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 (16,424 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:
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Since when is that normal? I always consider average v average as "normal". People specify when they are talking about maximum sizes or parity. Especially when we have far, far, far more orcas than deinosuchus that we know the size of. It's like using a 12t african elephant v an 8.4t T. rex. The first one is the maximum out of thousands of animals, the second one the maximum in less than 30 animals. It's misleading.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Galiteuthis
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
The Orca certainly has potential to win, as these two animals are of similar size, but the osteoderms of Deinosuchus Rugosus would provide it a considerable defensive advantage, and Deinosuchus Rugosus's jaws would be superior to an Orca's against a large animal. This fight would be closer in deep water, as the Orca would likely have a great maneuverability advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid,
seeing how D.hatcheri was described in 1909, and appears to be an older classification, i assume it's synonymous with D.riograndensis -- don't quote me on that one though, i'll have to look around.
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Mar 7 2016, 09:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Galiteuthis
Mar 7 2016, 08:45 AM
The Orca certainly has potential to win, as these two animals are of similar size, but the osteoderms of Deinosuchus Rugosus would provide it a considerable defensive advantage, and Deinosuchus Rugosus's jaws would be superior to an Orca's against a large animal. This fight would be closer in deep water, as the Orca would likely have a great maneuverability advantage.
Look at what I posted before. A maximum D. Rugosus had less than half of a maximum Orca's weight and their skulls might actually be equal. I posted it before but of course you weren't present through the whole discussion.
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 08:44 AM
Since when is that normal? I always consider average v average as "normal". People specify when they are talking about maximum sizes or parity. Especially when we have far, far, far more orcas than deinosuchus that we know the size of. It's like using a 12t african elephant v an 8.4t T. rex. The first one is the maximum out of thousands of animals, the second one the maximum in less than 30 animals. It's misleading.
Like if 30 animals aren't enough.

In many cases I see maximum size with no average size on sources. The opposite is rare.

You cannot use a D. Rugosus larger than that simply because by this logic you don't know how large it was. If what we have to do with extinct animals in match ups is to say "there's too little evidence so it was bigger than that" then why 16 m. Spinosaurus and not 18? Why 14 m. Mosasaurus and not 18? Why 7 m. Dunkleosteus and not 10? Why 12,3 m. Tyrannosaurus and not 15? Whatever maximum size is mentioned for an animal, prehistoric or extant, and is based on reliable evidence is what we have to use in match ups. And when we say "X vs Y" we mean the best of X vs the best of Y. In the Olympics Jamaica sends its best runners and that's why this country is considered the best in running.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 09:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 08:59 AM
Like if 30 animals aren't enough.

Lol.

Quote:
 
then why 16 m. Spinosaurus and not 18? Why 14 m. Mosasaurus and not 18? Why 7 m. Dunkleosteus and not 10? Why 12,3 m. Tyrannosaurus and not 15?


Because we don't know the maximum sizes of these animals. That's what I'm saying the whole time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 09:21 AM
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 08:59 AM
Like if 30 animals aren't enough.

Lol.

Quote:
 
then why 16 m. Spinosaurus and not 18? Why 14 m. Mosasaurus and not 18? Why 7 m. Dunkleosteus and not 10? Why 12,3 m. Tyrannosaurus and not 15?


Because we don't know the maximum sizes of these animals. That's what I'm saying the whole time.
I see... So what I got right now is that you are pretty confusing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 07:18 AM
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.
1.) Okay, here's the thing Mantrid. I don't consider a couple non-scholarly sources with somewhat* dissenting differences in opinion regarding peak speed to be a legitimate counterargument (*I say somewhat because 30 isn't too far from 28, so I guess I'm babbling for nothing in regards to this). Regarding your question, Williams stated that the 28 mph was sustained "probably only for a few seconds" or something like that, so I think he was giving a figure for short bursts.

2.) A jaw's resistance to torsion is irrelevant because the forces a skull experiences from biting are different from torsional force. Take a stapler and a wet towel for rough comparison. A stapler closes like a set of jaws would and the stress it experiences (from pressing down on its front end) is more of a "compressive", vertical type. A wet towel being wrung experiences torsional stress because it's being twisted. As you can see, these are two different types of stress, hence whether or not a set of jaws can do well in dealing with the latter form of stress doesn't really affect how well it would fare in the former.

There does seem to be an animalian example of this actually. A crocodile's skull/jaws arguably cannot resist as much torsion as those of an alligator proportionally speaking. But on a proportional basis, alligators don't seem to be able to bite any harder than a crocodile can from what I can remember.

3.) Okay well, I can't really stop you if you want to use a maximum sized orca that seems to hold a weight advantage over a Deinosuchus it appears to be as large as on average, but IMPO, equal weights is more interesting to muse about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Galiteuthis
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 08:59 AM
Galiteuthis
Mar 7 2016, 08:45 AM
The Orca certainly has potential to win, as these two animals are of similar size, but the osteoderms of Deinosuchus Rugosus would provide it a considerable defensive advantage, and Deinosuchus Rugosus's jaws would be superior to an Orca's against a large animal. This fight would be closer in deep water, as the Orca would likely have a great maneuverability advantage.
Look at what I posted before. A maximum D. Rugosus had less than half of a maximum Orca's weight and their skulls might actually be equal. I posted it before but of course you weren't present through the whole discussion.
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 08:44 AM
Since when is that normal? I always consider average v average as "normal". People specify when they are talking about maximum sizes or parity. Especially when we have far, far, far more orcas than deinosuchus that we know the size of. It's like using a 12t african elephant v an 8.4t T. rex. The first one is the maximum out of thousands of animals, the second one the maximum in less than 30 animals. It's misleading.
Like if 30 animals aren't enough.

In many cases I see maximum size with no average size on sources. The opposite is rare.

You cannot use a D. Rugosus larger than that simply because by this logic you don't know how large it was. If what we have to do with extinct animals in match ups is to say "there's too little evidence so it was bigger than that" then why 16 m. Spinosaurus and not 18? Why 14 m. Mosasaurus and not 18? Why 7 m. Dunkleosteus and not 10? Why 12,3 m. Tyrannosaurus and not 15? Whatever maximum size is mentioned for an animal, prehistoric or extant, and is based on reliable evidence is what we have to use in match ups. And when we say "X vs Y" we mean the best of X vs the best of Y. In the Olympics Jamaica sends its best runners and that's why this country is considered the best in running.

Deinosuchus Rugosus was 2 to 5 tons, in weight, so they would be of similar size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Mar 7 2016, 10:46 AM
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 07:18 AM
Quote:
 

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.crru.org.uk/about_us.asp


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:
 


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


Quote:
 

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


...Well apparently I am. That's fair.
1.) Okay, here's the thing Mantrid. I don't consider a couple non-scholarly sources with somewhat* dissenting differences in opinion regarding peak speed to be a legitimate counterargument (*I say somewhat because 30 isn't too far from 28, so I guess I'm babbling for nothing in regards to this). Regarding your question, Williams stated that the 28 mph was sustained "probably only for a few seconds" or something like that, so I think he was giving a figure for short bursts.

2.) A jaw's resistance to torsion is irrelevant because the forces a skull experiences from biting are different from torsional force. Take a stapler and a wet towel for rough comparison. A stapler closes like a set of jaws would and the stress it experiences (from pressing down on its front end) is more of a "compressive", vertical type. A wet towel being wrung experiences torsional stress because it's being twisted. As you can see, these are two different types of stress, hence whether or not a set of jaws can do well in dealing with the latter form of stress doesn't really affect how well it would fare in the former.

There does seem to be an animalian example of this actually. A crocodile's skull/jaws arguably cannot resist as much torsion as those of an alligator proportionally speaking. But on a proportional basis, alligators don't seem to be able to bite any harder than a crocodile can from what I can remember.

3.) Okay well, I can't really stop you if you want to use a maximum sized orca that seems to hold a weight advantage over a Deinosuchus it appears to be as large as on average, but IMPO, equal weights is more interesting to muse about.
Well if CRRU has found higher speed estimates wouldn't that be more correct than William's? I mean he might not have observed enough specimens to reach a correct conclusion.
Galiteuthis
Mar 7 2016, 10:49 AM
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 08:59 AM
Galiteuthis
Mar 7 2016, 08:45 AM
The Orca certainly has potential to win, as these two animals are of similar size, but the osteoderms of Deinosuchus Rugosus would provide it a considerable defensive advantage, and Deinosuchus Rugosus's jaws would be superior to an Orca's against a large animal. This fight would be closer in deep water, as the Orca would likely have a great maneuverability advantage.
Look at what I posted before. A maximum D. Rugosus had less than half of a maximum Orca's weight and their skulls might actually be equal. I posted it before but of course you weren't present through the whole discussion.
Spartan
Mar 7 2016, 08:44 AM
Since when is that normal? I always consider average v average as "normal". People specify when they are talking about maximum sizes or parity. Especially when we have far, far, far more orcas than deinosuchus that we know the size of. It's like using a 12t african elephant v an 8.4t T. rex. The first one is the maximum out of thousands of animals, the second one the maximum in less than 30 animals. It's misleading.
Like if 30 animals aren't enough.

In many cases I see maximum size with no average size on sources. The opposite is rare.

You cannot use a D. Rugosus larger than that simply because by this logic you don't know how large it was. If what we have to do with extinct animals in match ups is to say "there's too little evidence so it was bigger than that" then why 16 m. Spinosaurus and not 18? Why 14 m. Mosasaurus and not 18? Why 7 m. Dunkleosteus and not 10? Why 12,3 m. Tyrannosaurus and not 15? Whatever maximum size is mentioned for an animal, prehistoric or extant, and is based on reliable evidence is what we have to use in match ups. And when we say "X vs Y" we mean the best of X vs the best of Y. In the Olympics Jamaica sends its best runners and that's why this country is considered the best in running.

Deinosuchus Rugosus was 2 to 5 tons, in weight, so they would be of similar size.
Actually a killer whale can be up to 10 tons at maximum.


If we use maximums, as people usually do in match ups, it is 10 t. VS about 4,2-4,6 t. and the length is equal in any case. Also, in any case the whale is superior in terms of speed.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Mar 7 2016, 10:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Well if CRRU has found higher speed estimates wouldn't that be more correct than William's? I mean he might not have observed enough specimens to reach a correct conclusion.
Better answer: uhh, no? Being more liberal =/= more accurate or likely in the slightest.

Quote:
 
I found it. He somehow uses metabolism to estimate it. But I don't find this a really good method. It might have mistakes. If other researchers claim to have seen faster individuals then the properties given here might be wrong.

http://www.oceansinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/williamsnoren2009_costoftransport.pdf
You didn't find it. This is the source I cited.

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.

What you linked to actually has a different title (and some different authors) from what I cited.
Edited by Ausar, Feb 17 2017, 11:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Mar 8 2016, 05:54 AM
Quote:
 
Well if CRRU has found higher speed estimates wouldn't that be more correct than William's? I mean he might not have observed enough specimens to reach a correct conclusion.
Who knows? I don't know the sample size that Williams looked into; I haven't checked the actual source.
I found it. He somehow uses metabolism to estimate it. But I don't find this a really good method. It might have mistakes. If other researchers claim to have seen faster individuals then the properties given here might be wrong.

http://www.oceansinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/williamsnoren2009_costoftransport.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Galiteuthis
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 10:31 PM
Ausar
Mar 7 2016, 10:46 AM
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 07:18 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.crru.org.uk/about_us.asphttp://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/http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/4033650/162100/
1.) Okay, here's the thing Mantrid. I don't consider a couple non-scholarly sources with somewhat* dissenting differences in opinion regarding peak speed to be a legitimate counterargument (*I say somewhat because 30 isn't too far from 28, so I guess I'm babbling for nothing in regards to this). Regarding your question, Williams stated that the 28 mph was sustained "probably only for a few seconds" or something like that, so I think he was giving a figure for short bursts.

2.) A jaw's resistance to torsion is irrelevant because the forces a skull experiences from biting are different from torsional force. Take a stapler and a wet towel for rough comparison. A stapler closes like a set of jaws would and the stress it experiences (from pressing down on its front end) is more of a "compressive", vertical type. A wet towel being wrung experiences torsional stress because it's being twisted. As you can see, these are two different types of stress, hence whether or not a set of jaws can do well in dealing with the latter form of stress doesn't really affect how well it would fare in the former.

There does seem to be an animalian example of this actually. A crocodile's skull/jaws arguably cannot resist as much torsion as those of an alligator proportionally speaking. But on a proportional basis, alligators don't seem to be able to bite any harder than a crocodile can from what I can remember.

3.) Okay well, I can't really stop you if you want to use a maximum sized orca that seems to hold a weight advantage over a Deinosuchus it appears to be as large as on average, but IMPO, equal weights is more interesting to muse about.
Well if CRRU has found higher speed estimates wouldn't that be more correct than William's? I mean he might not have observed enough specimens to reach a correct conclusion.
Galiteuthis
Mar 7 2016, 10:49 AM
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 08:59 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep

Deinosuchus Rugosus was 2 to 5 tons, in weight, so they would be of similar size.
Actually a killer whale can be up to 10 tons at maximum.


If we use maximums, as people usually do in match ups, it is 10 t. VS about 4,2-4,6 t. and the length is equal in any case. Also, in any case the whale is superior in terms of speed.

I agree with you that the Orca is superior to Deinosuchus Rugosus in terms of speed. However, I personally prefer to take compare two animals at their average sizes. How about we decide on an Orca type to use?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Galiteuthis
Mar 8 2016, 06:29 AM
Mantrid
Mar 7 2016, 10:31 PM
Ausar
Mar 7 2016, 10:46 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.crru.org.uk/about_us.asphttp://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/http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/4033650/162100/Deinosuchus it appears to be as large as on average, but IMPO, equal weights is more interesting to muse about.
Well if CRRU has found higher speed estimates wouldn't that be more correct than William's? I mean he might not have observed enough specimens to reach a correct conclusion.
Galiteuthis
Mar 7 2016, 10:49 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Actually a killer whale can be up to 10 tons at maximum.


If we use maximums, as people usually do in match ups, it is 10 t. VS about 4,2-4,6 t. and the length is equal in any case. Also, in any case the whale is superior in terms of speed.

I agree with you that the Orca is superior to Deinosuchus Rugosus in terms of speed. However, I personally prefer to take compare two animals at their average sizes. How about we decide on an Orca type to use?
That would be unfair. That's exactly why people usually use averages. But even if we use average the average of a killer whale bull is about 8 m. Type A is 10 m. and type C is 6 m. That's about the same average size as D. Rugosus.

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).

The fight would still have the same result.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why would using averages be unfair? And no, people don't usually use maximum sizes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Mar 8 2016, 06:59 AM
Why would using averages be unfair? And no, people don't usually use maximum sizes.
Yes they do. Don't try to avoid this. Here's just one example. http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/10422186/2/#new
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply