while true it's because the polar bears absconded when the grizzlies came to feed not because they lost in a fight. the only solution is to give both cocaine and see what happens
bear gets hit, runs away, dinosaur chases and is lizard so exhausted, bear eats dinosaur with no energy left, um delicious gonna do this again, dinosaurs now extinct, coincidece i think not.
Something about that pic bothered me so I decided to use measurements I found online which I believe to be more reasonable, as well as a bulkier polar bear for the sake of fairness. Apparently the largest Utahraptor in this chart is the largest specimen known to us
You are clearly being disingenuous; the height advantage depicted in the OP image clearly demonstrates the ability of the larger animal to have both a height and reach advantage which is not factored into your analogy. Either you're being disingenuous or you're a dumb fucking nagger.
Where are they fighting? Utahraptor lived in the environmental equivalent of the Everglades while polar bears live in the Arctic. If they are fighting in East Texas, the Raptor probably wins, if they are fighting in northern Alaska, the Polar bear probably wins.
In my opinion, if some ayylmaos set up an environment with P.namidicus and T.rex, the P.namidicus will be on the menu. Will the Tyrannosaurs attack full grown bulls in their prime? Only if other prey is unavailable, or some other circumstance made that specimen the most vulnerable prey item in the area.
And FYI, the femur that would describe a 5 meter P.namidicus has been lost in the archives of an Indian museum for 60 years, no one has measured it since 1942. I don’t consider it reliable.
you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness. but this isn't about predation, the phrasing of OP makes it sound like a face to face confrontaation. and both animals would most likely want to avoid that unless it's a bull at the peak of his musth
You retards still cant refute the basic "Large herbivore unfamiliar with large predator loses to large predator very familiar with large prey" argument.
I should also point out by the way that the 22-ton Palaeoloxodon namadicus is based entirely on a single bone fragment that is now lost, making it about as dubious as a "Amphicoelias" which regularly gets disregarded for its lack of fossil evidence. But you don't get held up to the same level of scrutiny if you're not a dinosaur.
yammer all you want and point things out while adjusting your glasses sir
3 months ago
Anonymous
>sir
Now it all makes sense, you people love elephants so much because we're dealing with pajeets. I'm sorry bro, huge elephants are cool but there's just no way these animals would be immune to predation from large theropods, especially carcharodontosaurids and large tyrannosaurs.
you still can't fathom that they'd be head to head. and you're mean for no reason, you angry man
>you still can't fathom the interaction would play out only the way *I* want it to!
Lions eat water buffalo all the time and they don't do it by going "head to head".
3 months ago
Anonymous
there’s no need to be racist AND uptight in the same sentence
>A fragmentary femur from the same locality was said to be almost a quarter larger; volumetric analysis then yields a very speculative size estimate of 5 metres (16.4 ft) tall at the shoulder and 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons) in body mass, which if correct would make P. namadicus possibly the largest land mammal ever, exceeding even paraceratheres in size. However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
This then translates to masses of paleonerds blindly taking these measurements as undisputed fact, but when it comes to 50+ meter size estimates for large Sauropods, suddenly there's the appropriate and justified skepticism that comes into play. There's a discrepancy as to how seriously people take these estimates depending on whether it concerns dinosaurs or not. Instead people should be looking at all estimates of long extinct animals with the same scrutiny.
3 months ago
Anonymous
What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up
We are talking about something a meter taller and 15000 kilos heavier than a Rex if the accepted numbers are to be believed. Any theropod would be a victim 1v1
You're talking about an animal that primarily hunted Triceratops - not as a rarity, primarily. You could almost say that these animals were built to hunt highly armored 9+ ton herbivores with large, forward projecting horns. And that's Triceratops, who specialized in defending itself against T. rex with sharp, forward facing horns, and not a proboscidean, who specialized in defending itself against large felines with blunt, downward facing horns.
What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up
>It's what we have.
This board is fucking retarded. It's not "what we have" - it's speculative.
Triceratops were probably not 9 tons on average, that is a high end. And Tyrannosaurus didn't hunt them by charging forward and locking horns so to speak. Which is the premise of these kinds of threads. >It's not "what we have" - it's speculative.
t's "what we have" because you couldn't cough up anything else despite having all the incentives and temperament to do so. So yes, 5 meters and 22 000 kilos is what we have unless you'd like me to consider a more reasonable figure.
22 tons is not 15 tons heavier than 13 tons, and the 5 meter/22 ton estimate for P.namidicus is extremely suspect:
[...] > However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
No one has measured this material since 1942 and no one has seen this material since the 60s.
[...] > It's what we have.
We don’t have it, any more than we have fossil evidence of blue whale sized sauropods or 20 meter Spinosaurs.
Reguardless, if P.namidicus actually gets to 22 tons, the biggest predator that it ever saw in life was MAYBE 2 tons, and certainly not over 12. A Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
[...] >you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness
I do honestly respect you for the admission that you’re willing to thumb the scales in favor of the animal you like. It’s a far more honest place to play the game from than most animalstans work from. Have a nice day!
>13 tons
Tyrannosaurus was most likely in the 6-9 thousand kilo range on average, Scotty and Sue in the 9,000 range. I'm not sure how big Berta is going to be. >Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
I would argue the reverse could also be said. This hypothetical thing outweighs the largest triceratops to ever live perhaps twice over and its shoulder stands more than a meter taller than the Rex's hip, at the very least Sue's. It is not the same thing as a comparatively tiny bush elephant encountering a Rex or some other gigantic theropod. Based on size alone it's likely this hypothetical specimen would be a "super tusker" and going about proportions then the tusks would likely be long enough to at least stave off a head on assault from Tyrannosaurus for a while.
22 tons is not 15 tons heavier than 13 tons, and the 5 meter/22 ton estimate for P.namidicus is extremely suspect:
>A fragmentary femur from the same locality was said to be almost a quarter larger; volumetric analysis then yields a very speculative size estimate of 5 metres (16.4 ft) tall at the shoulder and 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons) in body mass, which if correct would make P. namadicus possibly the largest land mammal ever, exceeding even paraceratheres in size. However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
This then translates to masses of paleonerds blindly taking these measurements as undisputed fact, but when it comes to 50+ meter size estimates for large Sauropods, suddenly there's the appropriate and justified skepticism that comes into play. There's a discrepancy as to how seriously people take these estimates depending on whether it concerns dinosaurs or not. Instead people should be looking at all estimates of long extinct animals with the same scrutiny.
> However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
No one has measured this material since 1942 and no one has seen this material since the 60s.
What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up
> It's what we have.
We don’t have it, any more than we have fossil evidence of blue whale sized sauropods or 20 meter Spinosaurs.
Reguardless, if P.namidicus actually gets to 22 tons, the biggest predator that it ever saw in life was MAYBE 2 tons, and certainly not over 12. A Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness. but this isn't about predation, the phrasing of OP makes it sound like a face to face confrontaation. and both animals would most likely want to avoid that unless it's a bull at the peak of his musth
>you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness
I do honestly respect you for the admission that you’re willing to thumb the scales in favor of the animal you like. It’s a far more honest place to play the game from than most animalstans work from. Have a nice day!
The two of them stand off, maybe charge and then whack the other a little. Then, they back off and go proceed to hunt together realizing that a fight to the death is unproductive and too risky, since neither is a clearcut victor.
Maybe they crack open some beers while they're at it.
Bestiality/zoophilia/faunoiphilia are common and hot topics on this board. Most posters here would love to see some f/f polar bear on utahraptor action. I think you're lost, bud.
>polar bears get absolutely bodied by barren ground grizzlies half their size
Not looking good for the bear
while true it's because the polar bears absconded when the grizzlies came to feed not because they lost in a fight. the only solution is to give both cocaine and see what happens
the bigger one wins
bear gets hit, runs away, dinosaur chases and is lizard so exhausted, bear eats dinosaur with no energy left, um delicious gonna do this again, dinosaurs now extinct, coincidece i think not.
Something about that pic bothered me so I decided to use measurements I found online which I believe to be more reasonable, as well as a bulkier polar bear for the sake of fairness. Apparently the largest Utahraptor in this chart is the largest specimen known to us
Thought that bear seemed weirdly small. Thanks
Utahraptor's bite force was quite high, so I presume it would be able to kill the bear pretty easily.
Is it your belief a jaguar could kill a male lion?
jaguar is not twice as large as a male lion
Nor is Utahraptor twice the size of a polar bear
You are clearly being disingenuous; the height advantage depicted in the OP image clearly demonstrates the ability of the larger animal to have both a height and reach advantage which is not factored into your analogy. Either you're being disingenuous or you're a dumb fucking nagger.
how about you simmer down and emulate human speech more convincingly birdbrain?
polar bear's bite force is stronger
height advantage
nagger nagger nagger
Where are they fighting? Utahraptor lived in the environmental equivalent of the Everglades while polar bears live in the Arctic. If they are fighting in East Texas, the Raptor probably wins, if they are fighting in northern Alaska, the Polar bear probably wins.
Bear, probably.
Stronger skeletal system means it can probably support stronger musclature.
A T. rex would wreck an elephant of any size
A Utahraptor would get wrecked by a polar bear's paws to its face
T-Rex ain't wrecking no 5 meter tall 22,000kg palaeoloxodon namadicus
In my opinion, if some ayylmaos set up an environment with P.namidicus and T.rex, the P.namidicus will be on the menu. Will the Tyrannosaurs attack full grown bulls in their prime? Only if other prey is unavailable, or some other circumstance made that specimen the most vulnerable prey item in the area.
And FYI, the femur that would describe a 5 meter P.namidicus has been lost in the archives of an Indian museum for 60 years, no one has measured it since 1942. I don’t consider it reliable.
you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness. but this isn't about predation, the phrasing of OP makes it sound like a face to face confrontaation. and both animals would most likely want to avoid that unless it's a bull at the peak of his musth
You retards still cant refute the basic "Large herbivore unfamiliar with large predator loses to large predator very familiar with large prey" argument.
you still can't fathom that they'd be head to head. and you're mean for no reason, you angry man
I should also point out by the way that the 22-ton Palaeoloxodon namadicus is based entirely on a single bone fragment that is now lost, making it about as dubious as a "Amphicoelias" which regularly gets disregarded for its lack of fossil evidence. But you don't get held up to the same level of scrutiny if you're not a dinosaur.
yammer all you want and point things out while adjusting your glasses sir
>sir
Now it all makes sense, you people love elephants so much because we're dealing with pajeets. I'm sorry bro, huge elephants are cool but there's just no way these animals would be immune to predation from large theropods, especially carcharodontosaurids and large tyrannosaurs.
>you still can't fathom the interaction would play out only the way *I* want it to!
Lions eat water buffalo all the time and they don't do it by going "head to head".
there’s no need to be racist AND uptight in the same sentence
What level of scrutiny?
>A fragmentary femur from the same locality was said to be almost a quarter larger; volumetric analysis then yields a very speculative size estimate of 5 metres (16.4 ft) tall at the shoulder and 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons) in body mass, which if correct would make P. namadicus possibly the largest land mammal ever, exceeding even paraceratheres in size. However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
This then translates to masses of paleonerds blindly taking these measurements as undisputed fact, but when it comes to 50+ meter size estimates for large Sauropods, suddenly there's the appropriate and justified skepticism that comes into play. There's a discrepancy as to how seriously people take these estimates depending on whether it concerns dinosaurs or not. Instead people should be looking at all estimates of long extinct animals with the same scrutiny.
What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up
We are talking about something a meter taller and 15000 kilos heavier than a Rex if the accepted numbers are to be believed. Any theropod would be a victim 1v1
You're talking about an animal that primarily hunted Triceratops - not as a rarity, primarily. You could almost say that these animals were built to hunt highly armored 9+ ton herbivores with large, forward projecting horns. And that's Triceratops, who specialized in defending itself against T. rex with sharp, forward facing horns, and not a proboscidean, who specialized in defending itself against large felines with blunt, downward facing horns.
>It's what we have.
This board is fucking retarded. It's not "what we have" - it's speculative.
Triceratops were probably not 9 tons on average, that is a high end. And Tyrannosaurus didn't hunt them by charging forward and locking horns so to speak. Which is the premise of these kinds of threads.
>It's not "what we have" - it's speculative.
t's "what we have" because you couldn't cough up anything else despite having all the incentives and temperament to do so. So yes, 5 meters and 22 000 kilos is what we have unless you'd like me to consider a more reasonable figure.
>13 tons
Tyrannosaurus was most likely in the 6-9 thousand kilo range on average, Scotty and Sue in the 9,000 range. I'm not sure how big Berta is going to be.
>Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
I would argue the reverse could also be said. This hypothetical thing outweighs the largest triceratops to ever live perhaps twice over and its shoulder stands more than a meter taller than the Rex's hip, at the very least Sue's. It is not the same thing as a comparatively tiny bush elephant encountering a Rex or some other gigantic theropod. Based on size alone it's likely this hypothetical specimen would be a "super tusker" and going about proportions then the tusks would likely be long enough to at least stave off a head on assault from Tyrannosaurus for a while.
22 tons is not 15 tons heavier than 13 tons, and the 5 meter/22 ton estimate for P.namidicus is extremely suspect:
> However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
No one has measured this material since 1942 and no one has seen this material since the 60s.
> It's what we have.
We don’t have it, any more than we have fossil evidence of blue whale sized sauropods or 20 meter Spinosaurs.
Reguardless, if P.namidicus actually gets to 22 tons, the biggest predator that it ever saw in life was MAYBE 2 tons, and certainly not over 12. A Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
>you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness
I do honestly respect you for the admission that you’re willing to thumb the scales in favor of the animal you like. It’s a far more honest place to play the game from than most animalstans work from. Have a nice day!
Are they fighting in Utah or Greenland?
Raptor jumps, gets behind the bear and goes for the nape, crushes it and shitty fag bear dies
is this a homosexual innuendo i'm too old to understand?
Utahraptor loses from the lower oxygen levels and hollow bones
Big eyes for observing and a perfectly aerodynamic head for a quick getaway when thought starts being required.
Life always finds a way.
The oxygen levels increased.
from the cretaceous?
Yes, but not by much.
15% sounds like a lot
i think he means the raptor would be taken here to lower oxygen levels not that the cretaceous had less oxygen
Either the bear overheats or the utahraptor freezes.
Me
The two of them stand off, maybe charge and then whack the other a little. Then, they back off and go proceed to hunt together realizing that a fight to the death is unproductive and too risky, since neither is a clearcut victor.
Maybe they crack open some beers while they're at it.
Ok, both are female instead then
they start scissoring while i watch
I thought this board was for civilized animal discourse not bestiality
it's not bestiality when no human is involved. The watching is for purely scientific reasons.
Get your mind out of the gutter.
Bestiality/zoophilia/faunoiphilia are common and hot topics on this board. Most posters here would love to see some f/f polar bear on utahraptor action. I think you're lost, bud.
>I thought this board was for civilized animal discourse not bestiality
Why the hell would you think that?