Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Feb 20, 2012 1:26:50 GMT -5
Thats not much of an insult, It simply means that you are not as smart as i thought you were, It certainly doesnt mean i think your stupid just that my expectations were high, In fact nothing could be further from the truth you are indeed a smart person. Anyway this debate is becoming a flame war so if it will end the pettyness of it, I apollogize.
|
|
|
Post by Ultimategrid on Feb 20, 2012 2:47:50 GMT -5
Well, when endotherms and ectotherms live together, the endotherms are dominant. That's a real laugh, adult crocodile are the undisputed apex predator throughout their range. They are not in any circumstanced preyed on by ANYTHING. A big croc can wipe out any of your precious mammalian, or avian carnivores easily. I have not seen a mammalian carnivore that ever got as big as crocodilians did, and if you notice something neat, mammalian species last only a few millions years on average. Cold blooded animals last much longer, how long did Megalodon rule the oceans? over 16 million years. Try to find a mammal that can stay on the top of the food chain that long. Livyatan doesn't appear to have lasted much longer than a couple million at best.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Feb 20, 2012 10:42:21 GMT -5
Lions are better predators than crocodiles, they have a better success rate. Crocodiles are just ambush predators, lions are more active. They can chase down prey, hunt in packs. They can scavenge, chase hyenas from a kill. Crocs' domain is only the water. And as for them beating "my precious mammalian carnivores", a pride of lions could beat a croc. Few crocs are big enough to challenge one lion.
Livyatan died out for some reason, doesn't mean that Meg was the apex predator and out competed it. The Great White outlasted Meg, does that make it the more dominant predator? No.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Feb 20, 2012 11:59:12 GMT -5
Crocodiles don't need a high success rate to survive, a single large meal can last them for months.
The lions domain is only land.
Megalodon was fifty to one hundred ton animal and it lasted longer than Livyatan, that's evidence of it being the superior predator.
|
|
Reticulatus
Ichthyoid
http://fantasyfaceoff.proboards.com
Posts: 709
|
Post by Reticulatus on Feb 20, 2012 12:28:32 GMT -5
I think the animal that has to uses more energy to obtain food is a less effective hunter. A lion misses a day of food, pride members suffer, a croc misses a meal and its still good for months.
Most cold blooded young are entirely self sufficient upon birth, warm bloods require extensive care.
With some exception it seems that warm blooded animals suffer more ailments and disease. If you were to break the leg of a lion and a crocodile one would likely still be alive in a week and one would not.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Feb 20, 2012 12:58:05 GMT -5
Yeah, those videos are great examples of lion prides beating crocodiles. And obviously land is a much larger area than fresh water. Livyatan weighed some 30-40 tons, and probably hunted in pods. Which species died first usually has nothing to do with which was the dominant predator. American Lions were dominant to cougars, but they died first. Short-faced bears were dominant to grizzlies, but they died first. Carcharodontosaurs were dominant to Abelisaurs, but they died first.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Feb 20, 2012 13:16:17 GMT -5
Key word prides.
Bodies of fresh water have a much larger prey variety.
Unless whales were as common as fish back then, probably not.
The difference between my example and yours is that Megalodon was MUCH larger than Livyatan and lasted for MUCH longer, hinting that it was the superior predator.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Feb 20, 2012 13:36:40 GMT -5
Abelisaurs lived for 40 million years longer than Carcharodontosaurs, I think that qualifies as "much longer". Prides is what I said in the original post. And as for "a much larger prey variety", I'd love to see a crocodile kill a giraffe, rhino, or elephant. It's much more likely that a lion would kill a fish.
|
|
Venomous Dragon
Archeon
The Varanid
The Ora, King of The Lizards.
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Feb 20, 2012 13:51:55 GMT -5
show me a video of one lion killing any of those animals.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Feb 20, 2012 13:55:19 GMT -5
I didn't say one lion, I said prides! The point is, rhinos, elephants, and giraffes are all possible prey items for lions and not crocodiles. That makes them the superior predator.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Feb 20, 2012 14:26:04 GMT -5
But it is also much smaller, while Megalodon was much larger and lasted longer.
Seven lions failing to kill a wounded, virtually blind, female elephant;
Several lionesses being deterred by a single rhino;
Large pride of lions struggling to kill a giraffe;
From what I see lions need an abnormally large pride to kill those animals.
At the cost of wasting an enormous amount of energy. Crocodiles can hunt large mammals and fish efficiently, lions cannot.
Again lions require any abnormal pride size to down these animals.
|
|
|
Post by apexpredator7 on Feb 20, 2012 14:47:14 GMT -5
first big debate on the forum i would say that reptiles are very succesful they are survivors and mammals are flourishers mammals have reached the pinacle and their teamwork is what makes them so great wheras reptiles are good at surviving and some can grow enourmous but i have to say mammals are dominant at the moment orcas>great whites in the oceans and mammals ruling over all reptiles/fish/amphibians/insects except for crocs gators komodo drgs and large snakes but reptiles woud survive if there was a natural disaster more so as they are tough being the top predators until other groups replenish but i think overall they are equal on overall deadliness and surviving each cancelling each other out under different circumstances
|
|
|
Post by Felis Rex on Feb 20, 2012 17:37:49 GMT -5
The fact that the lions are actively huning the largest land animals in existance doesn't end this debate on the spot? There are no fish or reptiles that can prey on the largest species of mammals in any environ, land/sea/freshwater. There are no fish reptiles preying on elephants/whales/hippos, manatees, river dolphins. The same is basically true vice-versa even when you exclude man from the equation (which you really shouldnt as we are a shining example of warmblooded superiority.) Warm blooded animals do take longer to rear their young of course, but this is also superior if you reflect upon the high mortality rates of cold blooded animals from egg/neonate to adulthood. It takes longer to develope the superior traits in mammals and birds, the more advanced brains and socializing concepts. The factor that reptiles can go longer without food is directly contributing to their over all inferiority, they dont expend much energy they spend the majority of their lifetime doing nothing, just sitting, sure when they are active they can be spry but the environment has to be just so; within the right temperature margins, levels of sunlight, moisture etc... They can go longer without food because they dont do much, sit and wait for food to pass by. Sure reptiles are more abundant in the desert and if spending 10 months burried underground is what you call success I guess you got this, but not me....
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Feb 20, 2012 17:42:35 GMT -5
^ Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Felis Rex on Feb 20, 2012 18:00:52 GMT -5
about time we agreed on something. I had a post 3 times as long and hit reply only to find out that I had lost my signal!!!! I was so mad lol
|
|