Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 12, 2013 9:18:15 GMT -5
First and foremost, tyrannosaurus evolved alongside vaguely elephant-like animals, the ceratopsians. Some ceratopsians, like eotriceratops, probably grew even larger than a male African elephant, at around 12-13 tons. The horns of animals like triceratops and torosaurus were probably far deadlier than the tusks of an elephant, especially against a large theropod. Ceratopsians also had a frill, which provided a nice line of neck protection and was actually quite thick in some genera like triceratops.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Oct 31, 2013 23:08:53 GMT -5
I don't think the tusks could be used to inflict lethal damage on an animal that is apparently accustomed to fighting off similar but more effective stabbing weapons (trike horns). I am under the impression that it will take only a single crippling bite to end the fight, whereas the elephant would need significantly more time to kill the rex. Especially considering the fact that rexes survive repeated attacks from other rexes, the durability of the dinosaur cannot be overlooked. actually, bull elephants have killed each other in fights.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 1, 2013 16:22:43 GMT -5
Which proves the elephant has an effective way of killing Tyrannosaurus. I just think Tyrannosaurus has more and IMO better ways to kill Loxodonta than vice versa (I can post more potential ways T.rex can kill an elephant).
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Nov 9, 2013 6:35:19 GMT -5
Theropods are more stable than other bipeds because of their balancing tail. Claiming this fight to be a mismatch in favor the elephant is f@#king ridiculous. T.rex could bite the trunk, or else it was probably even capable of disabling such weapons (if I remember exactly, I think T.rex was once supposed to actually bite a Triceratops on the horns, even though Triceratops would win against T.rex), so why not bite the elephant on the tusks? If this fight was to be a mismatch, it'd rather be in favour of the Tyrannosaurus IMO. Biting the trunk or tusk of the elephant would the dumbest move a t.rex could attempt for pretty obvious reasons.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 9:13:44 GMT -5
Theropods are more stable than other bipeds because of their balancing tail. Claiming this fight to be a mismatch in favor the elephant is f@#king ridiculous. T.rex could bite the trunk, or else it was probably even capable of disabling such weapons (if I remember exactly, I think T.rex was once supposed to actually bite a Triceratops on the horns, even though Triceratops would win against T.rex), so why not bite the elephant on the tusks? If this fight was to be a mismatch, it'd rather be in favour of the Tyrannosaurus IMO. Biting the trunk or tusk of the elephant would the dumbest move a t.rex could attempt for pretty obvious reasons. What reasons? Getting gored? Recent studies actually show that tyrannosaurus may have bitten off the horns of ceratopsians. Ceratopsian horns would most likely be one of the best weapons to use against a large tyrannosaurid.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 9, 2013 9:13:49 GMT -5
There is a Triceratops fossil with its horn bitten off by Tyrannosaurus in an attempt to protect itself. This is however, obviously VERY risky, and I think Tyrannosaurus would likely attempt to kill the elephant in a better way (if it wants to bite off the tusks to protect itself from a goring, it needs to snap it off very quickly before the elephant decides to do something).
The trunk, well, I've never seen elephants kill other multi ton animals (other elephants) effectively with their trunks, so the trunk isn't going to be a very useful weapon here, at best probably a distraction. However, if Tyrannosaurus wants to bite off the trunk, it needs to solve the problem of tusks, which, going back to my first point, is still very risky even if there was an incident of Tyrannosaurus doing this with Triceratops. I do support the dinosaur, but the elephant can and will put up a hell of a fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 19:46:55 GMT -5
I have to say its ridiculous to think that T. rex would actually utilize a strategy that required it to bite off Triceratops horns, and that it would do so with an elephant. The whole idea is for a predator to avoid the weapons of a potential prey, not confront it. Such a stratgy of horn biting would mostly result in Tyrannosaurus with a stabbed skull. Otherwise I have no opinion on this match yet.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 19:55:41 GMT -5
I have to say its ridiculous to think that T. rex would actually utilize a strategy that required it to bite off Triceratops horns, and that it would do so with an elephant. The whole idea is for a predator to avoid the weapons of a potential prey, not confront it. Such a stratgy of horn biting would mostly result in Tyrannosaurus with a stabbed skull. Otherwise I have no opinion on this match yet. The brow horns of triceratops were quite long and slender, which means the theropod could always bite them from the side and not be in any danger of having its skull impaled. Tyrannosaurus had a bite force and jaw anatomy more than capable of crushing bone. This would be very effective, even if the triceratops' horns were covered in keratin (which basically enforced them and made them much stronger).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 20:01:37 GMT -5
I have to say its ridiculous to think that T. rex would actually utilize a strategy that required it to bite off Triceratops horns, and that it would do so with an elephant. The whole idea is for a predator to avoid the weapons of a potential prey, not confront it. Such a stratgy of horn biting would mostly result in Tyrannosaurus with a stabbed skull. Otherwise I have no opinion on this match yet. The brow horns of triceratops were quite long and slender, which means the theropod could always bite them from the side and not be in any danger of having its skull impaled. Tyrannosaurus had a bite force and jaw anatomy more than capable of crushing bone. This would be very effective, even if the triceratops' horns were covered in keratin (which basically enforced them and made them much stronger). And getting to the side would be so easy? I doubt it. When a predator, any predator, gets an opportunity to attack prey it goes for the vulnerable regions and attempts to make as quick a kill as possible. You dont see lions/tigers biting onto buffalo horns or deer antlers or pig tusks. What is the scientific paper that describes this theory, I would like to read it.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 9, 2013 20:09:12 GMT -5
The brow horns of triceratops were quite long and slender, which means the theropod could always bite them from the side and not be in any danger of having its skull impaled. Tyrannosaurus had a bite force and jaw anatomy more than capable of crushing bone. This would be very effective, even if the triceratops' horns were covered in keratin (which basically enforced them and made them much stronger). And getting to the side would be so easy? I doubt it. When a predator, any predator, gets an opportunity to attack prey it goes for the vulnerable regions and attempts to make as quick a kill as possible. You dont see lions/tigers biting onto buffalo horns or deer antlers or pig tusks. What is the scientific paper that describes this theory, I would like to read it. Yea… about that… I never actually read that paper. Instead, Dinopithecus told me about that theory. Ask him to give you the source
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Nov 10, 2013 0:39:55 GMT -5
Exactly what fishfan said.
I'd be hesitant to back the t.rex in a frontal attack because of those factors.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 10, 2013 7:04:10 GMT -5
This was from Carnivora.
Though I'm not sure if you can still see the study on the Internet anymore, apparently there was a study on it.
However, if I ever implied this was going to be a major strategy for T.rex in killing the elephant, then I retract that. I now think its more likely Tyrannosaurus will outmaneuver the elephant in 2 different ways and then bite a vulnerable area (ex: the neck) and at least one other, potential way that I'm not sure if I mentioned yet (I will mention it later)
I just think T.rex has more and at least in my opinion better ways to kill the elephant than vice versa (you can disagree with me on this).
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 10, 2013 7:09:59 GMT -5
Update: Apparently another link does cite this study, copy and paste the study name into Google.
I still think T.rex wins 60% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Nov 15, 2018 11:53:16 GMT -5
actually there is healed bite marks on a triceratops and hadrosaur making it likely an oppurtuinistic carnivore forgive my bad english but do remember it can bite those tusks off www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/t-rex-could-bite-force-three-cars-pulverising-bones-pulp-say/ a single feeding bite could be fatal even if we are not taking the bacteria into play also elephants have very poor eyesight while a trex is said by most scientists too have eyesight greater than that of an eagle the hearing of an elephant wont do much in this battle along with both there great smell
|
|
|
Post by oops on Nov 15, 2018 11:54:02 GMT -5
sorry for replicating your name jumbo
|
|