>>5122217
Orcas are living proof that nature isn't a PvP game like a lot of people like to pretend

File: Untitled.png (683 KB, 498x598)

683 KB PNG

>>5122217

Nanaimoteuthis

>>5122234
inb4 it’s downsized

>>5122234
Where my anime, Japan?

>>5122217
>Big dolphin: >:(
>Big shark: :O
>Sperm whale with upper teeth: :O
>>5118655

me on the left
my wife on top
our daughter on the bottom (she's special, don't bully)

>>5122234
since only the beak fossilizes, im pretty sure this thing was actually 5 times smaller IRL

>>5122234
no way was this thing hunting large vertebrates

>>5122469
I refuse accept the new size of armored fish hunter

>>5122721
according to the interpretation of the heavy wear on the beaks and the long scratches, they did

>>5122838
most likely wrong

>>5123403
I'm sure you have evidence for that claim?

>>5123410
just wait for the inevitable paper

>>5123451
So that's a no.

>>5122838
I can’t read the paper because it’s paywalled. Somebody explain how we know the wear marks are from chewing on reptile bones and not ammonite shells

>>5123510
Reposted from an anon in another thread.
>Frequent durophagous predation on hard-shelled prey causes wear of their jaw tips and jaw edges, which is absent in nondurophagous cephalopods such as squids
>This wear provides reliable evidence of durophagy, in a broader sense carnivory, in fossil cephalopods. The wear was found on adult jaws of Late Cretaceous Cirrata, but not on their juvenile jaws. It is also absent in co-occurring fossil squid jaws, including both juveniles and adults
>In the largest specimens of N. jeletzkyi and N. haggarti, the loss of jaw material caused by the accumulated wear reaches ~10% of the total jaw length, which is more severe than in modern durophagous cephalopods
>These wear patterns suggest that Late Cretaceous giant Cirrata were active carnivores that frequently crushed hard shells and bones. The long scratches distributed on wide areas of their jaw reflect the dynamic use of the entire jaw for dismantling prey. Asymmetric loss of the jaw edges suggests lateralized behavior, which has been linked to a highly developed brain and cognition
>This, in turn, suggests that the earliest octopuses already possessed advanced intelligence. Laterality is known in modern octopuses, whose high intelligence matches that of vertebrates
>so essentially the heavy wear on cephalopod beaks imply eating shellfish rather than fish. But in this case, there's extreme wear, up to 10% of the beak which is significantly more wear than modern shellfish eating cephalopods have. The fact that there are long scratches on the wide areas of the beak indicate the use of the beak to rip apart large animals, rather than just crushing shells. And the fact that bones are much thicker and tougher than shellfish shells explains why the beaks are proportionally worn down much more than modern shellfish eating cephalopods.

TLDR: We actually do have good evidence supporting its lifestyle. But the paleo community is full of lamefags who think boring = realistic.

>>5122217
Because mammal master race, duh

>>5122217
i love how mammals dominate this planet, in all ecosystems. even the king of fishes is not even a fish.

>>5123542
what if they were just eating extinct species of very large shellfish?

>>5123654
The shells of those shellfish would be found as fossils.

>>5123654
Then the wear patterns of their beak would match those of modern shellfish eating cephalopods.

>>5123542
can't wait for this paper to be DEBOONKED

File: 1381303_529465407146803_4(...).jpg (47 KB, 589x442)

47 KB JPG

>>5123662

>>5122217
isn't the 17 meter Livyatan estimate dependent on the animal sharing the body plan of a much more elongated and lighter of
Zygophyseter, whereas a sperm whale build as depicted here would land the same animal at 13.5 meters.

>>5122217
I love how these two animals actually lived at the same time and actively beefed with each other. None of this pussy "niche-partitioning" crap.

>>5123510
>Somebody explain how we know the wear marks are from chewing on reptile bones and not ammonite shells
Why is it assumed to have been from ammonite shells until and unless definitively proven otherwise?

File: 24456668.png (1.32 MB, 1170x1600)

1.32 MB PNG

>>5123985
More conservative "tame" ideas are automatically considered the default until proven otherwise. It's like how when sauropods were first discovered, it was assumed they were semiaquatic because no land animals today reached such sizes and we believed an African Elephant was the biological limit. Or how Jack Horner claimed T. rex was a scavenger because the idea of a superpredator many times larger than a polar bear was too extraordinary to believe. Or when Quetzalcoatlus was discovered and it was thought to be flightless because surely Argentavis already represented the physical limit of how big an animal could get while retaining flight. Even though these are all old antiquated lines of thought we ridicule today, people ironically go on to do the same thing with newer discoveries. It's not even a scientific type of thinking. It's literally just people making up their own headcanon based on vibes and passing it off as fact.

>>5124065
except jack horner claimed t. rex was a scavenger based on nothing more than contrarianism

>>5124138
Except he did make arguments for it which have a striking parallel with the current octopus shit.
>There is no way T. rex was an active predator. It can’t run fast and its arms are too small to hold prey, there is no modern animal like that. Its powerful bite was probably for eating carrion it didn’t have to chase after. I know this sounds more lame than your awesomebro fantasy, but real life isn’t always exciting, sorry.
>There is no way Nanaimoteuthis was an active predator. No macropredatory cephalopod exists today, even giant squid only hunt small fish. It’s powerful beak was probably for crushing the shells of ammonites that can’t fight back. I know this sounds more lame than your awesomebro fantasy, but real life isn’t always exciting, sorry.

File: 43.png (293 KB, 848x594)

293 KB PNG

>>5122217
Only 20m?

>>5123985
I didn’t say it had to be ammonites until proven otherwise

File: Nanaimoteuthis_beak.jpg (106 KB, 1200x451)

106 KB JPG

>>5122469
I'm doubtful of the large estimates, but like...

The beak is just that huge. C in picrel is the beak of a giant squid.
Even if going by a more conservative estimate, a 8-10 M octopus is insane and would be the biggest cephalopod today.

>>5122217
I have the same thoughts about the cenozoic era on Earth in general. We used to have pterosaurs and fucking dinosaurs, warm blooded reptiles, owning the earth. Everything after the mesozoic has been massive decline besides humans. Mammals are gay and estrogen-coded. Furry faggotry isn't manly or evoking of testosterone like reptiles and scales.
>mesozoic the apex predators were armored dinosaurs
>cenozoic the apex predators are shit like fluffy bears and big kitties and smooth panda dolphins
Cenozoic is gay as fuck outside of human brains and technology.

>>5125085
I don't like these things. They are scary

File: 1920px-Pliosaurus_funkei21DB.jpg (90 KB, 1920x850)

90 KB JPG

>>5125200
they're too chubby to be scary
pliosaurs are scary

File: guizhouicthyosaurus_eats_(...).jpg (257 KB, 1532x1180)

257 KB JPG

>>5125210
Don't let appearances fool you. They 100% had that feral lizardlike brain and were not just bigeye dolphins that ate fish and squid.
>Guizhouichthyosaurus is a medium sized ichthyosaur, related to much larger species in picrel >>5125085
>One Guizhouichthyosaur was found with a large prey trunk belonging to a 4 m long Xinpusaurus, another marine reptile.
>It dispatched it as prey and ripped its head and tail off and tried to swallow its torso whole, dying in the process.
Their evolution is also insane, the timespan between them first becoming pelagic and then evolving into 40+ ton Cymbospondylus youngorum was ~5 million years.

>>5125142
You did imply it, since you asked for evidence only concerning the reptile bones. Implying ammonites should be considered the default explanation barring specific evidence.

>>5125284
lots of lizards are chill though

>>5125324
>you asked for evidence only concerning the reptile bones
Because somebody said that there was evidence for feeding on reptiles specifically retard. I asked what that evidence was because the paper was paywalled. Then the relevant part of the paper was quoted. Learn to read a thread

>>5125184
Mesozoic (And Paleozoic past the big bugs time period) becomes lame as fuck when you realize every single predator was different flavors of the same thing. All theropods are just sharks on legs that hunt prey with lacerating bites and occasionally mob together for big prey. Every theropod is the same fucking thing. Fast with long arms for grasping when small, shrink arms and get big head when they grow bigger. Cenozoic on the other hand has a way higher variety of predators thanks to mammals developing the advanced intellect for different strategies.
>Conical toothed cats strangling their prey.
>Sabertooths wrestling down their prey for to disembowel them with their sabers.
>Smaller cats and Thylacoleo dropping from trees to ambush prey.
>Canids hunting in advanced packs with social bonds that extend beyond primitive mobbing.
>Raptorial whales like Ankylorhiza hunting by ramming into their prey with front facing tusks.
>Creodonts like Megistotherium that went all in on their bite to specialize in megafauna hunting.
>Bears being omnivores that can opportunistically hunt when needed.
>Semiaquatic mammals like Enhydriodon or Ambulocetus that were probably doing jaguar and/or croc things.
>Non-mammal predators like terror birds, land crocs, or Megalania.
>Hominids. No further explanation needed.
The history of megafaunal predation is like the history of human technology. The vast majority of it stagnated in the same stale shit. Then a sudden breakthrough in recent history (Industrial Revolution/Mammal takeover) made the meta accelerate at a blinding rate.

>>5126232
>All theropods are just sharks on legs that hunt prey with lacerating bites and occasionally mob together for big prey
Yeah and that's metal as fuck you big gay mammalfaggot.

>>5126232
Megalodon would've treated orcas as a light snack

>>5126232
No amount of cope will ever change the fact that no mammalian land predator has conclusively surpassed the 1 ton mark much less done so tenfold

>>5122217
Recent evidence suggest melvillei was a blubbery bottom feeder and megalodon had feathers and was gay.

>>5126946
The ocean allows vertebrates to get much bigger than their maximum size on land

>>5124065
Retard. People didn't think sauropods lived in swamps or Quetzacoatlus couldn't fly just because, that was what our actual science at the time showed with the knowledge we had then. Now that we know more about those animals with things like the pneumatized bones of sauropods or the pterosaur catapult mechanism, we know better, The point being we need actual evidence to make these claims and not "hurr it would be cool if this giant squid was hunting mosasaurs therefore it must be true".

>>5126232
>Cenozoic on the other hand has a way higher variety of predators thanks to mammals developing the advanced intellect for different strategies.
This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the fact that the continents were much closer together during the Mesozoic and therefore there was less opportunity for isolation to create more divergent forms.

>>5127076
>everything to do with the fact that the continents were much closer together during the Mesozoic
Also generally just much less diverse habitats due to no grasslands, way less diverse forests, and warmer poles.

>>5127075
>pterosaur catapult mechanism
source?

>>5127075
Retard take, we know the octopus was crushing bones based on wear patterns. And we know a massive animal is going to eat whatever it can, especially in a habitat like the open ocean. We literally do have the evidence you’re talking about, yet you’d rather be a dumbass and pretend it doesn’t exist because “macropredatory cephalopod” is something you already decided can’t exist. Exactly like Jack Horner calling Rex a scavenger when we have predation evidence on edmontosaurs.

File: crunchy.jpg (551 KB, 2309x3234)

551 KB JPG

>>5127600
NTA but I feel like bone crunching can just as easily be made into shell crunching. Ammonites were everywhere at this point in time so it ain't that big of a stretch.

>>5127721
Read >>5123542 , the paper itself compares its wear patterns to those of modern cephalopods. It is not a case of "We only know it was eating hard things and are assuming it was bones to make it sound cooler". It is "We specifically compared these wear patterns to modern day analogs and found striking differences that rule out the possibility it was a pure shellfish specialist".

>>5125284
>in the belly of the beast
haha I wonder if it pats its belly after it eats you, like "mmmmm that was sooooo satisying" while you struggle inside getting digested and he gets all gassy

>>5126946
>Arctotherium would like to know your location

>>5126232
>says every mesozoic predator was just flavours of the same thing
>creates a list of cenozoic predators that is almost entirely just different flavours of dogs and cats
disgusting

>>5127076
Even in different environments theropods still did the same shit. What's the difference between Yutyrannus and Allosaurus when it comes to actual killing methods? Even though they are from wildly different habitats, enough for one to develop feathers, they are still identical on a functional level. Compare that to Smilodon and Homotherium, who are both cats yet differ night and day in how they were hunting due to their different teeth.

The only redeeming quality of Mesozoic theropods is that they appeal to the powerscaling faggots brainrot as seen with >>5126946 . Once you get bored of the retards fighting over what fragmentary glupshitto might have been 1 ton bigger than T. rex, most of what makes theropods interesting evaporates.

>>5127881
>Even in different environments theropods still did the same shit. What's the difference between Yutyrannus and Allosaurus when it comes to actual killing methods?
Now do it again without intentionally cherry picking two similar theropods and comparing them to the two most different sabertooths you could think of

>>5128068
Funny you call that cherry picked when they are from completely different climates, but whatever, I'll bite. Carnotaurus and Allosaurus. They look different, are from completely different theropod lineages, but share the exact same design of a narrow skull with curved serrated teeth. This is how the majority of macropredatory theropods function, with only a handful of exceptions.
>Megaraptors, which are just an upscaled version of the "Small head, long arms" body plan
>Majungasaurus, which had unique teeth for holding onto its prey instead of lacerating bites.
>Tyrannosaurs, which had bone crushing bites.
Note that this scarcity isn't without reason either. The reason the steak knife bite is so common is because sauropods were the dominant herbivores for the majority of the Mesozoic. All the examples I mentioned above were Late Cretaceous animals. To give them credit dinosaurs probably would have gotten more interesting with time, but a big space rock cucked them.

File: Anomalocaris.jpg (1.76 MB, 2000x1628)

1.76 MB JPG

>>5127881
This
Being the largest predator in the pond is much better than being one apex predator among many in mesozoic-era pangea

>>5128152
>Carnotaurus and Allosaurus
Literally could not be more different, far more so than Homotherium and Smilodon
>share the exact same design of a narrow skull with curved serrated teeth
Their skulls are completely different. Carnotaurus had a short, deep skull with much smaller teeth and very high cranial kinesis. It was adapted for relatively quick, weak bites and swallowing large chunks of food. Allosaurus was the complete opposite, and that’s not even comparing its giant meathook claws to Carnotaurus’ useless mittens. You may as well say that Homotherium and Xenosmilus “share the exact same skull design”

>>5126232
>>5127881
>>5128152
Holy fuck what a retarded thing to get upset about. All of you man children having console wars over your favourite dead animals are insufferable

>>5128301
sir, you're on 4chan dot org

>>5124215
Anon, Horner is a massive T.rex hater.

>>5128869
why would we hate T. Rex?

>>5127787
Firstly, I'm just saying that if you can easily crush bone, it'd be light work doing the same with shells as well. I didn't say that it would exclusively be durophagous.
Secondly, let's assume the 18m estimate is 100% confirmed. A big enough mosasaur would still fold its shit in like how sperm whales do it on their daily grind.

>>5128869
He needed to promote JP3 somehow

>>5128152
>dinosaurs probably would have gotten more interesting with time, but a big space rock cucked them.
Theropods diverged into quasi-marine and omni/herbivorous niches even before the space rock.
Post space rock, we see them diverging into herbivorous land- and semiaquatic forms, scavenger specialists, night- and daytime hunters, piscivores, insectivores and what have you. Hell, there's species specialised on shrimps in alkaline lakes where no other life dwells.

>>5129092
>Firstly, I'm just saying that if you can easily crush bone, it'd be light work doing the same with shells as well. I didn't say that it would exclusively be durophagous.
That's fine and the most likely possibility anyways, a giant carnivore isn't going to pass up a good meal if it has the tools to obtain it. The idiots are the people trying to claim it was exclusively eating shellfish as some sort of anti-awesomebro gotcha, because they couldn't even be assed to read the paper on the animal they're discussing.

>Secondly, let's assume the 18m estimate is 100% confirmed. A big enough mosasaur would still fold its shit in like how sperm whales do it on their daily grind.
A mosasaurus only got as big as a sperm whale at the very most, and sperm whales only hunt giant squid because they have a massive weight advantage over them. The analog falls apart because these are equally sized super predators that would be taking a massive risk fighting each other. At the very most they'd hunt smaller individuals of the other species.

>>5127881
>Even in different environments theropods still did the same shit.
You have Gallimimus, Therizinosaurus, Velociraptor, Tarbosaurus, Mononykus, and Deinocheirus all in the same habitat.
Look at me in the face and tell me that theropods are all the same.

>>5127881
Spinosaurus was different.

>>5129344
>>5129284
>>5129129
Enough with the pedantics you bunch of autistic nerds. Original post was discussing the variety of mesozoic macropredators vs cenozoic macropredators. Mesozoic loses every time when it's variety boils down to two body plans for large and small theropods. And I'm giving raptorial theropods to the Cenozoic because Avisaurus barely counts compared to shit like the Haast's Eagle.

File: Shinji_bottle.jpg (487 KB, 3000x1680)

487 KB JPG

>>5129357
You don't get to complain about "pedantics" after a post gets nitty gritty of listing out all possible cenozoic predators vs a strawman of theropods to try and justify why you said "all theropods are the same, unlike mammal predators" and then get pissy because others point out how wrong that is. So much so that your only retort is "Ugh, I wasn't THAT serious!"

>Original post was discussing the variety of mesozoic macropredators vs cenozoic macropredators.
Awfully convenient that the original post has zero mention of any marine reptile or any other non-dinosaur archosaur.

>>5122217
Orcas are a Placental Mammal species that has specced into Intelligence, Group co-ordination and controlled aggressiveness.

They're effectively the Humans of the Sea.

>>5129357
>it's variety boils down to two body plans for large and small theropods
Like cenozoic boils down to dog and cat?

>>5129501
I think tool use is a pretty vital component for something to be called the humans of anything.

>>5129501
>controlled aggressiveness
??
They kill seals and other dolphins/porpoises for fun.

>>5129650
They also attack boats for no reason

>>5122217
Dunkleosteus was the coolest oceanic apex predator

>>5129419
>You can't point out that we completely ignored the original point of the post because...you just can't okay?!?!?
Noted and ignored. If your response to a statement about theropod macropredators is "penguins and...umm...therizinosaurus!!!" you missed what the statement was about.

>>5128290
>Their skulls are completely different. Carnotaurus had a short, deep skull with much smaller teeth and very high cranial kinesis. It was adapted for relatively quick, weak bites and swallowing large chunks of food. Allosaurus was the complete opposite, and that’s not even comparing its giant meathook claws to Carnotaurus’ useless mittens. You may as well say that Homotherium and Xenosmilus “share the exact same skull design”
They are visually different due to coming from distinctly separate lineages, but their function is the same. Carnos "Quick weak bites" are the same thing Allo was doing, I'm not sure how you think Allo was the opposite. Both animals have curved serrated teeth propped up on a long neck with an "S" curve, for making rapid strikes with a narrow skull. (Carnos is shorter length wise, but they are both narrow when it comes to width) The only reason Allo differs from Carno is because Carno is a derived late Cretaceous theropod while Allo is a basal "transitionary" form between the two small/large theropod body plans. Allos claws are also highly overstated. Yes they were usable, but they are hardly like Megaraptoran arms. The animal would still be using it's mouth for the majority of it's hunting strategy. There's a reason nearly every large theropod lineage in the late cretaceous has atrophied arms, they are simply less important for dispatching large prey.

>>5130302
>If your response to a statement about theropod macropredators is "penguins and...umm...therizinosaurus!!!" you missed what the statement was about.
How so?

>>5122234
how come cephalopods lost the ability to hunt large vertebrates? now even their largest species are whale chow lol

>>5130302
>but their function is the same
It isn’t, especially not if you hold it to the same standard as Smilodon apparently being different enough to Homotherium for you to shit the bed over
>Yes they were usable
As opposed to unusable like carnotaurus
>but they are hardly like Megaraptoran arms
They are infinitely closer to megaraptoran arms than abelisaurid arms
>There's a reason nearly every large theropod lineage in the late cretaceous has atrophied arms
Except for megaraptors, therizinosaurs, spinosaurs, dromaeosaurs, ornithomimosaurs and even a bunch of tyrannosauroids. Your console warring is retarded

How did this thread go from being about big sharks and whales to a catfag seething over the fact popular media prefers dinosaurs over cats

>>5131678
You still haven’t told me how they are different. I can tell you Homotherium differed from Smilidon from the adaptations of their canine teeth alone. There is no meaningful difference in the teeth of Allo/Carno that would have made their feeding strategies notably different.

>As opposed to unusable like carnotaurus
In theropods arms take a backseat to jaws for hunting large prey. There is no reason to pull yourself closer and expose your bodies vitals to a larger animal. Especially when your jaws can do more damage and from a safer distance too. When considering how they hunted sauropods, Allo/Carno are nigh identical. If you want to talk about differences, you could say Allo was more suited to also hunting small prey with its arms. But that wasn’t different from Megaraptorans or any other small hunting theropods. The only notable part of Allo is how its uniqueness came from being a generic generalist.

>Except for megaraptors, therizinosaurs, spinosaurs, dromaeosaurs, ornithomimosaurs and even a bunch of tyrannosauroids. Your console warring is retarded
Crying about how I don’t specify “macropredatory theropod” in every post isn’t the smart gotcha you think it is. It just makes you look like a retard who gets caught up in minor details.

>>5131762
>You still haven’t told me how they are different
I did. As I just said carnotaurus had extremely high cranial kinesis and a short deep skull, it was not adapted for biting the same way allosaurus was. It’s skull was designed to exert the most force over as small an area as possible as opposed to allosaurus’ long shearing jaws
>I can tell you Homotherium differed from Smilidon from the adaptations of their canine teeth alone
Then why haven’t you actually said what the difference was? They had the same neck and skull mechanics, smilodon just had larger teeth. They both would have used the bite and pull method. That is the least different part of how they each hunted
>In theropods arms take a backseat to jaws for hunting large prey
The jaws being more effective weapons doesn’t mean the arms were not effective weapons, especially when you compare them to totally useless arms like with abelisaurs
>There is no reason to pull yourself closer and expose your bodies vitals to a larger animal
That is retarded. If that were the case then why is there an entire lineage of theropods specialised for exactly that purpose? Not to mention more theropods would have had greatly reduced arms if that were true
>Crying about how I don’t specify “macropredatory theropod” in every post isn’t the smart gotcha you think it is
I just listed multiple macropredatory theropods though

in retrospective it was obvious that the freak obsessed with cats was paleoschizo this whole time
(as ive said multiple times)

>>5131868
>I did. As I just said carnotaurus had extremely high cranial kinesis and a short deep skull, it was not adapted for biting the same way allosaurus was. It’s skull was designed to exert the most force over as small an area as possible as opposed to allosaurus’ long shearing jaws
Allosaurus also had a kinetic skull for distributing stress vs sheer power. It is literally the entire basis of the weaker bite than a lion thing that blew up a few years ago before we realized it didn’t need to bite hard to kill when it could just bleed animals out. Carnotaurus is the same way, its skull is only “short” because that’s an ancestral trait of abelisaurs. Look at Eoabelisaurus.

>Then why haven’t you actually said what the difference was?
Scimitar toothed cat vs dirk toothed cat. Didn’t think I’d need to explain the difference to you but you clearly have no clue on what you’re talking about if your conclusion is that one just had “larger teeth”

>That is retarded. If that were the case then why is there an entire lineage of theropods specialised for exactly that purpose?
Why do you assume megaraptorans were hunting large prey? They have the long narrow jaws characteristic of a predator of smaller animals. I know the scene of an Allo jumping on a Diplodocus in WWD was nostalgic, but have you never realized that it’s outdated? You are only risking an arm fracture or pulling out a claw by hooking yourself to a larger animal. Plus for a theropod it makes getting good bites in harder since you have to crane your neck for an angle. Claws are for grasping small evasive prey. It’s the entire strategy that made early dinosaurs thrive in the Triassic.

>Not to mention more theropods would have had greatly -
Literally every lineage of large predatory theropods has reduced arms. Tyrannosaurs, ceratosaurs, abelisaurs, carcharodontosaurids, etc. Megaraptorans are the only exception excluding transitionary forms like allosaurus.

File: 284936.jpg (227 KB, 1250x762)

227 KB JPG

>>5131929
>Allosaurus also had a kinetic skull for distributing stress vs sheer power
Not to the same extent. Picrel
>It is literally the entire basis of the weaker bite than a lion thing that blew up a few years ago before we realized it didn’t need to bite hard to kill
That is so incredibly out of date. Allosaurus did not have a weaker bite than a lion
>Scimitar toothed cat vs dirk toothed cat
These are just common names for each group retard. You haven’t actually described what the biomechanical difference is
>They have the long narrow jaws characteristic of a predator of smaller animals
Narrow jaws are not necessarily an indicator of a small game predator, especially not when they also have massive claws to use in combination with those jaws and multiple members are enormous
>Literally every lineage of large predatory theropods has reduced arms
You forgot the spinosaurids, proceratosaurids, dromaeosaurids and neovenatorids. Also nanotyrannus probably forms a clade with dryptosaurus which would add another lineage

>>5131726
>catfag seething
Do you really have to ask?

>>5131992
>Not to the same extent. Picrel
Again, this is a product of Allo being a more primitive theropod. It is still doing the same thing, it just hasn’t majorly specialized in it as you graciously showed.
>That is so incredibly out of date. Allosaurus did not have a weaker bite than a lion
Re-read what I wrote, I did not say it had a weaker bite than a lion. I am referring to an outdated conclusion that caught wind because of the traits of Allos skull.
>These are just common names for each group retard. You haven’t actually described what the biomechanical difference is
If I say a Gharial and Mugger Croc are different are you also going to play retard until I spell it out to you? Shut up and go look it up you dumbass.

>Narrow jaws are not necessarily an indicator of a small game predator, especially not when they also have massive claws to use in combination with those jaws and multiple members are enormous
Except they are and this pattern is consistent with many modern animals. Like gharials, Ethiopian wolves, bottlenose dolphins, etc. And “massive claws” just further support this because they are better for grasping evasive prey. Not sure why you are desperate to cling to the idea of theropods hunting in ridiculous ways.
>You forgot the spinosaurids, proceratosaurids, dromaeosaurids and neovenatorids.
Ironic you tell me this when the largest members of those clades (Utahraptor, Spino and Sinotyrannus) developed smaller arms than their relatives. But thanks for supporting my point I guess.

File: Nemegt_theropods.jpg (108 KB, 2000x1063)

108 KB JPG

>>5127881
>Even in different environments theropods still did the same shit.
>>5129357
>Original post was discussing the variety of mesozoic macropredators vs cenozoic macropredators
>>5130302
>If your response to a statement about theropod macropredators

You can't even keep a consistent argument up because you know your position is retarded or you have less intuition than a pigeon. My response was to the first part, and my counterexample was six different theropods from the SAME environment and formation.

>>5132187
>It is still doing the same thing
It isn’t. That doesn’t become true just because you say the same thing multiple times
>I am referring to an outdated conclusion that caught wind because of the traits of Allos skull
Why even mention it then, or is it because you don’t actually have a real argument?
>If I say a Gharial and Mugger Croc are different are you also going to play retard until I spell it out to you? Shut up and go look it up you dumbass
Way to show you still can’t describe what biomechanical difference there is. Bravo
>Except they are and this pattern is consistent with many modern animals. Like gharials, Ethiopian wolves, bottlenose dolphins, etc
Except they aren’t. Mammal skulls are not equivalent to reptile skulls. Gharials are a terrible example because only the Indian gharial is a specialist feeder on small prey. All the other large thin snouted crocodilians like Orinoco crocs and even false gharials are generalists capable of hunting large prey. Not to mention the jaws of megaraptorans are far less specialised than any of those examples
>And “massive claws” just further support this because they are better for grasping evasive prey
You think evasiveness is mutually exclusive with large size?
>Ironic you tell me this when the largest members of those clades (Utahraptor, Spino and Sinotyrannus) developed smaller arms than their relatives
You said every lineage had reduced arms. Keep shifting the goalposts it makes you look really good at this

>>5132252
>You can't even keep a consistent argument up because you know your position is retarded or you have less intuition than a pigeon. My response was to the first part, and my counterexample was six different theropods from the SAME environment and formation.
Refusing to address the original intent of my argument because you want to cling to an unrelated topic tells me all I need to know about your intelligence. But feel free to double down, I accept your concession.

>>5132268
>Why even mention it then, or is it because you don’t actually have a real argument?
Because even if a conclusion is outdated, it does not mean the evidence used to support it never existed.
>Except they aren’t. Mammal skulls are not equivalent to reptile skulls. Gharials are a terrible example because only the Indian gharial is a specialist feeder on small prey. All the other large thin snouted crocodilians like Orinoco crocs and even false gharials are generalists capable of hunting large prey. Not to mention the jaws of megaraptorans are far less specialised than any of those examples
Other narrow snouted crocs do not stop being specialists just because they are not extreme specialists. We know false gharials can take cows, this does not mean they are taking cows more than fish, which their skulls are better suited for. This is why they even evolved such adaptations in the first place, because they have a preference for that prey. Otherwise they would be broad shouted like true generalist crocs.

>You think evasiveness is mutually exclusive with large size?
Larger animals are slower and less agile so prey capture becomes less important compared to tools for actual dispatch. This is why large theropods like tyrannosaurs could afford to lose their arms when they started hunting larger animals. And guess what, fast tyrannosaurs that went back to hunting small prey, like Qianzhousaurus, have long and narrow jaws.

>You said every lineage had reduced arms. Keep shifting the goalposts it makes you look really good at this
You are the one shifting goalposts when I give you examples that counter your argument, yet they somehow don’t matter because you really want Therizinosaurus to matter in an argument about predators.

>>5132283
>it does not mean the evidence used to support it never existed
It means the evidence was misinterpreted and never actually supported it
>This is why they even evolved such adaptations in the first place, because they have a preference for that prey. Otherwise they would be broad shouted like true generalist crocs
Most broad snouted crocodilians also primarily eat fish. By this logic they should be thin snouted, but they aren’t. Just say you don’t know anything about crocodilians
>Larger animals are slower and less agile
Not really. Hadrosaurs for example were likely capable of very high speeds relative to their size
>And guess what, fast tyrannosaurs that went back to hunting small prey, like Qianzhousaurus, have long and narrow jaws
Except for all the cursorial Albertosaurines
>You are the one shifting goalposts
Projection
>yet they somehow don’t matter because you really want Therizinosaurus to matter in an argument about predators
Notice how you’re still ignoring all those other lineages I mentioned? I didn’t mention therizinosaurs at all when you specified predatory theropods either
>still can’t say what is so different about the jaw mechanics of homotherium and smilodon
kek

>>5132286
>It means the evidence was misinterpreted and never actually supported it
The lion bite claim was never supported. The biomechanics of allos skull are still known. The former being wrong doesn’t invalidate the latter.

>Most broad snouted crocodilians also primarily eat fish. By this logic they should be thin snouted, but they aren’t. Just say you don’t know anything about crocodilians
Entirely dependent on environment and which prey source is most accessible. Nile crocs that can feast on wildebeest crossings will be eating less fish than Alligators in the Everglades. Yet both are broad snouted. Rich of you to say I don’t know anything when you forget that being a generalist doesn’t mean eating a balanced diet of everything, it just means being able to eat whatever is most abundant.

>Not really. Hadrosaurs for example were likely capable of very high speeds relative to their size
They are still multi ton animals that would have been limited in agility. Obviously they are faster than other large herbivores, but they aren’t going to be as fast as ornithomimids.

>Except for all the cursorial Albertosaurines
It’s almost like Albertosaurus is a more generalist animal than Qianzhousaurus because it’s an older more basal tyrannosaur. Shocking.

>Projection
Large macropredatory theropods gravitate towards reduced arms and larger jaws. No amount of nitpicking my exact word choice changes my argument, sorry.
>Notice how you’re still ignoring all those other lineages I mentioned? I didn’t mention therizinosaurs at all when you specified predatory theropods either
Not ignoring them because they are all as relevant as Therizinosaurs. Aka not relevant at all.
>kek
I know it’s hard but you can figure it out yourself. I’ll wait.

i will literally have a panic attack orcas are the effing best bro i am shaking and going to die right now help me this is the last thing i will ever type goodb

>>5125085
that youngorum is nightmare fuel wtf

>>5132304
>The former being wrong doesn’t invalidate the latter
And the latter demonstrates the former is bullshit
>Yet both are broad snouted
That’s the entire point moron. By your logic they should only be broad snouted if they are primarily hunting large prey which isn’t the case
>Rich of you to say I don’t know anything when you forget that being a generalist doesn’t mean eating a balanced diet of everything
Nobody said or even implied this
>Obviously they are faster than other large herbivores, but they aren’t going to be as fast as ornithomimids
They don’t need to be. They are evasive enough compared to the relevant predators they lived with. Comparing them to ornithomimids means literally nothing in this context
>It’s almost like Albertosaurus is a more generalist animal than Qianzhousaurus because it’s an older more basal tyrannosaur
It’s slightly older, not more basal. Those aren’t the same thing
>Large macropredatory theropods gravitate towards reduced arms and larger jaws. No amount of nitpicking my exact word choice changes my argument
This wasn’t your argument though. You said that all large predatory theropod lineages had reduced arms, not that the largest members of each lineage trend toward having reduced arms. Those are entirely different. This is what I meant by shifting the goalposts
>Not ignoring them because they are all as relevant as Therizinosaurs. Aka not relevant at all
Large predatory theropods with well developed arms aren’t relevant to a claim about no large predatory theropods having well developed arms? Very convincing
>I know it’s hard but you can figure it out yourself. I’ll wait
>Translation: I still can’t actually say what is different about them
You’re not very good at this

>>5132345
>And the latter demonstrates the former is bullshit
Again, the lion bite force shit was just something interpreted from how Allos skull was designed. Allos skull did not magically change shape because we realized that theory was wrong.
>That’s the entire point moron. By your logic they should only be broad snouted if they are primarily hunting large prey which isn’t the case
You were claiming non-gharial slender snouted crocs were generalists which is just flat out wrong. Being able to branch outside of their usual diet doesn't make them generalists, it's not a binary designation you dumbass. The Indian gharial is a fish specialist and the false gharial is as well. The latter just isn't as extremely specialized as the former. That doesn't mean it stops being a specialist just because there is another animal more specialized than it.
>Nobody said or even implied this
"Most broad snouted crocodilians also primarily eat fish. By this logic they should be thin snouted, but they aren’t." you can't even understand that evolution isn't an instant process. Generalist species choosing to prioritize a single food source is how specialized species evolve, yet you somehow think this is a hole in my argument.
>This wasn’t your argument though. You said that all large predatory theropod lineages had reduced arms, not that the largest members of each lineage trend toward having reduced arms. Those are entirely different. This is what I meant by shifting the goalposts
Being anal about my word choice doesn't help your argument. I said all large predatory theropod lineages had reduced arms, yet you brought up dromaeosaurids and proceratosaurids, lineages of predominantly smaller theropods. All you did was support my point because the members of these clades with gigantism exhibit reduced arms compared to their smaller relatives. But feel free to cry about shifting goalposts since you can't formulate an actual reply.
>You’re not very good at this
I'm still waiting.

>>5132280
>Refusing to address the original intent of my argument
You have no argument and shift between multiple goalposts. Your 'original intent' keeps shifting.

>Original post was discussing the variety of mesozoic macropredators vs cenozoic macropredators
If this is the metric, mosasaurs, all pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, any crocodylomorph, predators exclusively from the Triassic, sauropterygians, and others were ignored unless you also think they're like theropods.

>If your response to a statement about theropod macropredators is "penguins and...umm...therizinosaurus!!!" you missed what the statement was about.
NOW its about 'theropod macropredators'. Which is still wrong.
If you'd chimp out if someone said "Saber tooth tiger" since machairodonts are not at all close to Panthera, then heel-turn and say "allosaurus is the same as carnotaurus" then you're just being a retard.

>>5132551
>Allos skull did not magically change shape because we realized that theory was wrong
That’s what I just said
>You were claiming non-gharial slender snouted crocs were generalists which is just flat out wrong
It isn’t
>Being able to branch outside of their usual diet doesn't make them generalists
A false gharial that hunts a mammal isn’t branching out of its usual diet any more than an alligator doing the same
>The Indian gharial is a fish specialist and the false gharial is as well. The latter just isn't as extremely specialized as the former. That doesn't mean it stops being a specialist just because there is another animal more specialized
It stops being a specialist when it has a broad diet and doesn’t preferentially select a narrow range of prey, which is the case for false gharials
>you can't even understand that evolution isn't an instant process. Generalist species choosing to prioritize a single food source is how specialized species evolve, yet you somehow think this is a hole in my argument
Do you think alligators just haven’t had time to evolve a thin snout to suit their diet? The hole in your argument is that it’s just wrong
>Being anal about my word choice doesn't help your argument
More like your argument progressively changes as you get corrected
>you brought up dromaeosaurids and proceratosaurids, lineages of predominantly smaller theropods
I also brought up multiple larger ones
>the members of these clades with gigantism exhibit reduced arms compared to their smaller relatives
But not compared to other lineages of large predatory theropods, which is what you were initially getting at
>But feel free to cry about shifting goalposts since you can't formulate an actual reply
More projection
>I'm still waiting
I’m still waiting. You’re not fooling anyone by cryptically acting like there’s some evidence out there that you can’t produce. It’s not my job to find evidence that doesn’t exist for you

>>5132567
>It isn’t
But it is, a slender snout is a specialization from the ancestral condition (broad snout). They are specialized animals.
>A false gharial that hunts a mammal isn’t branching out of its usual diet any more than an alligator doing the same
The average false gharial will by default be hunting more fish than the average alligator. Having fish as a staple in it's diet is why it evolved a slender snout in the first place.
>It stops being a specialist when it has a broad diet and doesn’t preferentially select a narrow range of prey, which is the case for false gharials
You are conflating specialist behaviors with having a specialist physiology.
>Do you think alligators just haven’t had time to evolve a thin snout to suit their diet? The hole in your argument is that it’s just wrong
Do you think indian gharials just popped out of thin air? Evolution is descent with modification. A population of broad snouted crocodilian becoming more narrow snouted over time due to fish being their preferred diet is how narrow snouted crocodilians came to be.
>More like your argument progressively changes as you get corrected
You are the one who refuses to address the intent behind my argument. But keep hiding behind wordplay since it suits you.
>I also brought up multiple larger ones
Spinosauridae (Of which Spinosaurus, the largest, has reduced arms), and the glupshitto clade that is Neovenatoridae. Which is phylogenetically either related to megaraptorans (The exception I already told you about), or ancestral to carcharodontosauridae. (Which have reduced arms)
>But not compared to other lineages of large predatory theropods, which is what you were initially getting at
Doesn't matter how reduced their arms managed to get before going extinct. There is a clear pattern in theropod evolution that is established here.

>>5132555
>You have no argument and shift between multiple goalposts. Your 'original intent' keeps shifting.
My original intent was clear. You continue to pretend it isn't by bringing in irrelevant examples or nitpicking my wording.
>If this is the metric, mosasaurs, all pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, any crocodylomorph, predators exclusively from the Triassic, sauropterygians, and others were ignored unless you also think they're like theropods.
More nitpicking.
>NOW its about 'theropod macropredators'. Which is still wrong. If you'd chimp out if someone said "Saber tooth tiger" since machairodonts are not at all close to Panthera, then heel-turn and say "allosaurus is the same as carnotaurus" then you're just being a retard.
Never claimed Allo and Carno were genetically the same, they are from separate theropod lineages. But they are functionally the same on a biomechanical level.
>I’m still waiting. You’re not fooling anyone by cryptically acting like there’s some evidence out there that you can’t produce. It’s not my job to find evidence that doesn’t exist for you
Not gonna spoonfeed you since it's incredibly simple. Figure it out yourself if you wanna argue about it.

>>5132584
>a slender snout is a specialization
>They are specialized animals
That isn’t the same thing as being a dietary specialist
>The average false gharial will by default be hunting more fish than the average alligator
There is absolutely nothing to suggest this. The few records we do have suggest they eat more large prey than alligators
>Having fish as a staple in it's diet is why it evolved a slender snout in the first place
Again, why don’t alligators have a slender snout when fish are also staple prey?
>You are conflating specialist behaviors with having a specialist physiology
You literally just did this. The entire conversation has been about how narrow jaws are not necessarily an indicator of being a specialist feeder. You have forgotten the premise of your own argument
>Do you think indian gharials just popped out of thin air? Evolution is descent with modification
Thanks for stating the obvious. This isn’t relevant in this context. You brought this up when nobody said anything to the contrary, nor were Indian gharials mentioned
>You are the one who refuses to address the intent behind my argument
It’s been addressed multiple times
>Of which Spinosaurus, the largest, has reduced arms
It doesn’t. It’s arms are proportionally larger than many smaller spinosaurids like suchomimus
>related to megaraptorans
>ancestral to carcharodontosauridae
Which has no bearing on Neovenatorids since they are part of neither clade
>Doesn't matter how reduced their arms managed to get before going extinct
It matters when it’s the focus of your argument
>>5132586
>Not gonna spoonfeed you since it's incredibly simple. Figure it out yourself if you wanna argue about it
You responded to the wrong person. Also you’re still not fooling anyone. There is nothing to spoon feed because what you’re referring to doesn’t exist

>>5132596
>That isn’t the same thing as being a dietary specialist
Yes, they are still a specialized animal, regardless of how they choose to behave.
>There is absolutely nothing to suggest this
What a population opportunistically does based on whatever is most abundant in its habitat has no relevance to whether it is physically specialized or not.
>Again, why don’t alligators have a slender snout when fish are also staple prey?
There is a myriad of reasons for a dietary specialist with generalist anatomy to not fully commit to a specialist build. For alligators the pros outweigh the cons, either fish is not a consistent enough food source, or the alternate food sources a broad snout can easily access are too good to give up.
>You literally just did this.
This entire thing started because you cannot comprehend why Megaraptors anatomy suggests it would prefer smaller animals as prey. I told you why, and you responded by throwing out examples of opportunism by animals that are still, by their physiology, specialist animals.
>Thanks for stating the obvious.
You are the one implying that alligators should instantly evolve slender snouts because they sometimes have a preference for fish.
>Which has no bearing on Neovenatorids since they are part of neither clade
Except it does since being ancestral to Carcharodontosaurids fits into the trend of reduced arm size over time, and being related to Megaraptorans lumps them in with the exception.
>It matters when it’s the focus of your argument
My argument is about a pattern in theropod evolution, not an endpoint in it. A pattern isn't invalidated because some cases are less extreme than others.
>You responded to the wrong person. Also you’re still not fooling anyone. There is nothing to spoon feed because what you’re referring to doesn’t exist
Nah, it's a simple comparison between two animals anybody can do with a little research. Not gonna bother coddling either of you two.

>>5129092
Sperm whales are much bigger than mosasaurs. Nanaimoteuthis haggarti (at the upper end of the size estimate) is much bigger than giant squids.

>>5132618
>still a specialized animal, regardless of how they choose to behave
>no relevance to whether it is physically specialized or not
Again changing the argument
>either fish is not a consistent enough food source, or the alternate food sources a broad snout can easily access are too good to give up
A broad snout doesn’t access different food items and fish are the most consistent food source
>This entire thing started because you cannot comprehend why Megaraptors anatomy suggests it would prefer smaller animals as prey
It started when I said a slender snout is not indicative of specialist feeding behaviour and gave false gharials as an example. Now you’re changing the argument to being about specialised anatomy since you’ve realised you were incorrect to say they aren’t generalists
>You are the one implying that alligators should instantly evolve slender snouts
I didn’t imply this retard. I am saying that by your logic that a thin snout evolves in fish eating crocodilians then that should also be the case for alligators. You are the one who said broad snouted crocs are generalist feeders and thin snouted crocs are specialists
>Except it does since being ancestral to Carcharodontosaurids fits into the trend of reduced arm size over time
Except definitive carcharodontosaurids with shorter arms like concavenator already existed by that point
>and being related to Megaraptorans lumps them in
That is making the assumption that long arms were ancestral to both groups. Also they most likely aren’t megaraptor relatives
>A pattern isn't invalidated because some cases are less extreme than others
It’s invalidated when you claim the pattern is all-encompassing, like saying “every lineage of large predatory theropods has reduced arms”
>Nah, it's a simple comparison between two animals anybody can do with a little research
So simple that you still can’t articulate what it is
>Not gonna bother coddling either of you two
Kek

File: Caudofemoralis.png (123 KB, 600x534)

123 KB PNG

>>5132586
It's not nitpicking, you're refusing to acknowledge that I pointed out your goalpost changes.

>But they are functionally the same on a biomechanical level.
Carnotaurus' tail muscle and structure was nothing like allosaurus (or any other theropod for that matter) and this has notable implications for its lifestyle. Notably that it would not do well with sharp turns in pursuit compared to something like allosaurus. Which probably means that carnotaurus was an ambush predator.
Allosaurus (and other theropods for that matter) was also actively using its arms to hunt and take down prey, we know this from the pathologies on their arms showing pretty active usage.

>>5132661
>A broad snout doesn’t access different food items and fish are the most consistent food source
Changing the feeding apparatus absolutely changes an animals ability to obtain food, are you dense? Crocodiles with slender snouts will be more successful at hunting fish than broad snouted ones, this is a meaningful difference.
>It started when I said a slender snout is not indicative of specialist feeding behaviour and gave false gharials as an example.
You are using opportunism in specialized animals to claim specialized physiology does not indicate specialized feeding behavior. This makes no sense because specialized feeding behavior is why these features evolved in the first place.
>I didn’t imply this retard. I am saying that by your logic that a thin snout evolves in fish eating crocodilians then that should also be the case for alligators. You are the one who said broad snouted crocs are generalist feeders and thin snouted crocs are specialists
Except you do when you question why alligators don't have slender snouts when that question answers itself, you moron.
>That is making the assumption that long arms were ancestral to both groups.
Long grasping arms is an ancestral condition of theropoda. Reduced arms are a derived character.
>It’s invalidated when you claim the pattern is all-encompassing, like saying “every lineage of large predatory theropods has reduced arms”
Tyrannosaurs, abelisaurs and carcharodontosaurs are the most prevalent groups of large predatory theropods in the late cretaceous. All of them evolved reduced arms and enlarged heads. We both know you can't refute this, but you'd rather cry about shifting goal posts right?
>So simple that you still can’t articulate what it is
Still waiting.

>>5132665
>It's not nitpicking, you're refusing to acknowledge that I pointed out your goalpost changes.
It is, you are the type of person who brings up the blue whale in a conversation about terrestrial mammalian predators. Nobody cares when you choose to hyper fixate on a lack of clarification, it just makes you look like an autistic dumbass.
>Carnotaurus' tail muscle and structure was nothing like allosaurus (or any other theropod for that matter) and this has notable implications for its lifestyle. Notably that it would not do well with sharp turns in pursuit compared to something like allosaurus. Which probably means that carnotaurus was an ambush predator.
This is meaningless because Allosaurus was also a likely ambush hunter. Carnotaurus is just a more derived animal doing the same thing.
>Allosaurus (and other theropods for that matter) was also actively using its arms to hunt and take down prey, we know this from the pathologies on their arms showing pretty active usage.
It would be using its arms for grasping smaller prey. From a practical standpoint it's an unnecessary risk to try hooking and clinging onto larger animals. And arm pathologies can't support this idea since they could also be caused by the struggling of caught small prey, or interspecific conflicts.

Completely ignoring this retarded discussion, what are actually all the theropod hunting strategies? i can think of:
>T. rex having a bone crushing bite and no usable amrs
>Carcharodontosaurs having teeth good for making prey bleed out
>Dromaeosaurs as the small to mid sized predators, they have a large claw on their feet that they used to pin down prey
>The general Allosaurus-like body plan predators that had very powerful arms they could use when hunting
>Spinosaurids specializing in eating fish but also being able to hunt things on land
Which ones am i missing?

>>5132907
Majungasaurus.
>Broad snout, robust neck bones and interlocking ribs.
>Teeth curved only on the front and straight edged on the back instead, to prevent slicing.
>Short legs gave it a lower center of gravity.
It's hypothesized to have a "Bite-and-hold" strategy, biting once and holding on until it's prey goes down. Sounds interesting and makes sense when you're stuck with abelisaur baby arms. It's a shame documentaries only ever portray Majungas cannibalizing each other instead of doing something like this.

>>5132867
>Crocodiles with slender snouts will be more successful at hunting fish than broad snouted ones, this is a meaningful difference
That wasn’t the question retard. The question is what food does a broad snout access that a thin snout doesn’t, not the other way around
>You are using opportunism in specialized animals to claim specialized physiology does not indicate specialized feeding behavior
Clearly not since the animal you are claiming to have specialised physiology is a generalist feeder, not a specialist
>Except you do when you question why alligators don't have slender snouts when that question answers itself, you moron
This isn’t a question I am asking the answer to. It’s a rhetorical question dipshit. Learn to read. You are the one who claimed that crocodilians which eat primarily fish will evolve a slender snout, but alligators have broad snouts despite being highly piscivorous. It’s baffling that you can manage to forget your own argument so often that I have to remind you of what you said
>Long grasping arms is an ancestral condition of theropoda
Not really. The oldest theropods have significantly smaller arms than either megaraptors or neovenator
>All of them evolved reduced arms and enlarged heads
Except for the ones that didn’t
>We both know you can't refute this
Not sure why I’d need to when that wasn’t your original argument
>but you'd rather cry about shifting goal posts right?
I’ll stop mentioning it when you stop doing so
>Still waiting
Yes I am still waiting

>>5133014
>That wasn’t the question retard. The question is what food does a broad snout access that a thin snout doesn’t, not the other way around
Except biology works in a spectrum you dumbass. Slender snouts have an objective advantage in fitness for crocodilians focusing on hunting fish. It doesn't matter that broad snout crocs can catch fish too, on an ecological scale slender snout individuals will be favored, which drives the evolution of the whole population.
>Clearly not since the animal you are claiming to have specialised physiology is a generalist feeder, not a specialist
You can be dietary generalist and still being a specialized animal, not sure why you can't wrap your head around this.
>This isn’t a question I am asking the answer to. It’s a rhetorical question dipshit. Learn to read.
Again, you are acting like broad snout piscivores are a hole in my argument because you don't want to acknowledge that natural selection isn't instant. I'm amazed you're retarded enough to double down on this shitty argument.
>Not really. The oldest theropods have significantly smaller arms than either megaraptors or neovenator
>Except for the ones that didn’t
We both know early Triassic theropods did not have smaller arms than the large Jurassic theropods that descended from them. But keep bringing up outliers and exceptions since you think that's how patterns and probability work.
>Not sure why I’d need to when that wasn’t your original argument
Again you only cling to what you're comfortable answering, since you have no rebuttal against a simple clarification.
>I’ll stop mentioning it when you stop doing so
Not going to stop because there is nothing wrong with my argument, you are the one who desperately latches onto word choice instead of common sense.
>Yes I am still waiting
Still waiting.

>>5133053
>Slender snouts have an objective advantage in fitness for crocodilians focusing on hunting fish
Again that wasn’t the question
>You can be dietary generalist and still being a specialized animal, not sure why you can't wrap your head around this
Not sure why you’re still changing your argument
>Again, you are acting like broad snout piscivores are a hole in my argument because you don't want to acknowledge that natural selection isn't instant
And like I asked before, does that mean you think alligators just haven’t had time to evolve a slender snout? Evolution being gradual has literally nothing to do with it. Alligators have been around nearly 40 million years. If what you’re saying that a fish eating crocodile should evolve a slender snout were true then they shouldn’t have a broad snout
>We both know early Triassic theropods did not have smaller arms than the large Jurassic theropods that descended from them
Compare coelophysis to allosaurus and say this again
>Again you only cling to what you're comfortable answering, since you have no rebuttal against a simple clarification
That isn’t a simple clarification. You’ve changed your argument entirely. Going from something that wasn’t true “every lineage of predatory theropods has reduced arms” to something that is true “there is a general trend if reduction in theropod arm size in relation to increased body size, with some exceptions like megaraptors” when the first is pointed out just proves it’s wrong. When proven wrong you just swap to something else and act like nobody can make a rebuttal. Try again
>Not going to stop because there is nothing wrong with my argument
If there’s nothing wrong then why do you keep changing it every time I point out a counter example
>Still waiting
Still doesn’t exist

File: 5023.jpg (220 KB, 1536x1173)

220 KB JPG

>>5129357
>mfw this thread
Are you usually this insufferable

>>5133139
>Not sure why you’re still changing your argument
Clarifying my position is not changing my argument.
>And like I asked before, does that mean you think alligators just haven’t had time to evolve a slender snout? Evolution being gradual has literally nothing to do with it. Alligators have been around nearly 40 million years. If what you’re saying that a fish eating crocodile should evolve a slender snout were true then they shouldn’t have a broad snout
Oversimplifying, alligators have been around nearly 40 million years, but have they lived in an environment that favors fish eating gators that whole time? Evolution requires time and a species will not just instantly manifest whatever adaptations are most optimal for the short term.
>Compare coelophysis to allosaurus and say this again
Awfully convenient of you to cherrypick a derived Triassic theropod that diverged early on instead of practically any other more basal Triassic theropod, like Herrerasaurus.
>That isn’t a simple clarification. You’ve changed your argument entirely.
>If there’s nothing wrong then why do you keep changing it every time I point out a counter example
It is clarification, you're the one choosing to interpret it another way. I know you learned about argument fallacies last week but they do not work here no matter how hard you try to push it. You're just doing the equivalent of butting into a conversation about bears and tigers with whales because they didn't bother specifying "Terrestrial" or "Macropredatory" when they started talking about mammalian predators. And then you throw buzzwords at the wall when they clarify what they meant. So far you've failed to directly address my argument in any actual way. If you plan to keep dancing around it, then I'll take it as your concession.
>Still doesn’t exist
Still waiting.

>>5133377
>Clarifying my position is not changing my argument
Kek
>alligators have been around nearly 40 million years, but have they lived in an environment that favors fish eating gators that whole time?
Yes, the American allogator’s lineage has
>Awfully convenient of you to cherrypick a derived Triassic theropod that diverged early on instead of practically any other more basal Triassic theropod, like Herrerasaurus
Clearly isn’t cherry picked when Allosaurus’ arms are also significantly more robust, with larger claws and better for grasping than Herrerasaurus’
>It is clarification
It isn’t. A clarification would be like when you specified predatory theropods. Not at all like changing the argument entirely from “all theropod lineages have reduced arms” to saying theropod arms generally shrink over time relative to body size in most but not all lineages
>You're just doing the equivalent of butting into a conversation about bears and tigers with whales because they didn't bother specifying "Terrestrial" or "Macropredatory" when they started talking about mammalian predators
The only possible equivalent to that would be when therizinosaurids and the like were mentioned. That isn’t equivalent to spinosaurs, neovantor, nanotyrannus etc being mentioned. Those are all examples that directly contradict your statement that all lineages of theropods had reduced arms. Like I said that is changing the argument entirely, not a clarification
>Still waiting
Still bluffing

>>5133441
>Yes, the American allogator’s lineage has
They actually didn't (its a little thing called the ice age)
>Clearly isn’t cherry picked when Allosaurus’ arms are also significantly more robust, with larger claws and better for grasping than Herrerasaurus’
It's almost like it evolved into a larger apex predator, making it's entire build, head and arms, more robust by proxy. And then it's arms became reduced in Carcharodontosaurids later on anyways.
>It isn’t. A clarification would be like when you specified predatory theropods. Not at all like changing the argument entirely from “all theropod lineages have reduced arms” to saying theropod arms generally shrink over time relative to body size in most but not all lineages
No? If I clarify myself, I clarify myself. It isn't your place to collect receipts on every word I type out. Chin up and address my argument already.
>The only possible equivalent to that would be when therizinosaurids and the like were mentioned. That isn’t equivalent to spinosaurs, neovantor, nanotyrannus etc being mentioned. Those are all examples that directly contradict your statement that all lineages of theropods had reduced arms. Like I said that is changing the argument entirely, not a clarification
And here you continue to dance around what I've said by pretending these groups are relevant. Because Tyrannosaurids, abelisaurs and carcharodontosaurids being the largest terrestrial macropredators of the cretaceous while coincidentally having the same body plan just doesn't matter since other smaller predators existed right? The holes in your logic are showing.
>Still bluffing
Still waiting.

>>5133529
>They actually didn't (its a little thing called the ice age)
You think the ice age didn’t have fish?
>It's almost like it evolved into a larger apex predator, making it's entire build, head and arms, more robust by proxy. And then it's arms became reduced in Carcharodontosaurids later on anyways
Neither herrerasaurus nor allosaurus is the direct ancestor of carcharodontosaurids
>If I clarify myself, I clarify myself
Which isn’t what you did
>Chin up and address my argument already
I already did, both of them. Not all lineages of theropods have reduced arms. Not all lineages of theropods experienced a gradual reduction in arm size with increased body and head size
>Because Tyrannosaurids, abelisaurs and carcharodontosaurids being the largest terrestrial macropredators of the cretaceous while coincidentally having the same body plan just doesn't matter
They don’t all have the same body plan. Even within each of those groups there are different body plans, let alone all of them together. Also you forgot spinosaurids again
>Still waiting
I accept your concession

>>5133559
>You think the ice age didn’t have fish?
You think fish populations have stayed at modern day quantities for the entirety of the Pleistocene?
>Neither herrerasaurus nor allosaurus is the direct ancestor of carcharodontosaurids
Neither is Coelophysis, which split off from theropoda earlier than either of those two btw.
>Which isn’t what you did
Except it is, being a nay sayer doesn't change that.
>I already did, both of them. Not all lineages of theropods have reduced arms. Not all lineages of theropods experienced a gradual reduction in arm size with increased body and head size
Nope, you continue to refuse to acknowledge my clarifications, because you know you can only be "Right" by sticking to your initial interpretation of my argument. Like I said, receipt collecting.
>They don’t all have the same body plan. Even within each of those groups there are different body plans, let alone all of them together. Also you forgot spinosaurids again
And once again you zero in on word choice instead of remembering that we've been arguing about the pattern of arm reduction/head enlargement in different lineages. Keep dancing around, it's not gonna make things better for you.
>I accept your concession
Still waiting.

>>5133876
>You think fish populations have stayed at modern day quantities for the entirety of the Pleistocene?
They don’t need to, they just need to be more abundant than everything else. Also you’re swapping to an entirely new argument again because you’ve realised you were wrong about the generalist vs specialist thing
>Neither is Coelophysis
I didn’t claim it was
>Except it is
This doesn’t just become true because you said so. I can just scroll up to see that isn’t the case
>Nope, you continue to refuse to acknowledge my clarifications
The second one is literally addressing your “clarifications” (aka changing argument)
>because you know you can only be "Right" by sticking to your initial interpretation of my argument
I’m also right when addressing your second argument though
>And once again you zero in on word choice instead of remembering that we've been arguing about the pattern of arm reduction/head enlargement in different lineages
We aren’t. Like I keep saying your initial argument makes no mention of arm reduction relative to head and body size. I’m just going to keep reiterating that every time you change the argument again
>Still waiting
I already said I accept your concession, you don’t need to confirm it a second time

what's the tl;dr on the argument above?

>>5134038
This anon >>5126232 is salty that people like dinosaurs more than extinct mammal predators. People keep correcting his claims though so the argument has completely morphed into something entirely different. Basically typical autistic paleofag stuff.

>>5133987
>They don’t need to, they just need to be more abundant than everything else. Also you’re swapping to an entirely new argument again because you’ve realised you were wrong about the generalist vs specialist thing
And what leads you to believe that fish would've been the most abundant prey for thousands of years gators have existed, even through drastic environmental changes through prehistory-modern era? Now you're just making baseless claims.
>I didn’t claim it was
Then why are you complaining about me using Herrerasaurus/Eoraptor as examples? Do you really want to do the "No true missing link found" circus act for theropods?
>This doesn’t just become true because you said so. I can just scroll up to see that isn’t the case
Then please show me where, I'll indulge you since collecting receipts instead of actually arguing appears to be your specialty.
>The second one is literally addressing your “clarifications” (aka changing argument)
>I’m also right when addressing your second argument though
Refusing to contend with my actual argument and continuing to latch to argument fallacies you made up in your head don't make you right, try again.
>We aren’t. Like I keep saying your initial argument makes no mention of arm reduction relative to head and body size. I’m just going to keep reiterating that every time you change the argument again
I'm not going to bother specifying every statement I make to account for your autism. We're on a Mongolian basket weaving forum. I clarified my argument since you're so interested in doing everything except directly addressing it. I'll just reiterate that every time you avoid the argument again.
>I already said I accept your concession, you don’t need to confirm it a second time
Still waiting.

>>5134389
>Now you're just making baseless claims
He says as he makes the baseless claim that fish experienced a drastic reduction in number in the southern US during the Pleistocene
>Then why are you complaining about me using Herrerasaurus/Eoraptor as examples?
You used herrerasaurus as an example of arm reduction, but it doesn’t have larger/stronger arms than allosaurus. What that has to do with later theropods I have no idea. Also it seems more like you were saying allosaurus evolved into carcharodontosaurids which is wrong too
>Then please show me where
You mean >>5131929
>Literally every lineage of large predatory theropods has reduced arms
Interesting how this specification doesn’t make any mention of a gradual trend on increasing head/body size with decreasing arm size
>Refusing to contend with my actual argument
What exactly have I refused to address? This is rich coming from the one who refuses to talk about homotherium and smilodon now and just keeps alluding to some non existent research rather than addressing the question
>I'm not going to bother specifying every statement I make to account for your autism
Kek. Way to prove the point
>Still waiting
Yes I accept your concession. I already said that

>>5122217
>He says as he makes the baseless claim that fish experienced a drastic reduction in number in the southern US during the Pleistocene
Nice try but the burden of proof is on you for making a far more outlandish claim.
>You used herrerasaurus as an example of arm reduction, but it doesn’t have larger/stronger arms than allosaurus. What that has to do with later theropods I have no idea. Also it seems more like you were saying allosaurus evolved into carcharodontosaurids which is wrong too
Ah so you do want to be a clown then. Let me clarify for you then. Is Allosaurus the direct ancestor of carcharodontosaurids? No, the scarcity of the fossil record means we rarely find the direct links between species (Anagenesis). We do know that carcharodontosaurids descended from the same clade, Allosauroidae, therefore the ancestor of carcharodontosaurids was likely similar to Allosaurus.
>You mean >>5131929
>Interesting how this specification doesn’t make any mention of a gradual trend on increasing head/body size with decreasing arm size
Perfect example. I already implied what I explained to you later here. You didn't understand it so I clarified myself.
>What exactly have I refused to address?
That head enlargement/arm reduction is a consistent pattern in derived macropredatory theropod evolution. Tyrannosaurs, abelisaurs and carcharodontosaurs are the biggest terrestrial predators of the cretacous and all display this. You would rather skirt around this truth by hyperfixating on how I initially worded it before clarifying.
>This is rich coming from the one who refuses to talk about homotherium and smilodon now
Projection, I know you know the difference between those two taxa yet refuse to say it. You were more than willing to discuss broad and slender snouted crocodillians without having it spelled out to you. But go ahead and keep playing dumb, I'm patient.
>Yes I accept your concession. I already said that
Still waiting.

>>5124065
>pic
>scientific paper comes out
>it claims there was a mosasaur-eating octopus
>pop science articles run with it
>another paper comes out making claims to the contrary
>paleoredditors make posts like "ERM SENSATIONALISM IS ALWAYS BAD"
>"this was a normal animal that is MORE INTERESTING than YOUR mosasaur feasting fantasies! Listen to the SCIENCE"
Nigger it was scientific publications that first painted that mosasaur-predation picture in the first place.

>>5134715
I also wonder who these redditors think they're talking to when they say "you" and "your"
Their mom probably

>>5134672
>Nice try but the burden of proof is on you for making a far more outlandish claim
How is the claim that alligators eat fish more outlandish than the claim that there was a major decline in fish diversity in the southern USA during the last glacial maximum that somehow doesn’t show up in the fossil record?
>We do know that carcharodontosaurids descended from the same clade, Allosauroidae, therefore the ancestor of carcharodontosaurids was likely similar to Allosaurus
Those basal allosauroids don’t have the same long arms as allosaurus though. The long arms of allosaurus are a derived character, they have no bearing on arm reduction in carcharodontosaurids
>You didn't understand it so I clarified myself
>That head enlargement/arm reduction is a consistent pattern in derived macropredatory theropod evolution
Once again this isn’t the same as the clarification you apparently made. When you said all theropod lineages had reduced arms you clarified that you meant large predatory lineages, that clarification still isn’t the same as saying there’s a general trend of smaller arms/larger heads across most but not all theropod lineages
>Tyrannosaurs, abelisaurs and carcharodontosaurs are the biggest terrestrial predators of the cretacous and all display this
You forgot spinosaurids again
>You would rather skirt around this truth by hyperfixating on how I initially worded it before clarifying
Again it’s an entirely different argument, not just a matter of wording
>Projection, I know you know the difference between those two taxa
They aren’t different at all by any standard that would make you call allosaurus and carnotaurus basically the same thing. They’re so similar that the best you could come up with is the common name for each group
>yet refuse to say it
You’re the one who has refused to say what the difference is. You’re in no position to talk about projection

File: mr44-beluga_whales_calf_b(...).jpg (18 KB, 360x240)

18 KB JPG

>>5122217
Take the vegan albino orca pill

>>5134797
>beluga
>vegan
They eat fish and crustaceans and squid and such

>>5134795
>How is the claim that alligators eat fish more outlandish than
You are claiming that a specific food source would have consistently remained abundant even through massive shifts of climate and biodiversity. This goes against what we know generally happens when ecosystems are hit with sudden change. Doesn't matter how you word it, you're the one pushing against the grain here.
>Those basal allosauroids don’t have the same long arms as allosaurus though.
Unless you want to argue that basal allosauroids already had arms as short as carcharodontosaurs, then arm reduction occurred.
>Once again this isn’t the same as the clarification you apparently made. When you said all theropod lineages had reduced arms you clarified that you meant large predatory lineages, that clarification still isn’t the same as saying there’s a general trend of smaller arms/larger heads across most but not all theropod lineages
It is, you just took my shorthand writing as an absolute statement. Would it pass in a scientific journal? No, and thankfully we're on 4chan so I could care less.
>You forgot spinosaurids again
An outlier statistic represented by animals adapted for an entirely different diet (fish) does not invalidate the pattern you refuse to acknowledge.
>Again it’s an entirely different argument, not just a matter of wording
It's not, you just want to latch onto it because it's easier for you to argue against.
>They aren’t different at all by any standard that would make you call allosaurus and carnotaurus basically the same thing. They’re so similar that the best you could come up with is the common name for each group
Genuinely impressed you continue to feign ignorance here. I know you're smarter than that.
>You’re the one who has refused to say what the difference is. You’re in no position to talk about projection
I'm not gonna spoon-feed you surface level knowledge. Still waiting.

>>5135138
>You are claiming that a specific food source would have consistently remained abundant even through massive shifts of climate and biodiversity. This goes against what we know generally happens when ecosystems are hit with sudden change
Because that’s what the fossil record reflects? If anything the fish diversity in the southern USA would have increased during the last glacial maximum since species retreated from further north and ended up in southern waterways
>you're the one pushing against the grain here
I would have thought the one claiming that there was a late pleistocene fish mass extinction that somehow managed to not appear in the fossil record would be the one going against the grain. But hey you must have some good evidence to confidently say such a thing right?
>Unless you want to argue that basal allosauroids already had arms as short as carcharodontosaurs, then arm reduction occurred
But not in allosaurus itself, which is the point being made here. Allosaurus’ lineage experienced an increase in arm size contrary to what you’re claiming
>It is, you just took my shorthand writing as an absolute statement
Strange how shorthand writing creates an entirely new argument
>An outlier statistic represented by animals adapted for an entirely different diet (fish) does not invalidate the pattern you refuse to acknowledge
So then unlike what you said it’s not all theropod lineages. Good to know. Also as said before that’s not the only outlier
>It's not, you just want to latch onto it because it's easier for you to argue against
More like you change the argument because that’s easier than addressing the examples contradicting you
>Genuinely impressed you continue to feign ignorance here. I know you're smarter than that
>I'm not gonna spoon-feed you surface level knowledge
Genuinely impressed you still think this is convincing. I know you aren’t smarter than that though

>>5132187
>Ironic you tell me this when the largest members of those clades (Utahraptor, Spino and Sinotyrannus) developed smaller arms than their relatives
>Sinotyrannus
Stopped reading right there. We don’t even have the arm bones of Sinotyrannus, only a single finger