the tail off or get clobbered? the answer is no.
1. Ankylosaurus's tail was significantly less armored than most of its body, and I never said it would be easy to sever it.

2. I can remember much higher estimates than 5 tons.

3. I did not say it they are the only options, I am saying that it would bite the tail if it only had those options, which in this scenario it does.
we're at 'not as well armored' is a subjective term, again...

tyrannosaurus has had estimates as high as 23 tons tacked on it, and we all know that's a load of bull. 5-7 tons is the median i place it at, perfectly reasonable too.
i'm tiring of this discussion, as it's going nowhere quick.
A load of bull? Care to back up that statement?

Also, if you actually looked at the tail in ankylosaurus and many closely-related relatives, the osteoderms were likely easier to bite through than the vertebrae itself, as they are spaced apart from each other and individually quite a bit thinner than the fused vertebrae.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
lol lol at this, i'll let another poster deal with you, seeing how you believe tyrannosaurus has a bite of 23 tons and a scorpion is the best analogy to ankylosaurus' tail, there's no reasoning with you
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dilophosaurus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur18
Oct 20 2014, 11:40 AM
lol lol at this, i'll let another poster deal with you, seeing how you believe tyrannosaurus has a bite of 23 tons and a scorpion is the best analogy to ankylosaurus' tail, there's no reasoning with you
Don't make strawmen. I never said either of those things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
common sense tells you tyrannosaurus had a bite force any where above 8 tons is fanboyism, or innacurate calculations. if i wasn't on my phone, i'd link you to multiple sources, but i digress.do have proof for anything exceeding 7 tons?

my bad, you said a scorpion tail is a better analogy then ungulate horns, because the defensive mechanism is on the tail lol then you went on about how my arguments are 'irrelevant' and invalid without giving evidence! keep in mind that only occured because i called into question your scorpion example which is baseless and false. i've stated reasons why/how my claims have a basis. yours however, do not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.