I've always wondered why they thought the Andrewsarchus was a scavenger. I mean, you don't need really claws to hunt when you have jaws that powerful. Anyone have any ideas?
Also, I was really happy with Beasts. I thought the CGI was even better than WWD (there were a lot less noticable 'mishaps' in this, such as gripping hands going through skin), and I thought Kenneth Branagh (or the writers) were a lot more laid back then they were in WWD. Certain lines ("the weather patterns the animals relied on have become confused") made me laugh out loud.
------------------ I searched the entire world to find what I already have.
"Andrewsarchus had hooves, which wouldn't have made it a great runner." I thought it had hoof-like toes on the end of its feet. Or...is that what you mean?
------------------ I searched the entire world to find what I already have.
Well, the narrator says it has hooves. I haven't watched Walking with Beasts in a while, but I'll take your word for it. Mkay. No clue what to do now.
But it doesn't really have hooves. Hoof-LIKE toes, as I said before. I don't think an animal could have multiple full-fledged hooves. That would make walking kind of awkward, wouldn't you think?
------------------ I searched the entire world to find what I already have.
If you look at wolves, hyaenas, and other wild hunting dogs they don't use their small claws to kill their prey and they sure aren't strictly scavengers. Plus andrewsarchus was 6 meters (20 feet) long, I don't think a carnivore that size could depend on just scavenging. Also scavengers' teeth are designed to crush bone so Andrewsarchus could have used that to crush the spines of young Brontotheres. Overall Andrewsarchus was most likely not just a scavenger but also a great hunter.
Yeah, that too. But that's really weird, how we only have one skull and nothing else. You can tell a lot about an animal from its skull, but...one other thing I've been curious about; since we've only found one skull, we don't know if 6.5 feet tall (?) for Andrewsarchus was huge for that species or small. So we don't even know it's 'real' size.
And on a completely different note, I wrote a story about an Andrewsarchus. My dad thinks it's good enough to publish. I can link you guys to it if you want...and if you're all still around. Heh. My parents thought I made Andrewsarchus up when I first told them about it (I keep jokingly referring to it as a "horse-sized sheep that ate rhinos"). And when I told my dad how long its jaws were he didn't believe me. :)
- Assassins showing no regard for life Tied around their arm A red ribbon.
But that's really weird, how we only have one skull and nothing else. You can tell a lot about an animal from its skull, but...one other thing I've been curious about; since we've only found one skull, we don't know if 6.5 feet tall (?) for Andrewsarchus was huge for that species or small. So we don't even know it's 'real' size.
You can tell the age of the animal based on how developed the skull is, and the Andrewsarchus skull found was an adult. Still, it's not impossible for somewhat bigger individuals to have existed (logically speaking it would not be very likely for this one to have been the biggest one ever), but that's just speculation. Also there could have been bigger mammal carnivores that we haven't found yet; let's not forget how ruthlessly Tyrannosaurus has been dethroned in the 90's.
And...if I recall correctly, wasn't T. Rex supposedly dethroned several times?
I do know Giganotosaurus is bigger, Carcharodontosaurus was bigger, too, and a few years ago they found an equally big relative of these two (probably Tyrannotitan), which was also bigger than T.rex, I believe. And then we have Spinosaurus, which may have been even larger than all of these.
But I don't know about previous carnivores initially thought to have been bigger than T.rex. Maybe Acrocanthosaurus?
"But I don't know about previous carnivores initially thought to have been bigger than T.rex. Maybe Acrocanthosaurus?" Well it depends on what people mean when they type/say 'bigger'. I don't think any carnivorous dino is larger then T. Rex mass-wise, but there were things heavier, longer, and taller then T. Rex. Then again, we haven't discovered all the dinosaurs yet.
- Assassins showing no regard for life Tied around their arm A red ribbon.
Spinosaurus may have been 21 m long, even if it had a lighter build compared to T.rex it would exceed it in mass at that size, I think. But mind you, the 21 m length isn't official yet; right now people are sticking to 16-18 m (still pretty damn big).
Yeah. But it's hard to say the longest length of any dinosaur, considering some went through huge growth spurts and such. I'm just wondering why Spinosaurus grew to be so long.
- Assassins showing no regard for life Tied around their arm A red ribbon.
Yeah. But it's hard to say the longest length of any dinosaur, considering some went through huge growth spurts and such. I'm just wondering why Spinosaurus grew to be so long.
The creature's current length is based on large skeletal fragments combined with known measurements for the creature (i.e. they based the creature's total size from these bones, judging from how big the bones are in more complete specimens). As for the reason for its size, the same could be said for most goant animals. Maybe it was to beat competition from other large carnivores such as Carcharodontosaurus and Deltadromeus.
Many of Andrewsarchus' smaller, hoof-toed cousins have been found in places like Wyoming. Andy had the same skull on a larger scale, so it is assumed that the body was the Wyoming cousin on a larger scale as well.