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
Orca (Killer Whale) v Deinosuchus rugosus
Topic Started: May 5 2012, 11:04 PM (16,425 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Orca (Killer Whale) - Orcinus orca
he killer whale (Orcinus orca), commonly referred to as the orca whale or orca, and less commonly as the blackfish, is a toothed whale belonging to the oceanic dolphin family. Killer whales are found in all oceans, from the frigid Arctic and Antarctic regions to tropical seas. Killer whales as a species have a diverse diet, although individual populations often specialize in particular types of prey. Some feed exclusively on fish, while others hunt marine mammals such as sea lions, seals, walruses and even large whales. Killer whales are regarded as apex predators, lacking natural predators. Killer whales distinctively bear a black back, white chest and sides, and a white patch above and behind the eye. Killer whales have a heavy and robust body with a large dorsal fin up to 2 metres (6.6 ft) tall. Behind the fin, they have a dark grey "saddle patch" across the back. Antarctic killer whales may have pale grey to nearly white backs. Adult killer whales are very distinctive and are not usually confused with any other sea creature. The killer whale's teeth are very strong and covered in enamel. Its jaws are a powerful gripping apparatus, as the upper teeth fall into the gaps between the lower teeth when the mouth is closed. The front teeth are inclined slightly forward and outward, thus allowing the killer whale to withstand powerful jerking movements from its prey while the middle and back teeth hold it firmly in place. Killer whales are the largest extant members of the dolphin family. Males typically range from 6 to 8 metres (20–26 ft) long and weigh in excess of 6 tonnes (5.9 long tons; 6.6 short tons). Females are smaller, generally ranging from 5 to 7 metres (16–23 ft) and weighing about 3 to 4 tonnes (3.0 to 3.9 long tons; 3.3 to 4.4 short tons). The largest male killer whale on record was 9.8 metres (32 ft), weighing over 10 tonnes (9.8 long tons; 11 short tons), while the largest female was 8.5 metres (28 ft), weighing 7.5 tonnes (7.4 long tons; 8.3 short tons).

Posted Image

Deinosuchus rugosus
Deinosuchus is an extinct genus related to the alligator that lived 73 to 80 Ma (million years ago), during the late Cretaceous period. The name translates as "terrible crocodile" and is derived from the Greek deinos (δεινός), "terrible", and soukhos (σοῦχος), "crocodile". The first remains were discovered in North Carolina (United States) in the 1850s; the genus was named and described in 1909. Additional fragments were discovered in the 1940s and were later incorporated into an influential, though inaccurate, skull reconstruction at the American Museum of Natural History. Knowledge of Deinosuchus remains incomplete, but better cranial material found in recent years has expanded scientific understanding of this massive predator. Although Deinosuchus was far larger than any modern crocodile or alligator—measuring up to 12 m (39 ft) and weighing up to 8.5 metric tons (9.4 short tons)—in overall appearance it was fairly similar to its smaller relatives. It had large, robust teeth that were built for crushing, and its back was covered with thick hemispherical osteoderms. One study indicates that Deinosuchus may have lived for up to 50 years, growing at a rate similar to that of modern crocodilians, but maintaining this growth over a much longer period of time. Deinosuchus was probably capable of killing and eating large dinosaurs. It may have also fed upon sea turtles, fish, and other aquatic and terrestrial prey.

Posted Image

__________________________________________________________________________

DinosaurMichael
 
Orca vs Deinosuchus
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Mar 6 2016, 10:54 PM
Mantrid
 
...the killer whale would be far superior to the crocodile in terms of speed.
I found the following for whatever it's worth.

p. 9
 
Killer whales can swim at speeds of up to 45 kph (28 mph), but probably only for a few seconds at a time (Williams, 2009).
link

So, as you can see, they had a source for the claim (so I guess I do have some reason to put some stock into it) and here's the specific citation just for reference.

Williams, T. M. 2009. Swimming. In: Perrin, W. F., B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, San Diego, CA: Academic Press: 1140-1147.

I'm not especially knowledgable on orcas, but this looked reliable to me. Is there any reason to suggest the alligatoroid (not crocodile btw) would be far slower than that? And even then, if this is anything to go by, the orca may not be able to sustain its maximum speed for very long.

Mantrid
 
However in deep waters it could kill it by dragging it deep under the surface.
Just askin', can't Deinosuchus do this too?
The quote about 56 km/h comes from the Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit (actually it says 55 but whatever)
http://www.crru.org.uk/orca.asp
I don't see why is Mr. Williams more trustful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile#Locomotion
Crocodiles are very fast over short distances, even out of water. The land speed record for a crocodile is 17 km/h (11 mph) measured in a galloping Australian freshwater crocodile.[59] Maximum speed varies from species to species. Certain species can indeed gallop, including Cuban crocodiles, New Guinea crocodiles, African dwarf crocodiles, and even small Nile crocodiles. The fastest means by which most species can move is a kind of "belly run", where the body moves in a snake-like fashion, limbs splayed out to either side paddling away frantically while the tail whips to and fro. Crocodiles can reach speeds of 10–11 km/h (6–7 mph) when they "belly run", and often faster if slipping down muddy riverbanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_crocodile#Biology_and_behaviour
They can also swim at 15 to 18 mph (24 to 29 km/h) in short bursts, around three times as fast as the fastest human swimmers, but when cruising, they usually go at 2 to 3 mph (3.2 to 4.8 km/h). However, stories of crocodiles being faster than a race horse for short distances across land are little more than urban legend. At the water's edge, however, where they can combine propulsion from both feet and tail, their speed can be explosive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_crocodile#Behaviour
They can swim much faster by moving their bodies and tails in a sinuous fashion, and they can sustain this form of movement much longer than on land, with a maximum known swimming speed 30 to 35 km/h (19 to 22 mph), more than three times faster than any human.[69]

Regarding your second quote

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=739668
27 m.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia#Respiration
Crocodilians typically remain underwater for fifteen minutes or less at a time, but some can hold their breath for up to two hours under ideal
conditions.[58] The maximum diving depth is unknown, but crocodiles can dive to at least 20 m (66 ft).[59]



https://seaworld.org/en/animal-info/animal-infobooks/killer-whale/adaptations
Although not generally deep divers, foraging killer whales can dive to at least 100 m (328 ft.) or more.

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/robin/transientdive.htm
One hour of dive data from T30C, September 14, 2006. These are the deepest dives we've recorded from mammal-eating killer whales (max. depth = 242 m)


The crocodile might be able to breath for more, maybe cause it is a more efficient animal than the energetic killer whale, but I'm not aware of any adaptations that would allow it to dive deeper into the sea. So if we move the fight to deep waters the killer whale can drag it down and the pressure might kill it.


We shall probably make clear in what waters does the fight take place.
dinoman27
Mar 7 2016, 02:14 AM
Just a few things to consider in favor of Deinosuchus
Quote:
 
1) A croc can hold its breath FAR longer than an orca can, up to 2 hours vs 15min. So if anything, it's the croc that's drowning the orca not the other way round.


Deinosuchus is generally said to have been lighter than the Orca, even at the largest estimates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus#Size
Using more complete remains, it was estimated in 1999 that the size attained by specimens of Deinosuchus varied from 8 to 10 m (26 to 33 ft) with weights from 2.5 to 5 t (2.8 to 5.5 short tons).[13] This was later corroborated when it was noted that most known specimens of D. rugosus usually had skulls of about 1 m (3.3 ft) with estimated total lengths of 8 m (26 ft) and weights of 2.3 t (2.5 short tons). A reasonably well-preserved skull specimen discovered in Texas indicated the animal's head measured about 1.31 m (4.3 ft), and its body length was estimated at 9.8 m (32 ft). However, the largest fragmentary remains of D. riograndensis were 1.5 times the size of those of the average D. rugosus and it was determined that the largest individuals of this species may have been up to 12 m (39 ft) in length and perhaps weighed as much as 8.5 t (9.4 short tons).[3]
Also the Orca is a better swimmer, perfectly adapted to swimming instead of amphibious. It might breath more so it wouldn't probably drown, but there's no evidence that it can dive deeper than the Orca and it would hardly resist if the whale was grabbing it.

Quote:
 
2) Deinosuchus had a FAR more lethal Bite that the Orca. Sure The Orca had a large skull and teeth and could probably bite decently hard, it is nothing Compared to a Deinosuchus skull and a crocs adaptations in general for a ridiculously high bite. Most of the time, crocodiles choose to drown their prey rather than try and crush it to death simply because it's the easiest, most injury proof method of killing. If you see the way Crocs kill turtles and shark's it's different etc crocs straightaway go for crushing the shell of turtles and they actually try to bring the shark out of the Water to eat rather than the other way round

The bite force of a killer whale hasn't been estimated very reliably, which is something someone should take care of. However I do have something.
http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/4033650/162100/
Also there's the bite force of Basilosaurus Isis, the skull of which doesn't seem much more resistant to torsion than that of a killer whale.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118380

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus#Size
This was later corroborated when it was noted that most known specimens of D. rugosus usually had skulls of about 1 m (3.3 ft) with estimated total lengths of 8 m (26 ft) and weights of 2.3 t (2.5 short tons).
A reasonably well-preserved skull specimen discovered in Texas indicated the animal's head measured about 1.31 m (4.3 ft), and its body length was estimated at 9.8 m (32 ft).
It doesn't show but the skull of a killer whale is actually very large, maybe up to 1,5 m. long.
Posted Image

Quote:
 
3) It is really well armored in comparison to the whale. Honestly speaking the whale is not that intelligent to immediately figure out a Crocs weakness just by taking a look at it. And while Deinosuchus might have had a relatively soft underbelly, the Orcas entire body is soft. Literally if Deinosuchus gets in 1 bite, the Orca is done for

First of all, intelligence doesn't matter. We are basically discussing whether one animal could use its own weapons and the other's weaknesses against it. And the killer whale is very large and quite blubbery so it would have a significant resistance to bites (if the crocodile was managing to bite it). Besides, killer whales are actually known to be very smart animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Feeding
Killer whales can induce tonic immobility in sharks and rays by holding them upside down, rendering them helpless and incapable of injuring the whale.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 04:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snow Leopard
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rivers, Lakes, or ponds: Deinosuchus

Any ocean: Orca
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Snow Leopard
Mar 7 2016, 04:35 AM
Rivers, Lakes, or ponds: Deinosuchus

Any ocean: Orca
I have no arguments against that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I don't see why is Mr. Williams more trustful.
Well, I looked into the page you provided; there are no references cited. Thus, I'm not sure where they got that figure from, but if it indeed originated from themselves, then I feel more inclined to favor one from a published work.
Quote:
 
Also there's the bite force of Basilosaurus Isis [sic], the skull of which doesn't seem much more resistant to torsion than that of a killer whale.
I'm not at all saying the killer whale wouldn't have a powerful bite, but I don't think resistance to torsion is really all that relevant in regards to bite force. Torsion is basically twisting forces (e.g. when you wring a wet towel, it experiences torsion); biting brings upon different forces.
Quote:
 
t doesn't show but the skull of a killer whale is actually very large, maybe up to 1,5 m. long.
Having looked at pics of the skeletons/skeletals of orcas, in addition to people next to their skulls, their heads do not look that large relative to their size IMO. I've seen a few orca skull replicas online too and they're apparently "only" ~86-87cm in length (1, 2), which would corroborate the aforementioned statement if true.
Edited by Ausar, Mar 7 2016, 05:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I don't see why is Mr. Williams more trustful.
Well, I looked into the page you provided; there are no references cited. Thus, I'm not sure where they got that figure from, but if it indeed originated from themselves, then I feel more inclined to favor one from a published work.


There's something that someone should say at some time.
Just cause a work is named "(author name), (date)" it doesn't mean that it is the world's most accurate thing. My source's name says everything. "Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit". They do research also.
http://www.crru.org.uk/about_us.asp

Some other sources might have different estimates of the killer whale's speed, some as high as 60 km/h. But I chose this one.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Also there's the bite force of Basilosaurus Isis [sic], the skull of which doesn't seem much more resistant to torsion than that of a killer whale.
I'm not at all saying the killer whale wouldn't have a powerful bite, but I don't think resistance to torsion is really all that relevant in regards to bite force. Torsion is basically twisting forces (e.g. when you wring a wet towel, it experiences torsion); biting brings upon different forces.


How is a jawbone's resistance to torsion relevant to its bite force?

It doesn't look like B. Isis would have a much tougher skull anyway.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
t doesn't show but the skull of a killer whale is actually very large, maybe up to 1,5 m. long.
Having looked at pics of the skeletons/skeletals of orcas, in addition to people next to their skulls, their heads do not look that large relative to their size IMO. I've seen a few orca skull replicas online too and they're apparently "only" ~86-87cm in length (1, 2), which would corroborate the aforementioned statement if true.


That's very wrong. I estimated the length of the skull of a maximum sized individual and I posted the image that I used. 86-87 cm. would be laughably small. Those replicas you have found aren't implied to be maximum sized. Actually when they say "skull length" it's not sure that they are talking about the true animal.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 05:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid
 
There's something that someone should say at some time.
Just cause a work is named "(author name), (date)" it doesn't mean that it is the world's most accurate thing. My source's name says everything. "Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit". They do research also.
http://www.crru.org.uk/about_us.asp

Some other sources might have different estimates of the killer whale's speed, some as high as 60 km/h. But I chose this one.
Believe me, I'm fully aware of the fact that being a paper=/=it's right/accurate (that's because, as Darren Naish once said, not all researchers are created equal). I've had my experiences with this and it actually irks me whenever people appeal to authority. But papers that evidently show the fallibility of their authors have perfectly valid, legitimate counterarguments against them. Is there one against the 28mph top speed figure?

Mantrid
 
How is a jawbone's resistance to torsion relevant to its bite force?

It doesn't look like B. Isis [sic] would have a much tougher skull anyway.
You tell me. You're the one who said this:

Quote:
 
The bite force of a killer whale hasn't been estimated very reliably, which is something someone should take care of. However I do have something.
http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/4033650/162100/

Also there's the bite force of Basilosaurus Isis [sic], the skull of which doesn't seem much more resistant to torsion than that of a killer whale.


Mantrid
 
That's very wrong. I estimated the length of the skull of a maximum sized individual and I posted the image that I used. 86-87 cm. would be laughably small. Those replicas you have found aren't implied to be maximum sized. Actually when they say "skull length" it's not sure that they are talking about the true animal.
I wasn't talking about a maximum sized individual...
Edited by Ausar, Mar 7 2016, 06:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Orcas have rather small skulls for their size. You should know the size comparison between the T. rex and orca skull, Mantrid, both are roughly of the same body size, but the dinosaurs' skull dwarfs the orca's.
You should also know this picture:

Posted Image


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Mantrid
 
There's something that someone should say at some time.
Just cause a work is named "(author name), (date)" it doesn't mean that it is the world's most accurate thing. My source's name says everything. "Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit". They do research also.
http://www.crru.org.uk/about_us.asp

Some other sources might have different estimates of the killer whale's speed, some as high as 60 km/h. But I chose this one.
Believe me, I'm fully aware of the fact that being a paper=/=it's right/accurate (that's because, as Darren Naish once said, not all researchers are created equal). I've had my experiences with this and it actually irks me whenever people appeal to authority. But papers that evidently show the fallibility of their authors have perfectly valid, legitimate counterarguments against them. Is there one against the 28mph top speed figure?


http://a-z-animals.com/animals/killer-whale/
The killer whale has a top speed of around 30 miles an hour but can travel at 26 mph for long periods of time. It is common for killer whale to swim more than 50 miles without stopping.
http://www.killer-whale.org/killer-whale-facts/
15. Killer whales can swim up to 30 mph.

Is it possible that Mr. Williams actually estimated maximum speed for prolonged periods rather than for short bursts?

Quote:
 
Mantrid
 
How is a jawbone's resistance to torsion relevant to its bite force?

It doesn't look like B. Isis [sic] would have a much tougher skull anyway.
You tell me. You're the one who said this:

Quote:
 
The bite force of a killer whale hasn't been estimated very reliably, which is something someone should take care of. However I do have something.
http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/4033650/162100/

Also there's the bite force of Basilosaurus Isis [sic], the skull of which doesn't seem much more resistant to torsion than that of a killer whale.



I got confused. Let me say it again. :P
Quote:
 
How is a jawbone's resistance to torsion irrelevant to its bite force?


Quote:
 
Mantrid
 
That's very wrong. I estimated the length of the skull of a maximum sized individual and I posted the image that I used. 86-87 cm. would be laughably small. Those replicas you have found aren't implied to be maximum sized. Actually when they say "skull length" it's not sure that they are talking about the true animal.
I wasn't talking about a maximum sized individual...


...Well apparently I am. That's fair.
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 06:37 AM
Orcas have rather small skulls for their size. You should know the size comparison between the T. rex and orca skull, Mantrid, both are roughly of the same body size, but the dinosaurs' skull dwarfs the orca's.
You should also know this picture:

Posted Image


Yes, I know this image and I also know that this individual isn't maximum sized.

Posted Image

The appearance of cetaceans is pretty deceiving. For example from the outside it looks like the killer whale's skull is very small and it is basically the melon and the snout, but if you look at the real skull it extends a lot behind the eye.
Posted Image

A killer whale's skull is about 1/7 the length of the body. You have no evidence against that.

Posted Image
Deinosuchus has a jaw joint placed further to the back. But judging from the estimates that I posted before for its skull, it is about as big as that of the killer whale (for Deinosuchus Rugosus).

Posted Image


So the killer whale is superior in terms of
1. Speed (even at lower estimates)
2. Size (10 t. for a 9,8 m. long killer whale VS 4,2-4,6 t. for an equally long D. Rugosus, my own estimates based on information from Wikipedia about estimates of the mass of Deinosuchus and the size of the American alligator)
3. Strength (speed and size)
4. Echolocation ability (Deinosuchus has no such stuff)
and possibly 5. Much better diving capability

and inferior in terms of
1. Bite force (significantly lower)
2. Armor (it has a 10 cm. thick layer of blubber that is reinforced by collagen and elastic fibers, but I suppose its whole body is more exposed than that of Deinosuchus which has a back with large osteoderms)
3. Time without breath underwater (2 hours VS less than an hour)
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 07:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why maximum size? We can't know the maximum size of Deinosuchus.

The skull in your picture looks far larger than an orca's skull next to humans:

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 07:45 AM
Why maximum size? We can't know the maximum size of Deinosuchus.

The skull in your picture looks far larger than an orca's skull next to humans:

Posted Image

Posted Image
Dude, are you serious? We have been using maximum sizes since always. And "we can't know maximum size for Deinosuchus" is fallacious cause we already have some estimates. You did this elsewhere also. We aren't supposed to use any purely hypothetical estimates based on absolutely no evidence that MIGHT would be the maximum size of the real thing. We use what we have.

So I don't care about how large that skull is cause it's still not maximum sized.
The thread's title doesn't make clear if we use any specific ecotype of the killer whale. So we go with the maximum.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 07:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You can use maximum sizes in match-ups between extant animals. Using maximum sizes in a fight with one extant and one extinct animal heavily favors the extant one.
Edited by Spartan, Mar 7 2016, 08:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 07:59 AM
You can use maximum sizes in match-ups between extant animals. Using maximum sizes in a fight with one extant and one extinct animal heavily favors the extant one.
Well to bad. rolleyes If (IF) this happens it means you have made the wrong choice. We still go with what we have.
Of course I do not consider this a mismatch at all. The killer whale's superior elements would be good for it mostly in deep water. In shallow water it would be very restricted.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 08:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
isn't there a ~12m, ~7t estimate by schwimmer for a large D.rugosus around?
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Mar 7 2016, 08:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If what happens I made which wrong choice? What are you talking about?
And where is it specified that we're taking maximum sized individuals?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ceratodromeus
Mar 7 2016, 08:18 AM
isn't there a ~12m, ~7t estimate by schwimmer for a large D.rugosus around?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus#Size

However, the largest fragmentary remains of D. riograndensis were 1.5 times the size of those of the average D. rugosus and it was determined that the largest individuals of this species may have been up to 12 m (39 ft) in length and perhaps weighed as much as 8.5 t (9.4 short tons).[3]

Schwimmer, David R. (2002). "The Size of Deinosuchus". King of the Crocodylians: The Paleobiology of Deinosuchus. Indiana University Press. pp. 42–63. ISBN 0-253-34087-X.

It appears to refer to D. Riograndensis. I doubt D. Rugosus would be as large cause above that it gives a different size estimate for most specimens.
This was later corroborated when it was noted that most known specimens of D. rugosus usually had skulls of about 1 m (3.3 ft) with estimated total lengths of 8 m (26 ft) and weights of 2.3 t (2.5 short tons). A reasonably well-preserved skull specimen discovered in Texas indicated the animal's head measured about 1.31 m (4.3 ft), and its body length was estimated at 9.8 m (32 ft).

Is there any D. Hatcheri?

Posted Image
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 08:20 AM
If what happens I made which wrong choice? What are you talking about?
And where is it specified that we're taking maximum sized individuals?
If the match up turns out to be inappropriate with maximum estimates for the extant animal and available material for the extinct one, then you need an extinct animal that seems to have been larger.

There is no signed law for this. It's just what is normal. Unless you want to specify that you simulate an average individual scenario, what we are discussing is whether Deinosuchus, with the best properties its species give to it, could beat a killer whale, with the best properties its species gives to it.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 08:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply