How would a Tyrannosaurus Rex and other theropods fare against the largest elephants and mammoths?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
How would a Tyrannosaurus Rex and other theropods fare against the largest elephants and mammoths?
How would a Tyrannosaurus Rex and other theropods fare against the largest elephants and mammoths?
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
they would avoid each other because they are not morons. t-rex would have dibs on a dead elefant though.
70-40 gorrilla tactics win vs a literal moron horde.
>literal moron horde
Takes one to know one, "gorilla tactics."
>Tyrannosaurus Internet Defense Force has arrived
Like in a Mortal Kombat scenario where there's no predation because they're 10 feet apart and facing each other or if they coexisted?
>the largest elephants
An adult bull Palaeoloxodon namadicus would be outside of a Tyrannosaurs' weight class. At between 18 and 19 tons a bulll would be almost 10 tons larger than the 10.4 tons for a big Rex like Scotty. An adult Tyrannosaurus was likely to have been hunting animals like the 6 ton Edmontosaurs and the 5 to 9-ton Triceratops and Torosaurs that it lived alongside. Nothing the Rex was familiar with outside of an Alamosaurus was as large as a Paleoloxodon. The Rex would almost certainly just leave an adult P. Namadicus alone even if it were a lone bull, because the risk of bodily harm would be too great. The Carcharadontosaurs like Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Acrocanthosaurus would absolutely try and take on a Paleoloxodon and in a hunting scenario, they would probably win by simply running up, slashing at a leg and then retreating.
That being said, if you opened up a portal between Middle Pleistocene India and the Hell Creek Formation and allowed for a breeding population of Tyrannosaurs to establish themselves in India, you would definitely get significant changes to Paleoloxodon behavior as solitary young males would be picked off by the Tyrannosaurs long before that could reach adulthood. The giant elephants would start behaving more like how African Cape Buffalo herds that are hunted by lions behave. Lone males would become a rarity as they would either stay with the herd or form bachelor herds until they were large enough to be seen as fit to join a female herd as their protector.
If we are talking about the largest African elephants though, then the Tyrannosaurs would absolutely view even the largest members of the herd as prospective prey items. Even the largest African elephant ever recorded only achieves parity in weight with a Rex.
>mammoths
At 14 tons an adult M. trogontherii would probably be too big for a Rex to risk the injury. The same goes for a big M. Columbi.
that still only counts as one!
for the t rex side how do you feel about this one?
Wasn't T-Rex way bigger than that?
The elephant in OP has palaeoloxodon type measurements yeah, but he specified "the largest elephants and mammoths".
>asian for scale
it's a bit hard to get a real measurement for t-rex because it's not a currently existing animal and most estimates you see online tend to go with high ends. overall 3.5 meters seems like a fair benchmark
It's simple in animal world. Whoever weighs more wins.
Could an elephant in musth be strong/aggressive enough to drive off a t.rex?
Hell yeah. A T-Rex was many things, but it was still probably wary of a Triceratops if they're face to face and probably went after juveniles for the most part. Elephants pose a similar problem, and small but turboaggressive animals have been known to rout potential predators
An Elephant not in musth doesn't have the composure to fight an animal taller than its eye level. It will run. It will die.
Elephants don't exactly balk before giraffes. An elephant once confronted a freight train
Giraffes are not robust or predatory. They've also evolved long enough around elephants for them to not see them as a threat in the same way we instinctually have a bias against spiders, snakes, etc
>An elephant once confronted a freight train
I know that story, it got torn to shreds and got buried by the tracks. I'm having a hard time believing an animal that intelligent would willingly charge up against certain death. It reads like a deer getting run over.
You mentioned "taller than its eye level", and this is such an example. A giraffe towers over an elephant. Elephants have been known to attack buses and other vehicles.
So what if it died? It's A TRAIN. But the elephant still went at it, and it was a hell of a lot bigger than the dinosaur. Indeed, most dinosaurs.
The story of that bull elephant that derailed a train is obvious bupkiss. Male elephants don’t lead or protect herds, at best they harass herds and act like belligerent buttholes towards everything they see. Odds are it’s just a romantic story attached to glorified roadkill to give the work crew who had to go out into the wilderness to reset the train a fun story to tell later.
You'll understand I won't just take your word for it
But you will take the word of a Victorian sign. Go learn more about elephant social dynamics and then think for yourself a little. I don’t have to convince you I’m right, I just have to convince you to educate yourself.
Another possibility is that they confused a matriarch cow elephant for a bull, but my own biases make me feel it’s more likely they’re telling a “just so story” instead of being wrong about the gender of an elephant.
I'll go with what was reported to have happened
Feel free to close the blinds and go back to sleep.
I'll have my own opinions instead, Big Brother
If they both weigh the same and are about the same height I see the elephant having a much stronger push where it's not even a real contest. I don't see the Rex biting the trunk with those tusks there which can be over 2 meters long and it's not tall enough to go around and bite the neck, and if the elephant keeps going it would probably wrestle the Rex to the ground and gore it. If the Rex gets gored or even thrown down with that much force it wouldn't wanna keep going I think
Would the Tyrannosaurus be intimidated by https://youtu.be/lAQ_rkJlGJc ? I don't know if its contemporaries produced these kinds of noises
Wrestle it? It's a two legged theropod, if it chomped down on it's neck (which it will, a Rex is taller and can raise it's upper body if needed) and the elephant started pushing it, it has two options: attempt to overpower it, which for two average specimens would always see the rex winning as it is simply a larger animal. If you're imagining a 1:1000 large elephant against an average rex, or a small rex/whatever, it can easily pivot and divert the force away or simply go along with the flow. It would certainly not fall.
The fight is dumb anyway, elephants are glacially slow, a Rex could just casually catch up to one, nip at it's legs and trot after it untill it was too weak to put up any fight. If your super hero elephant was stronger (it's not) the rex could just outpace it and come back and weaken it with hit and run attacks.
Not larger whatsoever, and probably not much faster, so your proverbial building has no foundations
>5 tons vs 8 tons
>Not larger
>NOOOO my hecking prööh's are better
>No I reject your more recent research into body mass estimates for t-rex with my decade old conservative paeleo-cuckoldry research I read in a magazine once
Is it even worth breathing if you have to cope this hard just to get by?
6 tons vs 6 tons*
Calm yourself.
No. You phrased it like Steven Seagal, Black person.
whats got you so upset about t rex vs bush elephant ?
>dinosaurs are shonen characters with aikido
shut your goofy ass up
That your weeb-addled brain cannot understand the difference between aikido and not meeting force with force then I suggest making a doctors appointment in Canada.
would Trex actually be able to survive in the current day ecosystem which actively selects against megafauna? Also it lays eggs so instant rat and small mammal driven extinction.
And yes, this post is purposely moronic because I'm more likely to get an answer throught pissing people off than through asking politely
The elephant's superior speed would spell doom for the T-Rex.
The elephant has two main advantages in a direct confrontation, being a quadruped and not having hollow bones. IF the elephant completely knocks the rex down that’s an easy injury and IF it stomped on the rex with both front legs the rex is breaking inside like its skeleton is made of porcelain.
i don't think it would have to go that far. a tyrannosaurus would likely be helpless if it gets knocked over on its side and can't support itself with the pubic bone. at that point it would most likely try to balance itself and get back up than keep biting
>This reeks of some moronic Mammalians Frick Yeah autism tribalism, sorry post discarded
Why the frick is this AIslop art covered on fricking watermarks as if it's worth shit
>still cant get hands right
Could early hominids have adapted to the T-Rex?
no. there's a reason mammals had almost no presence until the dinosaurs went extinct
Even homosexual habilis?
don't let that idiot discourage you, hominids would absolutely be fine
it's T. Rex who couldn't handle modern day mammals, they simply couldn't protect their nests adequately from any of the smarter medium sized mammals, let alone hominids
blatant lie, mammals were widespread during the cretaceous and were known to hunt dinosaurs
not just rodents but think 5 foot long honey badgers, that's the sort of mammal we've found, one preserved in battle with a dinosaur 4 times it's size and winning
>blatant lie, mammals were widespread during the cretaceous and were known to hunt dinosaurs
>not just rodents but think 5 foot long honey badgers, that's the sort of mammal we've found, one preserved in battle with a dinosaur 4 times it's size and winning
This reeks of some moronic Mammalians Frick Yeah autism tribalism, sorry post discarded
>it's T. Rex who couldn't handle modern day mammals, they simply couldn't protect their nests adequately from any of the smarter medium sized mammals, let alone hominids
Absolutely moronic take, especially since it's widely known that the Mesozoic was absolutely crawling with small and medium sized mammals.
yeah that's why ostriches and crocodiles are extinct, dumb egg layers
ostriches and crocodiles have large clutch sizes, and ostrich eggs suffer from major predation from pretty much anything around despite them laying large clutch sizes AND having communal clutches with multiple females banding together
yes but none of them were modern day mammals, they didn't get as large or as smart as today's mammals
T. Rex didn't have to deal with something like say, a coyote, active, fast, intelligent nocturnal mammals who would dare risk a night time raid of a nest
and hominids are at a whole different level, especially the ones who domesticated fire
a T. Rex nest that poses a major threat could and would be destroyed by controlled burns
for non humanoid hominids, their home environments are unsuitable for T. Rex, it's not a jungle animals and definitely could not reliable hunt arboreal hominids
we've literally found that exact scenario fossilized, but go ahead and disregard the last decades of paleontology to pretend like mesozoic mammals weren't larger than a mouse
What is this dumb shit ass take? There were more than likely as many or more species of dinosaurs as there are mammal species today. Just because we have fossil evidence of a mere handful of species of that place and time, does not mean that nesting dinosaurs of the time had little to fear from nest raiders. There were probably dozens of dinosaurs, snakes, proto birds or mammals that could raid their nests around at the time.
dinosaurs where nowhere near as nocturnal as mammals are and were back then
T. Rex had less to fear from nest raiders because something like a coyote simply didn't exist
simple fact is that modern mammals are descendant from nocturnal animals, dinosaurs were not
snakes didn't reach high levels of diversity until well after the end-Cretaceous extinction and snakes require specific adaptations in order to be able to handle eggs, birds similarly are pretty shit at dealing with large eggs, and the birds that could also did not exist back then
mammals would have been the primary nest raiders of large dinosaurs, but cretaceous era mammals were nowhere near as prominent as they are today
and, this has to be stated again and again, modern day mammals have a ridiculous baseline intelligence compared to non-avian dinosaurs, and the idea that T. Rex could adequately defend it's nests from frigging HOMINIDS is pure and utter insanity
but please do tell me how T. Rex would totally thrive alongside homosexual Erectus
Tyrannosaurus has the largest eyes of any terrestrial animal in the fossil record. The idea that he wouldn’t have good low light vision is a fantastic joke.
Of course everything jobs to Hominids after the Achulean tool kit is invented, but mammals the size of coyotes lived in the Cretaceous and they didn’t drive the mesopredator therapods extinct, never mind the apex predators.
Nest raiders frick up species who evolved in environments without them, sure, but the idea that they didn’t exist in the Mesozoic is a dumbshit take.
Eagles have fantastic eyesight and are absolutely shit at seeing things in low light conditions
and while animals the size of a coyote existed, they did not have the build of a coyote or it's specific adaptations in a hypercompetitive environment that favors adaptable species rather than specialization like the Cretaceous
nightvision requires specific adaptations, even with T. Rex's massive eyes, if they did not have a way to amplify the light caught by it, they wouldn't even remotely have anything approaching low light capabilities
remember that theropods have and had much better color vision than mammals, but this in turn also lowers their effectiveness in low light conditions
and none of the other features of T. Rex indicate in any way he was adapted to a nocturnal lifestyle
humans have pretty good eyes and yet see terribly in the dark
Thought the fossil you're refering to was explained as dinosaur and mammal seeking refuge in the same burrow and died together.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-shuvuuia-dinosaur-dark.html
Non avian dinosaurs completely suppressed mammal evolution for over 150 million years and mammals couldn’t evolve beyond victims cowering in the dark until every last one of them was dead. Get over it.
Giraffes weigh about 10% of an adult Tyrannosaurus
They were too small to be interesting preys.
Wolves sometimes hunt bison, komodo dragons are known to take down water buffalo. A big Rex would be totally able to hunt down and kill any elephant. The few fossilized we have of their shows them covered in injuries and scars that healed, Rexes were not afraid of getting physical, they were basically like 8 ton pitbulls. All they need is inflict an injury to one of four legs and it's over.
wolves hunt in packs anon
they specifically use pack tactics to separate bisons from their herds, and komodo dragons lie in ambush to catch solitary water buffalo
and just one of the dozen or so elephants he faces needs to inflict an injury to one of his 2 legs and it's just as over
>wolves hunt in packs anon
Yo bro I need directions to a certain city from ya...
All roads lead to Gran Soren
Does an elephant have the power and tools to fight off a t-rex and perhaps even kill it? Yes. However, in reality, the elephant is a onions herbivore that will try running the moment he sees that the t-rex isn't going to back down.
the t rex would run away if an ambush failed or if the elephant is on musth. simply not worth it when he could get some tasty rhinos or try his luck with giraffes. of course you'd be remiss if you omitted that female rexes were larger than the males
i decided to check the study mentioned above since the OP talks about the LARGEST elephants and mammoths:
steppe mammoth:
>average: 4 meters, 11,000kg
>largest: 5 meters, 19,500kg
palaeoloxodon:
>average: 4 meters, 13,000kg
>largest: 5 meters, 23,000kg
these would fricking BODY a t rex. i would question the credibility of anyone who says otherwise
Concerning OP's specification about "other large theropods," the Carcharodontosaurids would fricking body even a Palaeoloxodon
i don't know how considering they'd be significantly smaller. the biggest iirc were somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000kg and that's a hell of a lot smaller than 23,000kg. wikipedia says they had a maximum weight of 10,000 kg
The fact that Carcharodontosaurids hunted large theropods tells me they would fare fairly well against a particularly large proboscidean. Carcharodontosaurids are known for their weaker bites and jagged teeth, perfect for a bite-and-retreat style of hunting - they would hang back like pussies and occasionally rush in to deliver a lacerating bite whenever an opening presents itself, eventually causing their prey to bleed out. Not to mention, unlike a large sauropods, they wouldn't have a big dangerous tail to worry about either, so the rear end is an open target. Elephants can turn very well, it's true, but it can't face two directions at once, so it'll be in serious trouble assuming it's going to want to turn and escape at some point or if it faces multiple Mapusaurs, who have been hypothesized to be gregarious and hunt in small groups to take down large sauropods.
However a Mapusaurus could definitely not go toe-to-toe with a Palaeoloxodon as they were much lighter than Tyrannosaurus, which was way more massive and built for actually wrestling with its prey. One good hit and the Mapusaurus is done for. However, if there are multiple Mapusaurus I'd definitely put my money on them, considering taking down large, dangerous and thick-skinned herbivores is exactly what they were built to do.
It's kinda like a rock-paper-scissors situation. Palaeoloxodon > Tyrannosaurus > Carcharodontosaurids > Palaeoloxodon
i can see that happening with predation but not in a toe to toe kind of situation no way no how. elephant is way too big, mobile and smart with tusks that are way too long
Do you mean to say Carcharodontosaurids or Charcharadontosaurus?
The largest Carcharodontosaurid was Giganotosaurus, which was likely a 10-ton animal
https://www.thecodontia.com/blog/the-largest-theropod-dinosaur-known-to-science
And it hunted animals that absolutely dwarfed the largest Paleoloxodon.
>are you taking into account that it's rather unlikely an elephant or mammoth would be alone?
the Acrocanthosaurus hunting trackway shows it was attacking a herd of sauropods when it went in for its hit and run attacks.Sauropod trackway are well documented for being made up of not only multiple members of the same species, but even members of different species of giant sauropods. The Carcharodontosaurs were not strangers to hunting animals the size of whales that moved in herds.
>they're not exactly built for taking down multiple large thick-skinned herbivores
elephant skin is not all that thick, certainly no thicker than an Argentinosaurus
>are actively smarter than they are
Elephants are smarter than lions, but that doesn't make juveniles and lone subadults immune to predation from lions. You overestimate the value of intelligence when talking about a group of animals that are essentially 6 to 10-ton wolves that hunted everything from 6-ton hadrosaurs to 80-ton titanosaurs
Sauropods did not have the brain power for proper herd tactics though, so singling one out while the rest ran would have been comparatively easier
value of intelligence here would be a combination of tactics (adults facing outwards, juveniles in the center) and pattern recognition giving them the ability to react before it's become impossible to do so
and it wasn't really the thick skinned part I was going for but rather the multiple
with elephants killing one isn't enough, you need to kill one, then make off with your kill, because elephants will defend their fallen, something which carcharodontosaurs would be entirely unused to
it can definitely overpower an elephant, but can it overpower an elephant while 2 more attack him from the side? doubtful
and intelligence also means that elephants would adapt far quicker to the new predators than the reverse
What the frick is going on in this thread this is insane.
>Who would win in a fight, the 9 ton super predator evolved to kill armed prey or the 7 ton clueless herbivore with a face made out of bitable soft bits
Look at this fricking pseud moron talking about "herd tactics" as if they're going to launch a coordinated guerilla ambush and not just flee in terror from the scariest thing any elephant has ever seen.
This is absurd. No Proboscidian has ever been immune to predation simply because of their herding behavior and intelligence. Animals like the one and a half ton hyaenodonts Megistotherium and Simbakubwa preyed upon Gomphotheres and the saber tooth cat Homotherium preyed on both wolly and steppe mammoths. If a 1.5 hyaenodont can regularly prey on proboscideans and packs of homotherium can prey on mammoths, a pack of multi-ton Carcharodontosaurids would have been able to successfully prey on them as well. Like I said here
an adult Bull P. Namadicus and M. Trogntherii would likely be immune to predation from a Tyrannosaur by virtue of their size, but juveniles, sub-adults, and smaller cows would all be prey for giant therapods. I'm not suggesting that theropods would drive them extinct or any such nonsense or even that a majority of their hunts would be successful, but they would almost certainly be able to hunt them.
The bottom line is that a giant theropod expects 10+ ton prey, and giant elephants have never met a carnivore over about a ton and a half. The giant theropod is an out-of context problem for the elephant and the elephant is not an out of context problem for the giant theropod.
We can argue all day about what happens if each animal does the optimal thing, but that's moronic, it's not something that happens in real life, and the real question is which animal is likely to react correctly.
that said an animal as smart as an elephant and unwilling to leave injured or even dead herd members behind is also an outside context problem for any giant theropod
even rhinos would be outside context levels in intelligence for them
What about the whole"rexes had primate level intelligence" thing from a while ago
Also being smart doesnt stop people from getting killed by predators
rexes absolutely were not "primate level intelligence" and anyone trying to push that is an idiot
they likely did have very high intelligence for a theropod, a basic necessity to handle the levels of sensory input it would get from it's keen eyesight and sense of smell, but it was also not a social animal of any kind and didn't have the same level of selective pressure towards higher levels of intelligence as modern day animals do
and while intelligence alone isn't an IWIN button (unless you're a hominid) what it DOES mean is that it gives a species the ability to adapt to new circumstances without requiring evolutionary adaptations
it also means that the elephant, unlike any prey species T. Rex would have faced, would have complex social bonds and the ability to conceptualize a "future threat"
as such, while individually the Triceratops would be a greater challenge than an African Elephant, with the former a successful attack would more than likely also result in a meal, unless a larger T. Rex happened to stumble upon them at that time
With the Elephant however even if T. Rex makes a successful kill he now has to defend his kill from the entire herd, which would after repeated encounters, have adapted to using group tactics
Elephants are more than capable of inflicting debilitating injuries on a T. Rex, especially if they actively go for it's legs, which is again, due to their high intelligence, something Elephants could and would figure out
That's where intelligence comes in and where T. Rex would have issues turning an Elephant into a proper meal
now should be noted this doesn't preclude predation
but rather than elephants being a common prey species for T. Rex, rather they would be opportunistic predators of juveniles that have strayed far enough from herd protection T. Rex could kill and either consume or else move the carcass with it before the herd members could react properly
which T. Rex would also be, through it's keen senses, ambush tactics and very high intelligence for a theropod, more than capable of
in the end, the relationship between the 2 species would be far healthier than might initially seem
i'll concede that loxodonta would for sure not be hunted to extinction instantly, and would perhaps survive long enough alongside the rex for it to enter into an evolutionary arms race instead, with more upward-forward facing tusks and a greater bulk to resist rex predation. considering the sizes of previous proboscideans like palaeoloxodon namadicus, the result could be fearsome. the other possibility would be smaller/faster elephants more adept at escaping the hulking hypercarnivore, but that would make them more susceptible to predation by lions. perhaps both could happen, and divergence would take place. there's no doubt in my mind that rexes would be rather successful hunters of african elephants however, particularly the solitary males who it could easily tire out or cause to overheat after a prolonged, tenacious skirmish.
Males would indeed be the major issue, though there the only real selection that needs to happen is for less aggressive males that can stay with the herds
Right now the issue is that having a male in the herd is a bigger danger than a benefit, with a hypercarnivore like T. Rex around that pendulum would shift
Elephants acting in group to strike a T. Rex from multiple angles would already have all the tools needed to disable them, T. Rex can only bite 1 elephant at a time after all and elephants certainly are strong enough to significantly injure a T. Rex's leg be it with tusks or trunk
In general, I think T. Rex if introduced would significantly threaten male Elephants, particularly the more aggressive ones, but given that a sharp reduction in males is not nearly as large a threat as a sharp reduction in females, the surviving males, likely the least aggressive ones could sustain entire herds by themselves, passing on both their genes and their behavioral traits
And all things considered, I doubt T. Rex would go for Elephants after the initial adjustment, Rhinos are a much MUCH easier target for them
Perhaps giraffes too, though it's likely they at least could outrun T. Rex
course the one african animal that would be completely safe is naturally, the hippo, because there's not a single dinosaur out there that could actually risk going into the water after a herd of them
would lions be absolutely fricked?
sort of?
T-Rex would be able to steal their kills fairly effectively which would hurt them, but other than that they'd be mostly fine, T-Rex isn't going to hunt lions when it can hunt any of the many many other herbivores instead
i think they'd rather focus on hippos and rhinos no?
rhino's yes absolutely, hippos likely not that often as they could only hunt them while they were on land and isolated, and they were not adapted to nocturnal hunts, which is the time hippos come out of the water
are you taking into account that it's rather unlikely an elephant or mammoth would be alone? They are more than intelligent enough to cover eachother's rear after all
while they were built for taking down large thick-skinned herbivores, they're not exactly built for taking down multiple large thick-skinned herbivores that are actively smarter than they are
>elephant or mammoth would be alone
only females, since elephant herds are matriarchal, the bulls, as in the ones who get the largest and are the most dangerous, will sometimes form, what is essentially, a gang, otherwise theyre pretty much solo acts
while true, however this is flexible and even in the modern day some males spend prolonged time among female herds and most matriarchs have at least 1 or sometimes even more males they can reliably call on in times of need, meaning that male and female elephants are not socially disconnected
given a much greater pressure towards sticking together due to larger predators, this social dynamic could change quite rapidly, after all these are Proboscidea we're talking about, highly intelligent and capable of understanding greater threats requiring such changes
That's one factor that's too often overlooked in any "elephant vs", that they could and would change their behavior quite radically to adjust to new types of threats
the only new threat they genuinely struggled to adapt to ever were of the genus homosexual specifically because they (we) are even better at social adaptation than they are, and given just how utterly and completely unique a predator the various homosexual species were/are it's hard to blame them for it, it's not like any Theropod would be better adapt at dealing with them, and quite possibly be flat out worse at it, because intentionally driving T. Rex to extinction would be something even homosexual Erectus could and would be incentivized to do
>it was also not a social animal of any kind
That's a bold claim conidering both Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus have been found in extended family groups. Not saying Rex was a social animal even if it's close relatives were since plenty of Dromies show pack living while no 2 velociraptor have been found together, but there are plenty of people who would argue you are wrong
OP seems to be talking about a fight and not predation so your point is academic because a rex would avoid them like it avoided triceratops which did not weigh 10 metric tons on average and if they did the rexes wouldn't have gone after them
I wanna say if an ambush fails and the bull elephant is on musth the T. rex would probably GTFO
An elephant is extremely intelligent and extremely mobile. It has much better foot-stablity and agility, and can run just as fast as any T. rex, and its trunk and tusks are capable of uprooting trees. A T. rex would be fighting an uphill battle against such a creature, but if it ever managed to get a good bite in the elephant would probably be in trouble. The trunk is pure muscle, that is to say meat, and a rex would chomp right through that, and that alone would be death to the elephant. An elephant also has extremely thick and tough bones, I'm not entirely sure a T. rex would be able to punch through them easily the way it would with much thinner dinosaur bones - you're thinking bones like a sauropod, or even stronger.
I'd give the elephant better odds than the T. rex, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
in open terrain like a savanna, the elephant has the advantage, in more closed environments like forests it's Rex game
Rex best chances are in an ambush, an it would need cover for it, in the other hand the elephant only need to get aware of the lizard and position itself to stab it
It would be like the triceratops, but smarter, so it has good chances of fairing well, elephants
main disadvantage is that they aren't used to deal with predators of their size range, so it wouldn't know what to do, being forced to improvise in the spot, at least in the first encounters
you're right the elephant is inexperienced, but the size might not be that much of a shock since they're familiar with giraffes
But giraffes don't attack them
true though elephants have been known to confront giraffes, usually during musth. the size alone won't be unfathomable to the elephant
This thread again...
Anyway it would easily make a meal of even a large African bull elephant. The rex would probably weigh as much or even more, as large rexes are estimated around 8 tons and would grow to the size of a fricking bus. I'm willing to bet a rex could actually wrestle an elephant to the ground and kill it. These things hunted killed and ate Triceratops on the regular.
Large elephants can go up to 4 meters in height and 10 metric tons. The most standard measurements place both at 6 metric tons but conservative estimates of T-Rex put it as light as 4.5-5 metric tons and I'm sure you'll agree an elephant would bully that. It's highly unlikely a Rex is going to be "wrestling" a 3.2 meter tall, 6 ton elephant to the ground just like that considering it's a quadruped with tusks.
The average african elephant weighs 5 tons, an outlier weighed 10. The average rex weighed 6-7. You can bet your ass we havent found any fossils of the biggest rex that ever lived. Im willing to bet my left nut we had a 13 ton rex at one point.
"Shoulder height, body mass, and shape of proboscideans" has it at 3.2 meters and 6 metric tons, with the high end of "average" being 336 centimeters and 6.9 metric tons. And like I said, Rexes are subject to much speculation which can place them in between white rhinos and bush elephants in mass, or a full 1000 kg heavier than bush elephants. If you automatically go with 7 metric tons, I could always say 4.5 or 5 metric tons. Does 6 metric tons for both sound good to you?
It's a feasible strategy to bite down on the crest and wrench it to affect the neck. Do you think T-Rexes habitually fought Triceratops face to face in a no holds barred death match? They most likely went about it the way jaguars do against caimans, opting for ambush tactics vs adolescents.
going for the crest leads into getting stabbed by the horns because if the triceratops just looks up the crest goes flush against the neck and the horns are primed for stabbing. point being is that a triceratop is much harder to hunt than an elephant, since a triceratops has evolved to deal with predators that are much larger than it since everything protects it from above, compared to an elephant which only has to deal with predators much smaller than it
Going for the crest, using predation tactics, would not be a death sentence. You seem to think that I was positing a strategy for a head to head fight. I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion, considering I mentioned jaguars and caimans. The T-Rex isn't known to have battled the Triceratops head to head like in old paleo art, and certainly favored juveniles even with these tactics. Nor were the Triceratops horns made for fighting Rexes, but most likely butting heads with other Triceratops. Elephant tusks are longer, heavier and possibly more durable. If the Rex goes after an elephant roughly standing 320 centimeters in height, weighing roughly 6,000kg, with potentially longer tusks than Triceratops horns, with its high mobility and awareness, it may not go so well for either creature. That's not to mention we haven't established the stance of the Triceratops beast, whether it was erect or semi erect, capable of galloping or not, etc. Mathematical estimates can yield weights as low as 5,000 kg >, and they can yield 8,000 kg.
It's a lot less cut and dry than you're making it seem.
>easily make a meal of even a large African bull elephant.
No one is making an "easy meal" of a bull elephant without a gun and good aim. They're tough nasty animals.
What can an elephant actually do though? If you hug its hind legs it can't reach you with its truck, and its too sluggish to get away while you repeatedly pommel it from behind. If you stand to the side of its hind legs then it won't even be able to hit you with a back kick. If it raises its leg to perform a stomp then all you have to do is back off until it finishes its slam, then move back in to continue punching.
what if he uppercuts you with the trunk
he could shit on you and clog your punches up
can't an elephant straight up punture a t rex's chest? Triceratops were smol compared to eles.
if you combine the elephant's strength with the rex's weight bearing down on them then yeah it would be impaled
triceratops were also heavier, and them being shorter is actually a good thing since their center of mass is closer to the ground and makes it even harder to fall over, triceratops is significantly harder prey to deal with than a elephant for a trex
not if it's being ambushed and the rex goes for the neck. in that case the rex's bite force plus height bearing down on the trike is devastating. t-rex would get annihilated by a triceratops head on
>rex goes for the neck
>the neck
>against an animal that has literal neck armor
trikes were heavier but the average weight ranges overlap
Do we have evidence that rexes really hunted them though? Why hunt a triceratops when hadrasaurs are abundant.
There is abundant fossil evidence, including healed bones with tyrannosaur teeth broken off in them. Your question is like asking if wolves eat elk, the fact that it happens has been well established longer than you've been alive.
that's evidence that t-rexes failed to hunt them
Shut the frick up you gorilla moron Black person, seriously just sit in the corner and think about your dumbfrickery until you die of forgetting to breath.
Rude.
SEETHING TYRANBlack person
STAY MAD b***h.
>forgetting to breath
Kek, stay in school kiddo.
The markings on Trike skeletons are known to be feeding marks. It's so forensically evident that we've even been able to extrapolate exactly how they would take the head off the torso.
Thx for diagram, I dont think it did or didnt was just wondering since some herbivores are off the menu to certain predators today when they are at sexual maturity so i didnt know if that really applied to triceratops or not.
Yeah the other guy wasn't interested in a debate obviously.
Now you could argue the Triceratops in question was scavenged of course but regardless they tend to get bitten all over, especially on the frill in definitive tugging motions, along with certain laceration on the neck vertebrae which could only have been accessed had the head been removed from the body. And I think a Rex would have been capable of hunting them while alive.
One thing I don't see much reference to in this thread is that, when you look at OP, you see how much distance there is between the elephant and the T. rex's legs. Unless the elephant attacks the rex from the side, it's going to have trouble reaching a place where it can do a lot of debilitating damage straight away, like on the leg. The legs are way behind, all that's within striking range is the head, and its a bit high up for the elephant to comfortably hit. They're more built for dealing with animals smaller than them. So this is another reason why I give the rex the advantage.