# Songhua River Mammoth vs any Theropod



## Glued (Aug 18, 2011)

Take any Theropod from anytime, Megalosaurus, T-Rex, Spinosaurus, Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, or Giganotosaurus, Megaraptor or whatever and pit him against the Songhua River Mammoth. The biggest Mammoth of them all, weighing 19 tons.


----------



## sonic546 (Aug 18, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> Take any Theropod from anytime, Megalosaurus,* T-Rex, Spinosaurus, Allosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, or Giganotosaurus,* Megaraptor or whatever and pit him against the Songhua River Mammoth. The biggest Mammoth of them all, weighing 19 tons.



These guys babyshake.  Seriously Ben Grimm, your prehistoric animal threads are usually much better than this.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Aug 19, 2011)

Any good sized theropod is gonna have no problems reaching out to the mammoth's neck 

e.g. the ones you mentioned


----------



## Glued (Aug 19, 2011)

A bull African Elephant is near the weight of a T-rex.

This is a Songhua River Mammoth, look at the size of that monster, look at its tusks?


----------



## I3igAl (Aug 19, 2011)

Since blood lust is on I' go with the Mammut it could probably just take the Dino's from their feet by tackling them.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Aug 19, 2011)

The mammoth would have been slow as fuck, with a stubby short neck unable to turn and react to danger as fast as it's smaller descendents. Any theropod who wasn't a scrub would see those tusks from a mile away. The T-re, in particular, had amazing binocular vision at least 4x greater than ours and would have been able to see across the horizon and analyse the situation long before arriving. It's prey included the ridiculously armored Ankylosaurs (bony eyelids, WTF?) and Triceratops, who I don't need to explain. Point being, the Tyrannosaur was not only one of the strongest (having as many muscles in it's neck as it's legs, which is ridiculous if you think about how humans have 3 the leg strength of the arm. It could effectively yank 5 tons or more off the ground and shake it like a dog bone while applying more than 4 tons of force with the jaw pressure), it had to deal with the toughest herbivores and approached them methodically and strategically. That's why it adapted such amazing killing tools. Source:

by by reasing chakra to do mini explosions

Giganatosaurus would have been an even greater threat because it's teeth were designed to *slash*, not crush the way T-re's were. It's long legs and flexible neck would have enabled it to win by TKO (extreme blood loss from deep wounds). 

Spinosaurus was the biggest and had very long arms (at least 12 feet) compared to the other two. It would have manhandled this mammoth. The longest discovery was about 60 ft long. It was also taller than the mammoth:



Honestly, the mammoth isn't as big as you think it is, it's just really, really heavy and likely a high-end for how much the species could weigh. 

Source: by by reasing chakra to do mini explosions


A pack of Utahraptors could have sealed the deal as well.


----------



## Glued (Aug 19, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> The mammoth would have been slow as fuck, with a stubby short neck unable to turn and react to danger as fast as it's smaller descendents. Any theropod who wasn't a scrub would see those tusks from a mile away. The T-re, in particular, had amazing binocular vision at least 4x greater than ours and would have been able to see across the horizon and analyse the situation long before arriving. It's prey included the ridiculously armored Ankylosaurs (bony eyelids, WTF?) and Triceratops, who I don't need to explain. Point being, the Tyrannosaur was not only one of the strongest (having as many muscles in it's neck as it's legs, which is ridiculous if you think about how humans have 3 the leg strength of the arm. It could effectively yank 5 tons or more off the ground and shake it like a dog bone while applying more than 4 tons of force with the jaw pressure), it had to deal with the toughest herbivores and approached them methodically and strategically. That's why it adapted such amazing killing tools. Source:
> 
> that
> 
> ...


African Bush Elephants can reach speeds of 40 mph

T-Rex on the other hand is hugely debated. Some scientists say he only ran 18 mph, speed of a chicken while others say he ran at 45 mph.

That Spinosaurus is taking a tusk to the belly.



Plus if Spinosaurus falls on his back, his back would break and he would die. Spinosaurus also had fragile conicle teeth, which is terrible for either going through bone or cut through its muscles.

[YOUTUBE]SfBD7nDKfnQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Aug 19, 2011)

any of the larger Theropods stomp


----------



## Glued (Aug 19, 2011)

Azrael Finalstar said:


> any of the larger Theropods stomp



Spinosaurus isn't designed to take out animals larger than itself. Its jaws, its claws are all useless against the Songhua River Mammoth. 

This beast weighed 19 tons.

Although Giganotosaurus does have a very good chance since it specifically preyed on large fauna. However Saurapods didn't have tusks. Mammoths have tusks.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Aug 19, 2011)

Thats exactly why they'd attack from the side.


----------



## Glued (Aug 19, 2011)

Theropods have to circle in order to turn, they're too heavy to pivot on one foot.

Songhua mammoth doesn't have to pivot due to having 4 legs, thus better turning.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Aug 20, 2011)

You can't powerscale speed off of a bush elephant, those things weigh less than half as much as the river mammoth and 4x smaller. If it weighs 19 tons it's going to be slow as fuck, bottom line.

A T-rex sinks it's teeth in, it's over. It dealt with far deadlier, _faster_, and more heavily armored prey than river mammoths (there is evidence of bite marks on Triceratops' skulls). Even seemingly easy prey had some ridiculous hax defense (Pachycephalosaurus could ram things with 15-inch thick skulls). And of course there were the armored dinosaurs lined with spikes and bone clubs that could cripple legs. Point being, an experienced theropod like a tyrannosaurid deals with much worse than a river mammoth in it's life time, which would essentially be a sitting duck, especially to something like a Giganatosaurus (which had sharper teeth designed to slash, not crush).

Those big tusks are going to stand out, not help. Here's the thing: huge theropods like T-rex and Giganotosaurus were _taller_ than most of their prey (minus sauropods). They have to _bend over_ to reach them half the time; hence why their belly is exposed to horns, spikes, etc. (Triceratops for example). This isn't the case with the river mammoth, who's just as tall, if not, taller than the biggest theropods. That means the tusks would be near face level and much easier to dodge.

The Spinosaurus isn't getting gutted due to it's long arms and nimbleness. It won't fall over because it could weight as much as 10 tons and could parry the trunk and tusks with it's long arms. Also, it's skull being shaped like a Crocodile indicates strong jaws, not weaker ones. The strongest bites on the planet belong to what creatures again...? Oh yeah, that's right, crocodiles. Sarcosuchus, an ancient species, was calced to have a bite force of 18,000 lbs based on over 60 tests and estimates:


----------



## Glued (Aug 20, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Those big tusks are going to stand out, not help. Here's the thing: huge theropods like T-rex and Giganotosaurus were _taller_ than most of their prey (minus sauropods). They have to _bend over_ to reach them half the time; hence why their belly is exposed to horns, spikes, etc. (Triceratops for example). This isn't the case with the river mammoth, who's just as tall, if not, taller than the biggest theropods. That means the tusks would be near face level and much easier to dodge.
> 
> The Spinosaurus isn't getting gutted due to it's long arms and nimbleness. It won't fall over because it could weight as much as 10 tons and could parry the trunk and tusks with it's long arms. Also, it's skull being shaped like a Crocodile indicates strong jaws, not weaker ones. The strongest bites on the planet belong to what creatures again...? Oh yeah, that's right, crocodiles. Sarcosuchus, an ancient species, was calced to have a bite force of 18,000 lbs based on over 60 tests and estimates:



Are you blind, Sarcosuchus had a weighted end at the tip of his mouth. Spinosaurus had a head shaped like a False Gharial, narrow and gracile. The fact remains Spinosaurus didn't go after prey larger than itself. It shook around smaller prey in its mouth until the victim broke. Its only weapon, a mean bitch slap would be ineffective against the mammoths massive domed skull and thick neck.

[YOUTUBE]You can't powerscale speed off of a bush elephant, those things weigh less than half as much as the river mammoth and 4x smaller. If it weighs 19 tons it's going to be slow as fuck, bottom line.
[/YOUTUBE]

Slow as fuck? Scientists believe that a Human olympian could outrun spinosaurus. And a 6 ton elephant can run at 40 mph. 



> A T-rex sinks it's teeth in, it's over. It dealt with far deadlier, _faster_, and more heavily armored prey than river mammoths (there is evidence of bite marks on Triceratops' skulls).



No proof that its faster, but here is a theory that  T-Rex plodded like an elephant.





> Even seemingly easy prey had some ridiculous hax defense (Pachycephalosaurus could ram things with 15-inch thick skulls). And of course there were the armored dinosaurs lined with spikes and bone clubs that could cripple legs. Point being, an experienced theropod like a tyrannosaurid deals with much worse than a river mammoth in it's life time, which would essentially be a sitting duck, especially to something like a Giganatosaurus (which had sharper teeth designed to slash, not crush).



Except for Alamosaurus T-Rex never dealt with anything bigger than the Songhua River Mammoth. And there is little evidence to suggest that they hunted adult alamosaurus. T-Rex focused on armored dinos like Anky and Trike. Not large musclebound behemoths.

Giganotosaurus however hunted the biggest dinosaurs such as Argentinasaurus. 



> Those big tusks are going to stand out, not help. Here's the thing: huge theropods like T-rex and Giganotosaurus were taller than most of their prey (minus sauropods). They have to bend over to reach them half the time; hence why their belly is exposed to horns, spikes, etc. (Triceratops for example). This isn't the case with the river mammoth, who's just as tall, if not, taller than the biggest theropods. That means the tusks would be near face level and much easier to dodge.



Bull elephants can go low and attack rhinos and in general kill rhinos, all it needs to do is lower its tusks. Secondly Giganotosaurus didn't attack trikes, he went after the big boys.

[YOUTUBE]Qsrg8SaLpYc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Dorzium (Aug 21, 2011)

Maybe a smaller big theropod like an allosaurid could do it. Allosaurids in general attacked by swinging their heads down quickly, stripping off ribbons of flesh. They repeated this process over and over until the victim succumbed to shock and blood loss. A smaller allosaurid could run in, do a quick attack, back off, coming back again and again until the mammoth collapsed from its injuries.

Being smaller would mean that it could move better as well as being able to evade easier. However it would have to come in from the back so it didn't get rammed, kicked, or gored. Being smaller also means that the mammoth's attacks would easily prove fatal.


----------



## sonic546 (Aug 21, 2011)

Dorzium said:


> Maybe a smaller big theropod like an allosaurid could do it. They attacked by swinging their heads down quickly, stripping off ribbons. They repeated this process over and over until the victim succumbed to shock and blood loss.
> 
> The generic smaller allosaurid could run in, do a quick attack, back off, coming back again and again until the mammoth collapsed from its injuries. However it would have to come in from the back so it didn't get rammed, kicked, or gored.



If I'm remembering my paleontology correctly, Giganotosaurus is a member of the Allosaur family.  Though I might be wrong...

Oh, and a bite from a Rex would do serious damage.


----------



## Dorzium (Aug 21, 2011)

sonic546 said:


> If I'm remembering my paleontology correctly, Giganotosaurus is a member of the Allosaur family.  Though I might be wrong...



Yes you are correct. They attacked in the same method as well, which is why their skulls are lightly built and narrow, for a hatchet-like blow from their upper jaw.


----------



## sonic546 (Aug 21, 2011)

Dorzium said:


> Yes you are correct. They attacked in the same method as well, which is why their skulls are lightly built and narrow, for a hatchet-like blow from their upper jaw.



But Giganotosaurus was hunting things that could snap the mammoth's ribs like matchsticks with a smack of their tails, hence why this is a stomp in the theropod's favor.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Aug 21, 2011)

> Are you blind, Sarcosuchus had a weighted end at the tip of his mouth. Spinosaurus had a head shaped like a False Gharial, narrow and gracile.



Spinosaurus' skull looked nothing like a false gharial's:



Gharial:





And just for safe measure:

Sarcosuchus:



Wide at the base, rounded at the tip. There is also space starting from the throat until the rows of teeth (while gharial's lower jaw was solid from begining to end). This allows for the development of powerful jaw muscles and they look almost eactly like a Spinosaur skull. The gharial's looks nothing like either; being, as you say, long thin and docile (it's not even rounded like you said). It should be noted that the Nile Crocodile, most powerful modern biter on the planet today, had a wide base and it's snout ended triangularly.



> The fact remains Spinosaurus didn't go after prey larger than itself. It shook around smaller prey in its mouth until the victim broke. Its only weapon, a mean bitch slap would be ineffective against the mammoths massive domed skull and thick neck.



Careful with the word "fact", we can only speculate on the diet of 100 million year old creatures. Especially when there weren't too many "huge" herbivores living with it at the time, and Spinosaurus would have towered over 80% of anything in it's environment anyway.

And it's arms could be used to parry the tusks and then take a chomp out of the mammoth (or deliver a neck bite). In your own size comparison, it's tall enough to do so. 



> Slow as fuck? Scientists believe that a Human olympian could outrun spinosaurus. And a 6 ton elephant can run at 40 mph.



This doesn't change anything. There was a calc on another forum scaling upward the speed of a rampaging gorilla and applying it to King Kong. Turns out there's no way King Kong would be 5x faster than something that much smaller than it. It only seems like it would be that much faster because of how big it is and the powerful leg muscles. All it indicates is that it's stride will be much wider.



> No proof that its faster, but here is a theory that T-Rex plodded like an elephant.



And I answer that with this:



And this:



T-rex would have been like a speedy pitbull chomping at the legs of a camel. The tusks curve *upward*--the T-rex, already being shorter without bending over, could dive in and crush the mammoth's throat. There is no land animal on earth that could survive a T-rex bite to the throat.



> Except for Alamosaurus T-Rex never dealt with anything bigger than the Songhua River Mammoth. And there is little evidence to suggest that they hunted adult alamosaurus. T-Rex focused on armored dinos like Anky and Trike. Not large musclebound behemoths.



You agree with me that it went after armored tanks like Ankylo and Trike but the only real defense of the mammoth are the tusks, which are:

A) Huge and obvious, a T-rex's excellent binocular vision would have quickly analyzed and sized them up.

B) Still just bone. A T-rex's jaws can crush bone, and it could have easily broken one off.

C) It would have been less afraid of them than the horns of creatures shorter than it (Trike), assuming we allow each creature to retain knowledge of it's previous life. It dealt with far more armored and resourceful prey. The T-rex would just bob and weave past the tusks and sink it's teeth into whatever it sees that looks vulnerable and tasty. I'm not joking about the Tyson reference either, a Tyrannosaurus had neck muscles that were almost as strong as the ones in it's *legs*.



> Giganotosaurus however hunted the biggest dinosaurs such as Argentinasaurus.



Which is why it would stomp better than either of the two theropods we're discussing. It's knife like teeth would shred chunks off before the mammoth taps out due to blood loss. And it could open it's jaws wide too.



> Bull elephants can go low and attack rhinos and in general kill rhinos, all it needs to do is lower its tusks.



Against Spino, that would prove fatal, it would tore up by claws, bites, etc. A T-rex would simply lower it's neck and close it's jaws around anything vulnerable. A Giganato could do something similar or rip it's face off. You're forgetting, in terms of width, the river mammoth's tusks are very far apart and would allow for a similarly sized theropod to slip through.


----------



## Glued (Aug 22, 2011)

> YOUTUBE]This doesn't change anything. There was a calc on another forum scaling upward the speed of a rampaging gorilla and applying it to King Kong. Turns out there's no way King Kong would be 5x faster than something that much smaller than it. It only seems like it would be that much faster because of how big it is and the powerful leg muscles. All it indicates is that it's stride will be much wider.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even if it is faster than we believed, according to this video T-rex probably could not even go above 25 mph.
[YOUTUBE]JpzjT4IE_s4[/YOUTUBE]




> Spinosaurus' skull looked nothing like a false gharial's:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spino no doubt has better jaws than most modern preds, but it doesn't have the jaws necessary to take out this mammoth. It lacks the heavy skull of the T-rex and the slashing jaws of the Allosaurids. Its teeth are conicle meant for grabbing. Spinosaurus didn't attack prey larger than itself. Spinosaurus shook his victims around in his jaws until they broke, that strategy isn't going to work on a mammoth twice its size.

Here is an example of how even superior jaw power may not do damage.
[YOUTUBE]P6PvMZy3BxI[/YOUTUBE]




> Careful with the word "fact", we can only speculate on the diet of 100 million year old creatures. Especially when there weren't too many "huge" herbivores living with it at the time, and Spinosaurus would have towered over 80% of anything in it's environment anyway.
> 
> And it's arms could be used to parry the tusks and then take a chomp out of the mammoth (or deliver a neck bite). In your own size comparison, it's tall enough to do so.


Spinosaurus co-existed with Parallititans, but it did not prey upon them at all. Spino didn't have the crushing or cutting jaws to bring down a paralititan. The only evidence that he might have gone after larger fauna is that his little brother, Irritator Challengeri was found with the bones of a juvenile Iguanadon.

The mammoth's large, thick, heavy skull, plus its impressive shoulder muscles would protect its neck.

Spinosaurus's method of killing isn't going to work on a mammoth due to the sheer size advantage. It can't shake the mammoth around, quite the opposite. If Spino were to try and parry the tusks or grab onto the mammoth, he is most likely going to be forced away. 

Despite having similar height the elephant's body weight is position on four legs, giving it better balance.

Being shorter than Spinosaurus also gives the elephant a lower center of gravity.

Plus the elephant is twice as heavy than Spinosaurus. All of this gives the mammoth the ability to shove spinosaurus around.

Not to mention the trunk can reach out and grab on of the legs on Spinosaurus. With sheer brute force he could knock Spinosaurus to the ground. Due to the fact that Spinosaurus's spine is fused to its sail, its an atomatic kill.




> T-rex would have been like a speedy pitbull chomping at the legs of a camel. The tusks curve *upward*--the T-rex, already being shorter without bending over, could dive in and crush the mammoth's throat. There is no land animal on earth that could survive a T-rex bite to the throat.



Diving is not a good idea considering the length of the tusks. And elephants can take on low level animals such as rhinos.



An elephant can easily move its head up and down.



> You agree with me that it went after armored tanks like Ankylo and Trike but the only real defense of the mammoth are the tusks, which are:



And its huge muscles and body size. Plus it has better turning than the T-rex. It also has a superior brain to triceratops who was probably dumber than T-rex.

An African Elephant with its longer legs and the fact it head didn't jut so far out from its body can turn better than a rhino, or a triceratops or as that matter almost any theropod above 5 tons.

[Youtube]nUjnCZxskf8[/Youtube]


> A) Huge and obvious, a T-rex's excellent binocular vision would have quickly analyzed and sized them up.



True he has good depth perception



> B) Still just bone. A T-rex's jaws can crush bone, and it could have easily broken one off.



The mammoth has two tusks. There is fossil evidence that a triceratops had one of its horns torn off by a T-rex and still the trike survived.

Going after one tusk is going to leave him vulnerable to the other.




> C) It would have been less afraid of them than the horns of creatures shorter than it (Trike), assuming we allow each creature to retain knowledge of it's previous life. It dealt with far more armored and *resourceful prey*. The T-rex would just bob and weave past the tusks and sink it's teeth into whatever it sees that looks vulnerable and tasty. I'm not joking about the Tyson reference either, a Tyrannosaurus had neck muscles that were almost as strong as the ones in it's *legs*.



Not really considering that T-rex lived around the same time as Alamosaurus and unlike Alamosaurus, The mammoth's neck is less vulnerable and it has weapons to defend itself.



> Which is why it would stomp better than either of the two theropods we're discussing. It's knife like teeth would shred chunks off before the mammoth taps out due to blood loss. And it could open it's jaws wide too.



I agree it has a better chance than the other two. 



Cygnus45 said:


> Against Spino, that would prove fatal, it would tore up by claws, bites, etc.



Not at all considering that elephants can easily bring their heads up and down. Spinosaurus can't really do any thing



> A T-rex would simply lower it's neck and close it's jaws around anything vulnerable. A Giganato could do something similar or rip it's face off. You're forgetting, in terms of width, the river mammoth's tusks are very far apart and would allow for a similarly sized theropod to slip through.



Well thats the funny thing about this mammoth.

Some tusks were curved


Some Tusks were straight


Some were wide


----------



## BurningSol (Aug 29, 2011)

Spinosaurus would not have had the biting power that you are indicating.  Firstly, Spinosaurus skull was not built within the same method to that of a Crocodile.  Firstly Crocodiles/Alligators sported massive lower back jaws, and a robust neck to go along with it.

This contributed to an extremely powerful bite force.  Spinosaurus on the other hand had a narrow skull, with relatively narrow lower back jaws.  It's neck was also not heavily built like that of Tyrannosaurus Rex which was short and stocky to support a massive neck.

Spinosaurus was not a jaw powered animal.  It's teeth was not meant for slashing or crushing but a puncture and grip method.  Giganotosaurus had a primitive method of giant theropod predation that would've been effective on the Mammoth.

However T-Rexes killing method would've been the most deadly of them all.  Considering its first bite could've potentially been a death bite to the prey item.  A 2007 study of a T-Rex skull measured that through out the entire skull, it would've exerted a bit-force of 200,000+ newtons which would've equated to 40,000 lbs of bite force, easily putting in within the class of Megalodon as the most powerful jaws known to date.

If a T-Rex was able to throw its mouth on the Mammoth it would've been dead, going through flesh and crushing bone.  That not only causes bleeding but also severe trauma which is something that neither Giganotosaurus nor Spinosaurus would've been capable of doing.

Spinosaurus (Remember, it's size is still *VERY* debatable mind you) would've killed the Mammoth just due to the fact that it not only had jaws, but also arms.  This would've allowed it to be able to cause damage to the Mammoth.  Giganotosaurus with its form of cutting open its prey with its jaws would've been very effective against the Mammoth.

While T-Rexes is without question would've been very effective as well.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Aug 29, 2011)

For some reason my CP didn't update me when this thread got posted in. Sorry for the long breaks. Happy Eid btw.



> Even if it is faster than we believed, according to this video T-rex probably could not even go above 25 mph.



Measuring footprints seems like a good idea, but how often do huge predatory reptiles actually eat? Why assume that it's the T-rex's top speed when it could have just been strolling and surveying it's territory, or maybe it was after something it knew it could catch (saving energy)?

They're also _assuming_ things by powerscaling from a completely different theropod; which will always have a marging of error. And an ostrich is built completely differently even going with the thought birds are related. The ostrich's legs are mostly skin and bone with muscle near the base while a T-rex would have had highly defined, bulging muscles.

The link I posted addresses the balance/pivot thing. They believe the tail would have been _extremely_ powerful and heavy while at the same time uniformly balanced to help the T-rex move faster and balancing the front end's heavy skull.

Reflexes should also be accounted for, not just running speed.



> Spino no doubt has better jaws than most modern preds, but it doesn't have the jaws necessary to take out this mammoth. It lacks the heavy skull of the T-rex and the slashing jaws of the Allosaurids. Its teeth are conicle meant for grabbing. Spinosaurus didn't attack prey larger than itself. Spinosaurus shook his victims around in his jaws until they broke, that strategy isn't going to work on a mammoth twice its size.



Both the design of the skull and teeth look just like some crocodiles, including sarcosuchus that I just posted.



> Spinosaurus co-existed with Parallititans, but it did not prey upon them at all. Spino didn't have the crushing or cutting jaws to bring down a paralititan. The only evidence that he might have gone after larger fauna is that his little brother, Irritator Challengeri was found with the bones of a juvenile Iguanadon.



_Monster Resurrected_ depicts Spinosaurus as having preyed on Paralitians. And for it's much smaller relative (Baryonix) to take on an ornithipod equal to or greater than itself in size (while weighing at least twice as much and armed with razor sharp weapons) says something about their genus' killing potential.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OppV-Gfj5Q[/YOUTUBE]

Modern crocodiles teeth are also conical and designed for sinking in and thrashing. A Spinosaurus would have used it's preys moment against it.



> The mammoth's large, thick, heavy skull, plus its impressive shoulder muscles would protect its neck.
> 
> Spinosaurus's method of killing isn't going to work on a mammoth due to the sheer size advantage. It can't shake the mammoth around, quite the opposite. If Spino were to try and parry the tusks or grab onto the mammoth, he is most likely going to be forced away.
> 
> ...



1-Depends on how quickly and how powerfully a Spinosaurid could snap it's jaws. Funny that people keep comparing their genus to crocodiles, the mos powerful biters on the planet, and then trying to label them as fish-eaters or scavengers. Doesn't add up, especially when it's the top predator--Calcs need to be done.

2-Based on the vid I posted, the Spino's arms would have been very long and very powerful with nasty claws.

3-Actually, a Spinosaurus would have easily seen over the mammoths back without needing to rear up. And the sail indicates that it's weight would have been concentrated in the mid-section, unlike tyrannosaurids or allosaurids.

4-Which could actually be a disadvantage if it decides to crouch and charge. It would be telegraphing and look obvious.

5-Actually, the high end estimate for spino's weight would have been 20 tons, 1 more than the mammoth. 

6-We still don't know if it was a hump or sail, and the trunk would get chomped on like in the vid you posted, possibly torn off. A croc had better bite force than an elephant, but modern crocs weigh much less, and are far smaller and not as powerfully built. Spino's could have weighed even more than the river mammoth, taller, and strategic enough to bring it down.


> Diving is not a good idea considering the length of the tusks. And elephants can take on low level animals such as rhinos.



If the tusks were shorter it would actually make diving harder for the T-rex, because then the mammoth could react faster, back up, poke, and play footsies (a modern elephant would fare better imo). With tusks so long, a T-rex would use it's excellent binocular vision to guage the distance and timing then dive for a bite.

The Rhino is n/a since it had eyes on the side of it's head, was simple-minded, and used a horn rather than a mouth to attack. Besides, the question would be whether or not the songhua river mammoth dealt with rhinos in it's environment.


> And its huge muscles and body size. Plus it has better turning than the T-rex. It also has a superior brain to triceratops who was probably dumber than T-rex.
> 
> An African Elephant with its longer legs and the fact it head didn't jut so far out from its body can turn better than a rhino, or a triceratops or as that matter almost any theropod above 5 tons.



1-The muscles will falter before the T-rex's unrivaled crushing bite.

2-See my points above about balance and turning. The tail has been overlooked in T-rex study. Also, mammoths were extremely stocky and used to just sitting there or trodding along since it knew it was the biggest animal in it's area. In addition to muscle, it was also bogged down by fat, fur, and since we're putting it in a weather condition suitable for the T-rex, heat.



> The mammoth has two tusks. There is fossil evidence that a triceratops had one of its horns torn off by a T-rex and still the trike survived.
> 
> Going after one tusk is going to leave him vulnerable to the other.



Or the mammoth panics seeing it's mighty tusk broken. Predators have no shame going after weak spots.



> Not at all considering that elephants can easily bring their heads up and down. Spinosaurus can't really do any thing



I agree based on current evidence that the mammoth has many advantages, but I think it's only 60/40 or 55/45 in the mammoths favor.



> Well thats the funny thing about this mammoth.



Well that changes things considerably. Do you know which genus is more likely to have curved or straight horns? Do they differ by area?


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Aug 30, 2011)

Is that scale previously posted on Spinosaurus correct. 

When I put the scale of the River Mammoth with the commonly used scale for the different  theropods together I got his:



Also, pardon my ignorance but wasnt it debated that T-Rex was/could be a straight out scavenger...?

Its huge skull evolved to intimidate other predators away from their kills, and the smaller arms became so because it no longer had to grasp out to hunt moving prey for itself.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Aug 30, 2011)

The T-rex would be way over equipped to be a scavenger.


----------



## Dorzium (Aug 30, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> Also, pardon my ignorance but wasnt it debated that T-Rex was/could be a straight out scavenger...?
> 
> Its huge skull evolved to intimidate other predators away from their kills, and the smaller arms became so because it no longer had to grasp out to hunt moving prey for itself.



Its arms are tiny because its mouth is its main method of killing its prey. Its jaws are used to crush through its entire prey, including its bones. Its jaws are strong enough to restrain prey as well, so it doesn't need its arms that much.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Aug 30, 2011)

Edited the scale to include the Utahraptor as well. 

How many Utahraptors would it take to bring down the Mammoth....? 

Eh about the T-Rex, if its going to tackle large moving prey its going to be quite the balancing act try to keep its center of balance steady between its huge head and it tail where it would lunge forward with its mouth. What if the prey shifts its movements and the T-rex leans too forward and ends up dropping to the ground - the weight of its head hitting the ground from such a height and without substantial arms to brace the fall or help stand it back up - seems way too risky for the proportions of such an animal.

It's head has a great olfactory sense, and a nice bite force for crushing bone. Would that not make the perfect equipment for a scavenger? Sniffing a rotting carcass or the blood of a fresh kill for miles around...using his overgrown skull to intimidate other predators (like a Lions mane) and then using his bone crushing teeth to take full advantage of a half-eaten corpse, where presumably there would be more bone and less flesh to feast on...?


----------



## Dorzium (Aug 30, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> It head a great olfactory sense, and a nice bite force for crushing bone. Would that not make the perfect equipment for a scavenger? Sniffing a rotting carcass or the blood of a fresh kill for miles around...using his overgrown skull to intimidate other predators (like a Lions mane) and then using his bone crushing teeth to take full advantage of a half-eaten corpse, where presumably there would be more bone and less flesh to feast on...?



They also have excellent stereoscopic vision because of their forward facing eyes. Would a scavenger need both excellent smell and vision?

Also we know Tyrannosaurus ate live prey. There are hadrosaur and ceratopsian skeletons with bites out of some bones that could only have come from a Tyrannosaurus. What shows that it actively hunted these animals is because the edges the bite marks in the bone have actually healed over, which meant the prey was alive when it was attacked. This indicates a failed attack where the bite was severe but non-fatal, and the animal recovered.

However that doesn't mean that it didn't scavenge too. Plenty of animals scavenge and hunt. Hyenas hunt live prey, and lions will steal kills or scavenge carcasses. The same is true with many other carnivorous animals. So Tyrannosaurus would have done both as well.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (Aug 30, 2011)

Dorzium said:


> Also we know Tyrannosaurus ate live prey. There are hadrosaur and ceratopsian skeletons with bites out of some bones that could only have come from a Tyrannosaurus. What shows that it actively hunted these animals is because the edges the bite marks in the bone have actually healed over, which meant the prey was alive when it was attacked. This indicates a failed attack where the bite was severe but non-fatal, and the animal recovered.



How conclusive are these wounds though?



> _There is also evidence for an aggressive interaction between a Triceratops and a Tyrannosaurus in the form of partially healed tyrannosaur tooth marks on a Triceratops brow horn and squamosal (a bone of the neck frill); the bitten horn is also broken, with new bone growth after the break. It is not known what the exact nature of the interaction was, though: either animal could have been the aggressor.[108] When examining Sue, paleontologist Pete Larson found a broken and healed fibula and tail vertebrae, scarred facial bones and a tooth from another Tyrannosaurus embedded in a neck vertebra.
> 
> If correct, these might be strong evidence for aggressive behavior between tyrannosaurs but whether it would have been competition for food and mates or active cannibalism is unclear.[109] However, further recent investigation of these purported wounds has shown that most are infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death) and the few injuries are too general to be indicative of intraspecific conflict.[98] A 2009 study showed that holes in the skulls of several specimens might have been caused by Trichomonas-like parasites that commonly infect avians._[106]



But I dont want to derail the thread any further, just pointing out there's not enough conclusive proof to say T-rex was an active predator...as it is still a long running debate in the paleontology community.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Aug 30, 2011)

True, but the proponents of it are and have always been in the minority opinion, Jack Horner notwishstanding


----------



## BurningSol (Aug 30, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> How conclusive are these wounds though?



Bite marks which when compared to all other theropods at the time, only T-Rexes teeth fit those wounds.  That's very hard evidence right there.  Their is no other large predator at the time that would even remotely be capable of doing such wound.



Waking Dreamer said:


> But I dont want to derail the thread any further, just pointing out there's not enough conclusive proof to say T-rex was an active predator...as it is still a long running debate in the paleontology community.



I'm going to state this.  The Scavenger theory was only proposed at a time in which no other large theropod dinosaur could even remotely touch it's size.  That's why guys like Horner back in that time took liberties to say "Wait a minute it was too large to hunt, arms were too small to control its fall, etc, etc".

However we know today their are giant theropods just as large and possibly slightly larger then T-Rex.  Not to mention that when Holtz did a study on the legs of all large theropod dinosaurs, the Tyrannosaurid family had the most gracile legs out of any of them, this is including Allosaurus, Giganotosaurus, etc, etc.

Now this isn't saying that T-Rex was sprinting faster then Allosaurus whom was obviously smaller, lighter and would've been most likely quicker on its feet.  However T-Rex would've been good enough to have ambush tactics that would've allowed it to hunt prey successfully.

People seem to forget one huge thing, you only need to be fast enough to catch and kill your prey item.  Tyrannosaurus Rex was fast enough to do that, and for an animal that had "better" legs for running when compared to Giganotosaurus or Spinosaurus.  It would be absurd it was a snail, because if we conclude that, then Giga and Spino would be pedestrian because they had less gracile legs in contrast.

We also forget the fact of how fast T-Rex grew.  For an animal that from the ages of its early teens to late teens was gaining 5lbs a day, so it makes it even more illogical for animal to try and survive on dead carrion with a growth rate that astronomical.

Point is, Jack Horner now is even retracting his "Pure Scavenger" theory with current evidences of T-Rex, because I remember in one interview he only brings it up to stir the crowd and to get them to wanting to prove his case wrong.  In which case with the most current evidence provided, T-Rex would've been a hunter and scavenger, much like how all large predatory prey are today.


T-Rex was also not short of sauropods, Alamosaurus which was a 30+ ton giant lived during T-Rexes time so it would've had a chance to hunt sauropods.  Given Alamosaurus falls within the medium-sized sauropod range, but still bigger then any Mammoth in existence.

Lastly, Ankylosaurus would've proved a more worthy foe for either Rex, Giga or Spino then a Mammoth.  Tusk on a mammoth isn't going to save it from a T-Rex, just look at the ceratopsians.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Aug 31, 2011)

> A 2007 study of a T-Rex skull measured that through out the entire skull, it would've exerted a bit-force of 200,000+ newtons which would've equated to 40,000 lbs of bite force, easily putting in within the class of Megalodon as the most powerful jaws known to date.



Not that I'm not getting a boner from this, but where did you find this study? That would be 20 freaking tons.


----------



## BurningSol (Sep 3, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Not that I'm not getting a boner from this, but where did you find this study? That would be 20 freaking tons.


*
*

They did an extensive study and test on the jaws of Tyrannosaurus Rex.  What is even more amazing is that, they also limited the jaw muscles for their T-Rex experiment as well, hoping to get a conservative maximum bite force.  So the potential as I said earlier would most likely be much more then what they calculated.

However at over 200,000 newtons again only the Megalodon could produce such crushing forces.  Even Predator X which was studied to have a 33,000 lb bite force would fall short of both T-Rex and Megalodon by 7,000 lbs.

Even a medium sized Tyrannosaurus Rex not fully grown would have a far more powerful bite force then other fully grown giant theropods, like Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus, Allosaurus.

Basically put the other large theropods simply did not support the skull, jaws, neck muscles or teeth to produce numbers even remotely close to half of what T-Rex would've been doing.

I could go more into detail, but why bother when that article pretty much states why.  Fused Nasals and all.

The other thing that I want to point out, is that when Erickson did a test of the T-Rex and came up with the 3,500 lb bite force.  It was only the feeding bite, and not the killing bite, so the exertion of a kill bite would've been far greater.

More over, Erickson only calculated one single tooth, and not the entire jaws and teeth.  So when you put all of that into perspective, the 200,000 newtons coincide also with Erickson's calculations from just a single tooth.

As I said, Tyrannosaurus Rex as a giant theropod dinosaur was engineered with extremely significant advantages that puts it on a class that all other giant theropods simply cannot rival.

*Ps:*  On another note, back in 2003, with a full extensive study, measurements of Giganotosaurus.  They actually noticed that Giganotosaurus was in fact, not larger then Tyrannosaurus Rex, but slightly smaller.  T-Rex is actually bigger, I forgot, but it had something to do with either the femur or something.

I can't remember the entire thing.  However I remember it clearly noting that the Giganotosaurus specimen (the 70%+ one) was slightly smaller.  Giganotosaurus as an animal is actually less robust then T-Rex who is completely unique from all others with a massively muscled body frame that makes it unique from the rest.

This obviously contributes to it being lb for lb the most powerful land predator we've ever discovered.


----------

