• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

Elephant vs. Herd of Hippopotamus

NoSmilez said:
I went to one of those elephant farms in Asia. That is one of the first things they tell you. Don't make sudden moves around a certain area underneath or in front of them. They don't like it. I think that is what the mouse stuff is about. I don't think they are scared. It's just they can't see them.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Thanks for the info.
 
Elephants are heartwarming creatures, even when they're trampling shit.
 
Diamondsareforever47 said:
They arent but wouldnt they lose to a T Rex or Spinasourus? Also what about the giant sea monsters? The one in Jurassic world that ate the Andomidus rex


But who wins in a fight?

I found this. Also isnt the T Rex not even the largest carnivore

png-transparent-giganotosaurus-argentinosaurus-dinosaur-size-tyrannosaurus-mapusaurus-dinosaur-purple-tyrannosaurus-fauna.png
Click to expand...
T Rex has like 2 tons on those guys and would have been way stronger

Giganotosaurus is kinda gangly in comparison
 
Can't even call this an elephant vs a herd of hippos. Each hippo is merely an individual in the elephant's way.
 
Bos Docken said:
While there is evidence of theropods (two-legged predators like T-Rex) preying on smaller sauropods, the biggest sauropods were the largest animals to ever walk the Earth.

Argentinosaurus is estimated to have weighed 80 tons (160,000 pounds). That is 10x the size of a T-Rex. No predator is fighting something that big one-on-one. and there is also the factor that the sauropods were probably herd animals.

So the theory is that the giant sauropods had a similar place in the food chain as elephants. Predation only happened to the very young or old or weakened ones, and even then typically by pack predators, not lone hunters.
Click to expand...
Plus wasnt it proven that trex was more a carrion feeder then straight hunting animal
 
erhnamdjinn said:
Plus wasnt it proven that trex was more a carrion feeder then straight hunting animal
Click to expand...

Who knows what's true, it's all speculation. I can't imagine a scavenger getting that large. Even large scavengers (like hyenas) are formidable hunters.
 
LOL, at a certain poster in this thread that just won't quit.

<LikeReally5><Huh2><WhatIsThis><{fry}><JerryWWF><{walkerwhut}><bball1><2><1>{<huh}<Kpop01><Oku01>

<BidenShutIt>


He's the epitome of the, "But I'm just asking questions." bro,
 
Bos Docken said:
Lol there's like 30 hippos and every single one of them is like "Uh better get out of his way"

Elephants are not to be fucked with. The heavyweight champ of all living land animals
Click to expand...
rhino
 
The elephant was just lucky the water wasn't full of sherdoggers
 
Diamondsareforever47 said:
Why are vegetarians so large vs carnivores any evolutionary reason for this?
Click to expand...

Not getting eaten. As an herbivore you have a few main options.

A: Medium sized and fast (gazelles, antelope, zebra, wildebeest).

This allows you to outrun predators. But there are two problems with this route. In just about every single environment, the fastest carnivore evolved to become faster than the fastest herbivore (the American Cheetah went extinct, leaving the pronghorn uncontested, however). The other problem is that certain carnivores evolved pack mentality and exceptional endurance, so the prey may be able to escape, only to eventually tire and be caught (Lions, Wolves, Hyenas, Wild Dogs). These herbivores countered that by evolving a herd mentality, which makes them much stronger as a group, as well as by breeding somewhat prolifically.

B: Large and slow (hippos, elephants).

This is the safer option from a predator / prey standpoint, since carnivores are highly unlikely to evolve to these exceptional sizes due to the massive food requirement, which is more difficult to come by for a carnivore. Herbivores have no problem with this due to the crazy abundance of grass and other vegetation. Their numbers are kept in check with the predation of young, old, and injured animals (and humans being humans of course). Evolutionarily, their biggest problem is what happens to them when the climate changes and their food supply dwindles. They require a massive amount of calories, and when those calories dwindle, they die off.

C: Small and slow, but you can hide, as well as breed like a mother (rodents).

Apart from intelligence (potentially), this is likely to be the most successful evolutionary strategy of terrestrial mammals. Being small, hidden, and extremely prolific breeding-wise has proven to be an exceedingly good survival strategy. They're weak as hell and most predators can pick them off without any problem, but when one single female can give rise to hundreds, and potentially even thousands of the little fuckers every year, it's an acceptable trade-off.

Now do I think it's impossible for a carnivore to evolve to the size of an elephant? Of course not, since we already have examples of that happening in the past. But nature works by necessity. Right now there are billions of zebra, antelope, gazelle, deer, buffalo, et al, for carnivores to prey upon. They don't need to be able to eat elephants to survive, so growing to that size would not only be pointless—it would actually be detrimental since it would not only greatly increase their caloric requirements, but would likely make them slower or less agile, and thus less likely to be able to prey upon the aforementioned smaller herbivores which make up a far greater number of potential targets.

Caloric requirement is a very important factor in evolution. It's why crocodilians have survived for nearly a hundred million years, while all those huge dinosaurs died out. Being a big, warm-blooded meat-mountain is a serious detriment when the shit hits the fan and food supplies run low. Being stuck out on a prairie or savannah is as well. Crocs can take to the water and go an entire year without eating if need be. Now that's a beast built to survive.
 
heloder said:
Not getting eaten. As an herbivore you have a few main options.

A: Medium sized and fast (gazelles, antelope, zebra, wildebeest).

This allows you to outrun predators. But there are two problems with this route. In just about every single environment, the fastest carnivore evolved to become faster than the fastest herbivore (the American Cheetah went extinct, leaving the pronghorn uncontested, however). The other problem is that certain carnivores evolved pack mentality and exceptional endurance, so the prey may be able to escape, only to eventually tire and be caught (Lions, Wolves, Hyenas, Wild Dogs). These herbivores countered that by evolving a herd mentality, which makes them much stronger as a group, as well as by breeding somewhat prolifically.

B: Large and slow (hippos, elephants).

This is the safer option from a predator / prey standpoint, since carnivores are highly unlikely to evolve to these exceptional sizes due to the massive food requirement, which is more difficult to come by for a carnivore. Herbivores have no problem with this due to the crazy abundance of grass and other vegetation. Their numbers are kept in check with the predation of young, old, and injured animals (and humans being humans of course). Evolutionarily, their biggest problem is what happens to them when the climate changes and their food supply dwindles. They require a massive amount of calories, and when those calories dwindle, they die off.

C: Small and slow, but you can hide, as well as breed like a mother (rodents).

Apart from intelligence (potentially), this is likely to be the most successful evolutionary strategy of terrestrial mammals. Being small, hidden, and extremely prolific breeding-wise has proven to be an exceedingly good survival strategy. They're weak as hell and most predators can pick them off without any problem, but when one single female can give rise to hundreds, and potentially even thousands of the little fuckers every year, it's an acceptable trade-off.

Now do I think it's impossible for a carnivore to evolve to the size of an elephant? Of course not, since we already have examples of that happening in the past. But nature works by necessity. Right now there are billions of zebra, antelope, gazelle, deer, buffalo, et al, for carnivores to prey upon. They don't need to be able to eat elephants to survive, so growing to that size would not only be pointless—it would actually be detrimental since it would not only greatly increase their caloric requirements, but would likely make them slower or less agile, and thus less likely to be able to prey upon the aforementioned smaller herbivores which make up a far greater number of potential targets.

Caloric requirement is a very important factor in evolution. It's why crocodilians have survived for nearly a hundred million years, while all those huge dinosaurs died out. Being a big, warm-blooded meat-mountain is a serious detriment when the shit hits the fan and food supplies run low. Being stuck out on a prairie or savannah is as well. Crocs can take to the water and go an entire year without eating if need be. Now that's a beast built to survive.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why all large and the largest ocean creatures are meat eaters? And can the largest carnivore dinasours ever have taken down largest herbivores?
 
Diamondsareforever47 said:
Can you explain why all large and the largest ocean creatures are meat eaters? And can the largest carnivore dinasours ever have taken down largest herbivores?
Click to expand...

Unlike on land, where the best food source is a plant (grass), one of the best food sources in the ocean is an animal (krill). Krill are tiny, but there are so many of them that—by weight—they're one of the most prodigious animals in the entire world. Because of this, they're a perfect food source for baleen whales, which are the largest animals in the world.

There's a very simple reason why most large ocean animals are not herbivorous—there isn't a tremendous amount of easily-acquired plant matter. Why is that? Because plants need light to live, and deep in the ocean there's virtually no light. Apart from kelp and sea grasses which live in shallow regions, the only other plant life in the oceans are tiny algae and phytoplankton, which are so small that they can't possibly sustain large animals. But they can sustain the tiny animals (like the aforementioned krill), that sustain the larger animals.

As far as the largest carnivorous dinosaurs taking down the largest herbivores, I really couldn't tell you. I'm sure there are fossil finds out there that could potentially indicate how frequently it happened, if at all.

If I had to guess, all I really have to go on is what we see in nature today, so I'd say it's probably similar to how things are now with the largest carnivores (lions, crocodiles, bears) and their relationships with the largest herbivores (elephants, hippos, rhinos). It's unlikely that the largest, healthiest herbivores would be threatened by lone large carnivores. Why is that? Because it takes so long for those animals to grow to that size. If they were constantly threatened by predation, you wouldn't see huge herds of gigantic animals. It just seems to be the way nature works, so I have to think it's probably how it worked back in the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods as well.
 
Last edited:
Elephants are probably the only ones that can fuck with hippos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,257,916
Messages
56,860,907
Members
175,433
Latest member
leaf

Share this page

Back
Top