Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
1,885
From:
Toronto Ontario
Registered:
12/25/08
|
|
(61 of 438)
Sep 11, 2009 6:59 PM
|
|
So in conclusion Smilodon wins.
|
|
|
Posts:
801
From:
los angeles
Registered:
8/5/09
|
|
(62 of 438)
Sep 11, 2009 9:23 PM
|
Just because Brontornis was possibly a duck, doesn't mean that (I believe) Smilodon would have won. I'm still the only one that is posting facts from sources rather then just saying that I believe Kelenken would have won. The way the facts are going, they seem to (at least somewhat) support the idea that Kelenken could have won this fight. Is there any proof that Smilodon could have jumped onto the back of a 10 foot bird to reach Kelenken's neck where Smilodon would have to bite to win? That Smilodon could survive a direct kick of such power to the head? I'm not so sure. But at least until I have a couple more supporters I guess I'll have to side with Smilodon. For now.
I'd still like better proof that Smilodon could accomplish such feats as listed above.
|
|
|
Posts:
979
Registered:
9/4/08
|
|
|
Posts:
801
From:
los angeles
Registered:
8/5/09
|
|
(64 of 438)
Sep 11, 2009 10:20 PM
|
|
Yesss!!! That's basically what I just said, with the exception of less scientific fact and evidence. Still, this pretty much proves that Kelenken could kung fu kick Smilodon pretty easily.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,224
From:
kent, england
Registered:
2/27/09
|
|
(65 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 12:16 AM
|
now please are you biased because if a few wolves can drive of a terror bird smilos going to be overkill
--
acro and rex commbined into one deadly pakage
|
|
|
Posts:
1,885
From:
Toronto Ontario
Registered:
12/25/08
|
|
(66 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 5:51 AM
|
|
Actually there were atleast five or six of them. That's probably enough to drive a Titanis away. And plus, that was Titanis, a 5-6 foot tall bird. Kelenken is a 9 foot tall bird. Smilodon would still win but it wouldn't be "overkill".
|
|
|
Posts:
1,250
Registered:
9/10/09
|
|
(67 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 6:18 AM
|
|
Even a lone smilodon would not dare to challenge six wolves at once. He may kill two or three but the wolves will wear him down and inflict fatal injuries on him. A smart predator knows that a carcass is not worth fatal injuries.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,885
From:
Toronto Ontario
Registered:
12/25/08
|
|
(68 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 6:38 AM
|
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
Posts:
100
From:
Dallas, Texas
Registered:
8/6/08
|
|
(69 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 3:18 PM
|
This is great!
I didn't post for a week and I see that the discussion really took off.
I'm glad that this forum is active and that there are many people interested in these relatively modern extinct animals.
Personally, my interests lie mostly with mammals (and among mammals mostly with Carnivora, and then within Carnivora mostly with bears).
Dinosaur matchups while cool are really hard to conceptualize as we really don't have modern analogs. The build of the therapod group was completely different, even from modern birds (consider the femur, and the structure of the body mounted on top of the legs, as well as the tail). Perhaps that also contributes more to my interest in extant animals.
Now, time to make some points, although I was keeping up with the thread in reading.
"Even a lone smilodon would not dare to challenge six wolves at once. He may kill two or three but the wolves will wear him down and inflict fatal injuries on him. A smart predator knows that a carcass is not worth fatal injuries."
By Tyrannolodon.
Well, in that case, bears are apparently not smart predators.
Some basic information on grizzly-wolf interactions:
During poor food years, grizzly bears turn to wolf kills
In bear-wolf confrontations, the larger carnivore almost always wins
Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem appear to be benefiting from the wolves' presence in the region. How? Thanks to the wolves, there are more carcasses on which to feed.
According to Doug Smith, leader of the Yellowstone Wolf Project, grizzly bears will often take over carcasses that are a result of a wolf kill. This happens more frequently during poor food years, when one of the grizzly's main food sources, whitebark pine nut, is not plentiful. This has been documented and proven true during poor nut years, says Smith.
In a grizzly bear-wolf interaction, most of the time it's no contest. The bear wins. In fact, Smith says, the larger of the carnivores wins about 80 percent of the time.
Smith says it's not that spectacular when a bear takes over a wolf-killed ungulate. Bears have great noses and they follow their nose to the bounty.
"The bear just walks in," explains Smith. "He walks up to the carcass and the wolves just kind of fall away. It's not a huge battle. Occasionally a wolf bites a bear in the ass, but they tend not to be huge battles. In such confrontations, wolves are more of an annoyance to the bear than a threat," he says.
Smith has observed bears taking over carcasses on a few occasions. One observation occurred when wolves took down a bull elk, whose carcass ended up in Pelican Creek. A grizzly sow and her cub took it over.
"The wolves always try to play a game," explains Smith. "They're not as strong, but they're quicker, they're faster and they have greater numbers. So their game is to harass, harass, harass."
Smith describes the scene of the sow and her cub taking over the wolves' carcass in Pelican Creek:
"You can see the bear getting noticeably agitated, plus she's got a cub. So she's lunging at the wolves. She's splashing through the water at a wolf trying to get in at the food. The wolf knows if it's caught, it will be dead, so the wolves take the bear's approach very seriously…The wolves were not uptight, though. They were in a playful mood trying to get at their meat but the grizzly was deadly serious. It was as if she were saying 'I'm protecting my young and I'm protecting my food and if you mess with me, I'm going to kill you.'"
Smith says the scene showcased a real contrast in styles.
"The wolves just kind of swirled around trying to keep her off," he explains. "Typically what happens is the bears camp out as long as they want to, sometimes hours, and the wolves have to wait, even though it's their kill."
Smith says on a couple of such occasions, the grizzly actually lays down over the carcass.
"They get tired of chasing all of these wolves off so they just lay down on top of the carcass," he says.
From here.
And here is some more information if you are interested:
The Yellowstone Wolf: a guide and sourcebook
The Yellowstone Wolf.pdf
In particular (I remembered the quote and searched for it, hence, why it is completely highlighted in the book):
"In one case, a single grizzly bear held a carcass against 24 wolves (Smith et al. 2003)."
The next bunch of responses are all directed at pachycephalosaurus.
"Yesss!!! That's basically what I just said, with the exception of less scientific fact and evidence. Still, this pretty much proves that Kelenken could kung fu kick Smilodon pretty easily."
And?
Smilodon could paw-swipe the terror bird pretty easily. Unlike a kick which is simply a kick, swiping at the legs may actually bring the Kelenken down. In fact, the chance seems very high.
If kicks among flightless birds are so devestating, as cheetahs are very poor grapplers and therefore would have a hard time pulling themselves up compared to the other physically stronger species of large Feline, why would the ostrich ever try running from the cheetah?
It seems like standing it's ground and trying to kick would by far be the most effective strategy based off all of your descriptions.
Afterall, the cheetah is an exceptionally frail feline, and the ostrich is several times heavier.
As the cheetah can't really attack the neck of an ostrich not on the ground, it should theoretically be safe, according to your arguments.
Instead, the much larger bird tries its luck with getting away, trying it's luck with using it's greater endurance.
Kelenken, thanks to it's much more massive skull and neck, would be a lot tougher than the ostrich. But only in it's ability to use it's head as a weapon.
It's ability to resist falling due to attacks on it's legs, and all the worse when on a leg (such as while trying to kick) would not be greater, and neither would it's ability to kick.
"That Smilodon could survive a direct kick of such power to the head?"
The burden of proof that Kelenken could kill a Smildon with a kick to the head is on you.
Until it is proven that Kelenken can kill any animal above a third of it's weight with a kick to the head is established at all, no point exists in questioning if Smilodon can survive it.
Any modern analogs of ratites killing animals with kicks to the head? No. The only thing we have is that a regular prey animal of cheetahs who also can't attack the ostrich's head and neck apparently in a freak occurance gutted a lion.
I really should get around to trying to track down that source, as the reliability seems very questionable. Either way, as the status currently is that the most pathetic feline in all characteristics when it comes to fighting regularly takes much larger birds with similar kicking ability, so we do know that ostrich are not dangerous game.
"Sorry I posted twice, and I'll do my best to try not to use ostiches in my comparisons. Its just that they're the best living animals to compare Kelenken with."
I do not see why you would want to avoid ostriches for anything pertaining to their stability (unless you want to argue that the bigger head makes Kelenken more top heavy) and kicking ability.
"Based off of what evidence? Even ostriches have powerful kicks. And the various relatives of Kelenken also point towards the idea that Kelenken, being the largest of its relatives, also had a very powerful kick. Until better remains of Kelenken are found it will be impossible to truly know how powerful its kick was, but until then implied estimates will have to be based off of its relatives, which all point towards the idea it had extremely powerful legs."
You mean very slender, gracile, legs allowing it to attain high speed in chases.
The muscle mass of the birds is located in their torso (like ungulates) to increase efficiency (no need to swing weight back and forth if you can avoid it!).
Still, this running muscle mass can power the legs to kick, but the legs, being themselves gracile would reduce their momentum when considering the actual impact of a strike. I wouldn't say this would negatively impact their raking ability though (and a rake, not a kick, is necessary for actual gutting).
One terror bird, as you mentioned earlier, did appear to have adaptations for kicking (or maybe that bird hopped around the mountains?-I've never seen this theory suggested so I wouldn't really consider it).
In the past I've seen exceptionally strong bones associated with digging behavior (some ground sloth species).
"Based on the forces needed to break bones, they showed that Mesembriornis would be able to produce a force of over 2000 Newtons with its kick: strong enough to fracture bones. Thus it’s possible that some phorusrhacids used kicking as a way of breaking open bones to feed on marrow (how do the brontornithines, with their super-robust limb bones and inferred scavenging habits, fit into this?). It’s also possible that the birds used this kicking power to stun or kill prey, and here you will of course be thinking of the Secretary bird Sagittarius serpentarius, a cursorial raptor (superficially similar to a seriema) that kills or stuns snakes and other terrestrial prey with repeated kicks."
From here.
Either way, the bones of this species of terror bird, Mesembriornis, were built to be able to deliver kicks with such huge power, just like how ground sloth bones were built so that giant ground sloths can gallop (note: bones of many similarly large animals are not strong enough to allow for this, such as elephants). Anyone think 15,000 years ago we would have seen giant ground sloths galloping around the Americas? This example is extreme, but my point is just because bones could support it doesn't necessarilly mean it could happen.
Another reason why I brought up groundsloths is because I remember that someone stated that the terror birds were the only animals that migrated to N. America after the Great American Intererchange. Did you mean only large predator? Ground sloths were extremely succesful, and we still have opposums in N. America.
"Smilodon was a cat built like a bear, so its overall ability to effectively dodge extremly fast kicks is quesionable. Honestly, how hard is it to kick a cat though? The only thing the have going for them in terms of agility is their speed, which Smilodon sadly lost because of its bear like build."
Wow, you almost make being built like a bear sound like a bad thing.
Smildon faster and more explosive in running than modern bears
Smildon was faster than modern bears, but, like someone else mentioned, would get tired similarly fast in running to most modern cats.
Speed in running, as well as endurance in running, do not really directly translate to speed or endurance in a fight.
"Considering that Kelenken was bigger than Titanis, I'm sure it could easily have made the transition to North America"
Bigger means it is harder to obtain the necessary amounts of food to survive.
"If you actually read my posts you'll see they are all direct refrences to the posts of Ursus arctos. I haven't ignored facts, but simply put up posts based off of scientific facts, that could disprove the claims of Ursus arctos."
I have not seen anything that does this.
"And while what dinotom said about the fossil findings of Kelenken being fragmented, there is no reason not to believe that Kelenken, like its smaller relative Mesembriornis also had extremely powerful legs. Even if they didn't reach the 2,000 newton mark, I'm sure repeated kicks could easily fracture or even worse, break bone."
Perhaps kind of like how hyenas can break bone to get at the marrow.
However, you should note that hyenas cannot break bone within living animals.
Some Smilodon fossils do have bones that were fractured and have shown evidence of healing. Smilodon hunted huge animals that were far more powerful than Kelenken and also posssed much harder hooves to hit with, which occasionally could fracture bone with a good kick. This doesn't mean that Smilodon couldn't regularly prey on them, however.
And anyway, how coordinated do you think the kick of a kelenken, lacking stereoscopic vision, can be?
"One kick to the head of Smilodon by Kelenken would be more than capable of breaking its teeth and possibly caving in its skull."
lol
Makes statements like this:
"I haven't ignored facts, but simply put up posts based off of scientific facts"
Look a little ironic.
Secretary birds, which do often kill/redner unconscious with kicks (perhaps a better analog than ostrich?) generally do not hunt prey larger than what can be swallowed whole. It would be good to see more information on this behavior, but I haven't found much yet.
I didn't find anything about caved-in skulls, although I did see a mention of broken necks.
Other then that prey is normally swallowed whole (but sometimes it is to large) I didn't see much on prey size relative to the size of the secretary bird.
"http://fc09.deviantart.com/fs35/f/2008/237/e/a/Kelenken_guillermoi_by_banchero.jpg
Take a look at its stomachand chest. They are both protected its solid keel bone. Plus birds lack large fat storages, meaning one bite and its teeth are stuck fast in bone. As long as the tooth isn’t stuck in a highly sensitive area the tooth should case little harm. An impenetrable fortress? Maybe so. lol
I think you are right in that the Smilodon is not liable to try and tear into the body of the Kelenken. It's teeth aren't exactly that well built for that.
Claws, however?
Claws are meant to provide a grip, and can allow Smilodon to pull itself up (jaws to neck).
Modern Carnivora, from cats to bears, are often observed using their limbs to manipulate in order to aid providing a bite.
Lionesses fighting image
Grizzly fight image
It is a common behavior to manipulate targets of bites.
Surely, Smildon, an animal extremely heavily adapted to this purpose, would do it very well.
It would not have to rear or jump up and grab the neck (as it could)
Even bears can jump adequately well:
black bear jumping accross creek
The primary points about the vulnerability of the body was not that I think Smilodon could kill Kelenken through attacking the body, but that no reason exists to think that Smilodon's body has any super-vulnerability (soft underbelly comment), or that Smilodon can't attack the body with a grab in order to allow it to get a bite.
I did find something extremely interesting about the Kelenken reconstruction: did you notice how far back the legs are? It would have to be practically over something to kick it: it would have to be vulernable to attack.
"How do you know?
http://www.physorg.com/news110479034.html
So to some up Smilodon needed to bite Kelenken on the neck to win. Kelenken’s neck was over 6 ft off the ground. A rather daunting task if you ask me."
I never asked for a source on the bite strength of Smilodon, as I was well aware of what it's bite strength was (although, I appreciate it whenever more info is posted; others may not have seen/been aware of it).
I have a lot more sources on bite force estimates of modern Carnivora.
For example (from the same author, but this is an older publication):
Wroe bite force study
The result for the cheetah in this study was odd and contradicted the results of the most recent study by Wroe and Christiansen.
Note that bite force quotient (bite force fixed for body size) of Smilodon here was equivalent to that of the brown bear, and greater than that of other bear species. Though, this and the fact that Smilodon's bite force was nearly two thirds that of the similarly sized tiger are also contradicts.
You can read the article that was the source for the link you posted here:
Supermodeled sabercat, predatory behavior in Smilodon fatalis revealed by high-resolution 3D computer simulation
The thing is though, while it's bite is weak, this is because it also uses it's neck muscles to drive the canines in. Smilodon did not kill through a crushing bite, but through damage caused by the insertion of it's canines (which it did have enough power to do).
In that case, maybe you want more info on how weak the jaws (as in, structural strength) themselves of Smilodon were (the above source did provide quite a bit already if you read it)?
From "Mandibular Profiles of Extant Carnivores and Implications for the Feeding Behavior of Extinct Predators", by Therrien:
Some Zx/Zy ratios:
"Gray Wolf: 0.90
Lion: 1.25
Tiger: 1.35
Leopard: 1.37
Jaguar: 1.43
Cougar: 1.46
Clouded Leopard: 1.83
American Lion: 1.84
Smilodon Fatalis: 1.89
Smilodon Populator: 2.49"
Zx is ability of the lower jaws to resist forces from biting down, and Zy resistance of the lower jaw to torsional stresses such as those from struggling prey (data originally came from another poster, although I also have the article, which others can look up as well).
"I’ll do my best to explain what I mean by counter attack. Like you said Smilodon was built like a bear and could stand up on its hind limbs. However it wouldn’t be any taller than a full grown man in this pose, which means it can’t bite Kelenken’s neck like it would have to do to win this battle."
It can grab. Modern bears of decent size normally reach heights greater than men.
"So its going to have to wrestle Kelenken to the ground."
Or simply grab and pull at the neck.
Or it could try and take the Kelenken's legs out from under it like a cheetah could do to a much larger ostrich.
"Lets see what happens when it tries to do this from behind Kelenken."
They can't kick backwards as has been already mentioned.
In a face to face fight I do not see how Smilodon could get behind Kelenken (or vice versa) however, unless one runs from the other.
"I don’t care if Kelenken wasn’t a good kicker, kicking is kicking, and Smilodon just got kicked in its vulnerable underbelly by a 9 foot tall bird."
First of all, lifting up a leg for a downward kick, when struggling to maintain ballance, is the last thing a Kelenken would do when trying to stay on it's two feet.
Second of all, getting kicked normally isn't particularly devestating, as blunt trauma itself is normally a very poor way to kill.
Ever read about how effective chimps are as killers of similarly sized animals? It takes a group of five fifteen minutes to fatally injure an old, frail male (in at least one case; others may be faster).
"So it attempts to bite Kelenken in the neck. How could that go wrong? I’ll tell you! Kelenken with a wide stance for balance back peddles enough to catch Smilodon unbalanced, and while it’s going back into its tetrapod stance to regain balance it gets bit in the back of the neck by Kelenken."
Did you watch the videos of grizzlies fighting? In one of the videos both bears constantly tried to drive forward; back pedalling away seems much easier said than done, and also a great way to give the attacking animal momentum as it continues to try and charge foward (if the pack pedalling is succesful at getting it onto all fours).
Bites to necks have to be very precise to actually be fatal. Necks are normally very well protected.
A fatal bite to the back of the neck (nape) involves the insertion of canine teeth between the vertebrae in order to seperate them.
Other types of bites to this region would be far less efficient/effective when it comes to killing, and would definately involve the ability to struggle.
Want an idea of the sort of jaws necessary for effectively delivering nape bites to animals approaching the body size of the animal delivering it?
One of the feline species that most often utilizes this type of killing bite (at least, on the largest prey relative to it's own body size)
Relative bite force of feline species
Canine length info (for example: longer canines than lion of larger skull size)
Of course, if an unspecialized animal chomps at a spine for long enough (or the back of a well protected neck) it will be able to kill, but that definately isn't an efficient kill that would wouldn't allow fighting back.
Also, to deliver an effective nape bite the tiger also needs to anchor the bite with it's forelimbs.
Kelenken skull with people for size comparison
Kelenken skull
Kelenken skull
That is not a skull adapted for such a bite. I wish images existed from other angles (I have no idea how wide the skull is).
"This is true. However, what makes you believe the much faster and agile Kelenken wouldn’t be able to get out of the way of such an attack?"
Faster and more agile Kelenken?
Weren't terror birds estimated to run at 30 mph?
Some info on grizzly running speed:
Now lets look at grizzlies:
"In April 1930, Dorr G. Yeager, former Park Naturalist, and Carl P. Russell, then Field Naturalist for the Park Service, had an excellent opportunity to "clock" the speed of grizzlies. The road to Norris had just been plowed free of snow, and these men were making the first trip of the season to the Norris Geyser Basin. Just after passing the eight mile post, a mother grizzly and two cubs were met in the road which was a narrow canyon banked by snow on either side, piled to heights of from three to five feet. Rearing on their hind legs, the grizzlies scrutinized the car, and then to the relief of the occupants, "turned and headed down the road at a rolling lope." Following at a respectful distance, the bears were trailed for approximately two miles at a speed of twenty five miles per hour, with but one pause, and that when the mother in rounding a curve lost sight of the car and reared on her hind legs to look for it, resuming her gallop at once when the car was sighted. Mr. Yeager says...."The speed mentioned in this article should not be taken as a criterion for the speed of a grizzly. At no time (naturally enough) did we push them to a maximum." (This summary of Mr. Yeager's article is taken from YELLOWSTONE NATURE NOTES, Vol. VII, No. 5 for May, 1930).
Another very dramatic incident was recorded by Ranger Cliff Anderson (now of Yosemite National Park). Mr. Anderson and his family were driving toward the Cooke entrance of the park and were beyond the Buffalo Ranch. In rounding a curve near the Devils Well, a female grizzly and her two cubs were seen feeding on a carcass near the road. There were two cars preceding the Anderson car and the road was muddy with considerable slush snow in it. As the cars approached the mother grizzly charged and jumped down into the cut made by the snowplow in recently clearing the road, but for some reason, just before the cars reached her, she sprang back up on the snow bank at the side of the road. While she was in the cut, her cubs disappeared over the hill into Soda Butte Creek. When the mother regained the bank and failed to see her cubs, she immediately gave chase to the cars which were then about fifty yards ahead of her. A brother of Mr. Anderson, who was riding in the rumble seat of the six cylinder Oldsmobile, became alarmed and warned the Ranger by rapping on the rear window. Vigorously blowing the horn, the Ranger tried to get the cars ahead to speed up all that they could, but due to the condition of the road, much speed was impossible. The grizzly quickly overtook the cars, and then jumping up on the snow bank, lunged out and down at the car. Several attempts were made in this manner to catch the car, but the grizzly missed each try as she lost time in jumping up on the snow before leaping for the car. Needless to say, the Ranger's brother had crawled down into the back of the car and had closed rumble cover! They were chased from the Devils Well to Hoppe's Prairie, a distance of approximately two miles, and the maximum speed (remembering road conditions) was 28 miles per hour. The bear had just come out of hibernation, which must also be considered.
District Ranger "Ben" Arnold has reported further evidence on this question of speed of grizzlies. While the Arnolds were driving from Mammoth to Tower Falls one night early last summer, four grizzlies, a mother and three yearling cubs, were seen in the road ahead of the car at a distance of about two hundred yards. The bears immediately turned and ran down the road for a full half mile before dashing up the hill into the timber and out of sight. For the last quarter mile, they averaged 30 miles per hour and were not crowded at all. The bears were running on the oiled road, and did not have the advantage they would have had on a dirt surface.
We have had reports of grizzlies making 35 miles per hour when running before a car, but as I have been unable to verify any of them with a written statement, they shall be omitted.
Knowing the nature and disposition of the grizzly, no sane person is going to pursue and crowd one in a car, for fear that the animal might turn and demolish the car and perhaps, the occupants, too. From the foregoing incidents as cited, it is seen that speeds have actually been recorded for the grizzly up to and including thirty miles per hour with the bear setting his own pace. What they might be able to do under "pressure" or in anger is entirely a matter for supposition.
From observing grizzlies and having seen them, starting from a standstill, hurl themselves with tremendous speed upon an approaching rival, there is little room in my mind for the thought that they are "slow moving creatures." Grizzlies are powerful beasts, and as evidenced by the aforementioned reports, have considerable endurance, for covering two miles at from 25 to 28 miles per hour proves a stamina that would certainly try the best of horses.
Perhaps, after the roads are plowed open this spring, some obliging grizzly may run a faster heat, or some fool-hardy individual may crowd one to nearer the maximum, whatever that may be, but until such time, the best speed for grizzlies in Yellowstone, which I have been able to find, is thirty miles per hour."
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/yell/vol14-1-2a.htm
Now, while bears have longer radii relative to their humerii (but their metacarpals are shorter) which is generally considered a (relative) cursorial adaptation, the Smilodon does have the longer metatarsals relative to the femur, and I already posted the very signficant (when it comes to running speeds and acceleration) info on spines.
Smilodon populator (not S. fatilis) were much larger than most modern grizzlies, so it may have been slower. S. populator was also even more heavily built than S. fatilis.
I don't see any reason why S. fatilis would be slower, however.
Bringing Kelenken down, through wrestling (pulling, pushing, swinging, or w/e) or knocking (a charge) or trying to take the legs out from under it does not appear as if it would be all that difficult, and attempts at doing so would also prevent the Kelenken from being able to kick.
By Tyrannolodon:
"In the end, the victor will end up so badly injured that death will follow soon after-wards, giving them a Pyrrhic victory."
I doubt it.
--
http://www.carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=interspecific
|
|
|
Posts:
1,250
Registered:
9/10/09
|
|
(70 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 3:38 PM
|
|
Mammals are fragile creatures and can't take many injuries without dying of infection or blood loss. A peck or two to a smilodon would cause fatal infections. In fact I'd say that the only vertebrate less able to deal with open wounds is the Amphibian, the butt monkey and the joke of the Vertebrates. A full blown bite would remove enough flesh from a smilodon to cause it to quickly die from blood loss or infection.
|
|
|
Posts:
100
From:
Dallas, Texas
Registered:
8/6/08
|
|
(71 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 6:30 PM
|
Wow, that comment is rediculous.
First of all, giving a mammal an open wound is not very easy.
"A full blown bite would remove enough flesh from a smilodon to cause it to quickly die from blood loss or infection."
A comment like that reveals a lack of credibility on the subject.
A full blown bite would remove enough flesh? It would remove flesh at all against a live animal? lol
Even eating a dead carcass is often very hard for powerful biters, and a dead carcass doesn't have flexing muscles or the ability to fight back.
I'll post some information on and pictures of brown bears.
First of all, pictures of bears:
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/5610/a12ffab8dbb18abcss5.jpg
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1006/9b6edf59b760e730tu1.jpg
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/3447/20740a6e57b42927ep2.jpg
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/240/1f1e872d78b5e5c1bi4.jpg
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/7007/d133b977705fc9c5ve4.jpg
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3589/grizzlies2kv7.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8473/a1fkp41200x853zr6.jpg
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9513/dsc06420jf0.jpg
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4319/bigbig465632591uhjuzsfsgp0.jpg
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1703/21360068.png
Among the large quantities of pictures I have (thanks to another poster, Warsaw) these are simply those featuring somewhat fresh claw and/or bite injuries.
These are in general injuries far more serious than those that can be delivered by a single bite, and the jaws of Kelenken definately do not look like jaws built for a powerful bite. These injuries are not fatal, or very dangerous to a member of Carnivora (a primate may be another story). Instead, they are fairly routine.
What kind of injuries are fatal?
Autopsy of fatal bear fight
"The autopsy of one such unfortunate bear, who obviously lost in the fight, revealed 89 puncture wounds, a wide hole in the chest, broken ribs, a broken shoulder, a broken nose, a dislocated neck, and a broken skull."
And you think it should have died after the second puncture wound?
lol
Right now I'll admit that an injury like a broken jaw would be fatal to a feline, but that is only because of starvation. Physically, if it could still eat, it would be able to get along fine.
Say hello to broken-jawed Snaggletooth:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/7028/62989423.png
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/2170/87792124.png
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/8584/55857909.png
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/121/12458695.png
Considering his size I can't imagine that he recieved this injury as an adult; he probably barely escaped an aggressive attack by an adult male when young.
A pear of a bear with a broken jaw:
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/6235/hugeboarssamples02hk0.jpg
And this bear looks like he might be another (could be the same for all I know, but the color is slightly different, and his limbs look a lot less massive):
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1548/bearwithbrokenjawafterfiy5.jpg
Some information on such injuries:
"Injuries sustained in fights over mates or in predation attempts also may lead to natural mortalities of polar bears. Some injuries are immediately fatal. I have seen three instances where a bear has killed another and consumed it. Broken teeth and even broken jaws may frequently result from fighting and failed predation attempts. In brown and black bears, such injuries commonly are not life-threatening. L. Aumiller (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. commun.) has observed several brown bears at Alaska's McNeil River Sanctuary with jaws that had broken and healed in a variety of distorted conformations. D. Garshelis (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, pers. commun.) captured a 2-year-old black bear with a missing lower jaw. The jaw and all lower teeth were destroyed by gunshot wounds that had largely healed when Garshelis examined the bear in its winter den. The bear was radio-tracked through the following spring and summer and killed by a hunter the following autumn as a normal-size 3-year-old. Brown bears and black bears often survive on a diet including plant parts, fish, insects, small animals, and carrion. A videotape made by the hunter revealed how ingenious the young Minnesota black bear was in feeding without a lower jaw. These and other observations of injured brown and black bears (D. Moody, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Pers. Commun.; M. Haroldson, USGS Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, pers. commun.) suggest they regularly survive with severely damaged mouth-parts, perhaps because of their great adaptability and the small particle size of most of their foods."
From here.
Ben Kilham stated that injuries caused in fights between American black bears that may appear very nasty to humans, such as flaps of skin hanging off (and you saw what these injuries look like among brown bears), and terrible puncture wounds are to black bears merely superficial.
Don't confuse a cat with a baboon or chimp and a bear with a horse.
--
http://www.carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=interspecific
|
|
|
Posts:
1,250
Registered:
9/10/09
|
|
(72 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 6:49 PM
|
|
It is well known that for their mass, Birds and Reptiles are far more able to take injuries than mammals of similar masses.
|
|
|
Posts:
801
From:
los angeles
Registered:
8/5/09
|
|
(73 of 438)
Sep 12, 2009 7:25 PM
|
"Smilodon could paw-swipe the terror bird pretty easily. Unlike a kick which is simply a kick, swiping at the legs may actually bring the Kelenken down. In fact, the chance seems very high."
An advantage to being bipedal is being able to quickly and effectively change your center of gravity for easy balance control. I'm not sure how a swip to the leg is going to trip it, unless of course it is running and full speed, but for the most part this doesn't really apply to this battle.
"Secretary birds, which do often kill/redner unconscious with kicks (perhaps a better analog than ostrich?) generally do not hunt prey larger than what can be swallowed whole. It would be good to see more information on this behavior, but I haven't found much yet."
I'd consider a young gazelle for a 7 pound animal to be rather impressive.
http://www.avianweb.com/secretarybirds.html
"I never asked for a source on the bite strength of Smilodon, as I was well aware of what it's bite strength was (although, I appreciate it whenever more info is posted; others may not have seen/been aware of it)."
The point of my link wasn't to show you Smilodon's bite strength (I'm sure Kelenken's wasn't all that impresive either), but to show you that it needed to deliever a bite to the neck. Very hard on a 10 foot tall bird.
"The sabrecat had an immensely powerful body; perfect for wrestling large prey to the ground, and our models show that it needed to do this before trying a bite, "explains Mr McHenry. "Killing was more likely applied to the prey's throat, because it is easier to restrain the prey this way. Once the bite was done the prey would have died almost instantly."
"Bites to necks have to be very precise to actually be fatal. Necks are normally very well protected.
A fatal bite to the back of the neck (nape) involves the insertion of canine teeth between the vertebrae in order to seperate them."
Lol. This is basically why I think Kelenken would win. Smilodon had to deliever a fatal bite to the back of the neck, which, in your own words, is "normally very well protected." I never meant for Kelenken's neck bite to be fatal, but rather a way to give Smilodon a severe injury, that could somewhat discourage it. I'm sure if it got a good grip it could rip a fairly large chunk of meat.
"Faster and more agile Kelenken?
Weren't terror birds estimated to run at 30 mph?"
Defenitaly faster over long distances, and as JerkyD has already pointed out, more agile.
"It is a common behavior to manipulate targets of bites.
Surely, Smildon, an animal extremely heavily adapted to this purpose, would do it very well.
It would not have to rear or jump up and grab the neck (as it could)"
It would be clear in the path for a kick in this position, and even if the kicks weren't as fatal as I have suggested (though they easily could have been, I mean 2,000 newtons!?! that's a lot) this would by all means discourage Smilodon to continue to attack in this manner.
|
|
|
Posts:
100
From:
Dallas, Texas
Registered:
8/6/08
|
|
(74 of 438)
Sep 13, 2009 1:03 AM
|
First of all:
Before I critisize the Kelenken skull much (after all, it was really huge) I want to see a picture of it from the top so I can actually get an idea of it's width (or better yet: the comments of scientists guessing about it's bite mechanics, ideally the likes of Christiansen or Wroe).
I did find this picture though:
[img http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/35xx/357x/3574_prehistoric-predators-terror-birds-2_04700300.JPG]Picture with slight angle[/img]
From this image the skull really does look very slender...but to me it some how looks like we only have a fragement of the skull; like it was split down the middle (sort of)?
The difference in some of the cross section views might support it (their is only one skull right? In some images I see what looks like a crushed in zygomatic arch, and in others I don't see it).
"It is well known that for their mass, Birds and Reptiles are far more able to take injuries than mammals of similar masses."
Reptiles especially (as well as sharks) and therefore likely birds (not sure on this one) seem to often have very good immune systems.
Most animals are very resistant to infection.
Other then that, I would like to see a (preferably detailed) source on that; I'd be very interested.
I'd always heard that birds are relatively frail compared to mammals. Though, I didn't think this is really anything we could apply to extinct birds (Kelenken isn't like any modern bird!).
Kelenken, being terrestrial, is free to have solid bones (and some terror birds obviously did have very solid bones; the "duck of doom" had extremely robust ones).
-Another (this time off topic) note is that if you compare dinosaur and monitor lizard skulls with skulls of modern Carnivora you can see an extreme difference in skull-toughness. I do think the structure of dinosaur/monitor skulls is more efficient though (especially those teeth!).
Pachycephalosaurus,
"An advantage to being bipedal is being able to quickly and effectively change your center of gravity for easy balance control. I'm not sure how a swip to the leg is going to trip it, unless of course it is running and full speed, but for the most part this doesn't really apply to this battle."
If Kelenken is kicking it should be very clear how a swipe to the leg is going to trip it.
I don't get this about the greater relative ease of changing the center of gravity, but of course having wings devoted solely to this purpose are going to help in the Kelenken's case.
"I'd consider a young gazelle for a 7 pound animal to be rather impressive.
http://www.avianweb.com/secretarybirds.html"
To be honest, I'm extremely impressed. While newborns of some gazelle species (Thompson's, for example) weigh less than seven lbs, they still weigh extremely close to it (and would be fairly athletic by young animal standards).
I would like to see some info on how exactly these animals are preyed upon and killed (and also how accurate these reports are).
Somehow I'd think the bird would have a hard time seperating the young from it's mother? Then again secretary birds do occasionally hunt in groups, which could make that a lot easier...
Great info!
"The point of my link wasn't to show you Smilodon's bite strength (I'm sure Kelenken's wasn't all that impresive either), but to show you that it needed to deliever a bite to the neck. Very hard on a 10 foot tall bird."
I agree, although I already did post info of evidence of a Smilodon having bitten another in the ribs.
""Bites to necks have to be very precise to actually be fatal. Necks are normally very well protected.
A fatal bite to the back of the neck (nape) involves the insertion of canine teeth between the vertebrae in order to seperate them."
Lol. This is basically why I think Kelenken would win. Smilodon had to deliever a fatal bite to the back of the neck"
I meant to say:
"Bites to back of necks have to be very precise to actually be fatal. Necks are normally very well protected.
A fatal bite to the back of the neck (nape) involves the insertion of canine teeth between the vertebrae in order to seperate them."
Smilodon killed through biting the throat region (not the back/spine region).
"I never meant for Kelenken's neck bite to be fatal, but rather a way to give Smilodon a severe injury, that could somewhat discourage it."
Discourage it? Discourage it from what?
These fights are assumed fights to the death (which do not occur in the sense we discuss them on these forums in real life) so it will be assumed that neither animal manages to succesfully escape.
" I'm sure if it got a good grip it could rip a fairly large chunk of meat."
I've not seen evidence of that happening in real life.
Modern birds don't appear to be able to rip fairly large chunks of meat from dead prey unable to resist, and lacking in flexing muscles.
And of course all this is irrelevant anyway as the entire scenario in which this is supposed to occur is exceedingly unlikely, as I already elaborated on (and did not respond to, and thus are presumably accepting).
"Defenitaly faster over long distances, and as JerkyD has already pointed out, more agile."
Not more agile in the context of a fight.
"It would be clear in the path for a kick in this position
Kicking out and forward doesn't appear that effective based on Kelenken's morphology.
Kicking obviously doesn't work out for ostriches in all but the most freakish of occurances.
and even if the kicks weren't as fatal as I have suggested (though they easily could have been, I mean 2,000 newtons!?! that's a lot) this would by all means discourage Smilodon to continue to attack in this manner."
While I'd like to ask the same thing about discouraging, I would like to however add that bite forces (which are apparently esimated at under 2000 newtons, although I've heard suggestions that the scientists underestimate force excerpted relative to muscle cross section area) can be used to penetrate skulls (with again, a precision bite).
Adult male lions have occasionally killed one another in such a manner. However, in these cases, the full force is directed to a single point: the tip of one of the solid (exceptionally hard) canines.
Compared to of course the much larger foot (and only part of the foot would allow for bending of some of the joints, increasing "softness").
If kicking were a safe option, it would definately be discouraging. Cats normally don't particularly enjoy recieving paw swipes from one another, although other than potential eye injuries there isn't really anything threatening to worry about.
So, what do we have as a basic summary?
Kelenken cannot safely kick at Smildon; liftign a leg up to being kicked would allow Smilodon to topple it.
Kelenken could not safely try to bite at Smilodon as that would be putting the head and neck in range to be grabbed, and bitten.
I'd assume standing around probably wouldn't be safe for Kelenken either.
--
http://www.carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=interspecific
|
|
|
Posts:
1,885
From:
Toronto Ontario
Registered:
12/25/08
|
|
(75 of 438)
Sep 13, 2009 10:05 AM
|
> Mammals are fragile creatures...
Yes but Smilodon was less fragile than Kelenken.
|
|
|
|
|
![http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/35xx/357x/3574_prehistoric-predators-terror-birds-2_04700300.JPG]Picture](http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/35xx/357x/3574_prehistoric-predators-terror-birds-2_04700300.JPG]Picture){kind=link}