Post History
What you are asking for is unrealistic. 3000 kg is huge. That's over four times the mass of a typical rhinoceros, for example. Being really large like that lets it bully its way to some other ani...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-08-22T16:44:35Z (about 4 years ago)
- What you are asking for is unrealistic. 3000 kg is <i>huge</i>. That's over four times the mass of a typical rhinoceros, for example.
- Being really large like that lets it bully its way to some other animal's kill. Even as a carcass scavenger, it will be very tough to find enough carcasses or others' kills to feed that huge mass. Note that terrestrial animals anywhere near that size are all herbivores. There is a good reason for that.
- Carnivores need to be fast and agile. You can't be either of those while dragging around 3000 kg. Note that the largest carnivores actually get most of the food by scavenging than by killing it themselves. Grizzly bears are a good example. They don't hunt down deer, moose, or whatever, because they'd never catch a normal healthy animal.
- The largest terrestrial (aquatic environment has totally different tradeoffs, but that is not what you asked about) mainly-carnivore is probably the polar bear. But, it does that by hunting very specific prey on land where the prey can't move well. Polar bears and wolves overlap ranges in some places, but polar bears don't regularly take down wolves. They also don't take down caribou, but wolves do.
- So, your large animal is a scavenger at best, although even that is doubtful.
- <blockquote>3000kg is huge, but that's no where near the largest size a terrestrial carnivore ever, T Rex by comparison was 8000kg to 15000kg</blockquote>
- <i>T. rex</i> lived in a very different environment. You'd have to change a lot of things for an animal like that to make any sense today. However, the real point is that <i>T. rex</i> was likely not a carnivore at all, but a scavenger. To be fair though, reputable scientists still disagree about that one.
- <blockquote>Additionally the animal I propose is not fast and agile, and like other large animals carnivores and other animals, like bears, would rely on sprinting for short distances</blockquote>
- But what it is supposedly catching can also sprint for short distances. You said that your animal's prey is "pack hunters". Those are able to run quickly, because that's how they catch their own dinner.
- <blockquote>Finally, I didn't ask if my creature was possible to begin with, my question was about hiding such an animal at certain ranges.</blockquote>
- It's rather difficult to posit what the hiding strategy might be of a creature that can't exist.
- What you are asking for is unrealistic. 3000 kg is <i>huge</i>. That's over four times the mass of a typical rhinoceros, for example.
- Being really large like that lets it bully its way to some other animal's kill. Even as a carcass scavenger, it will be very tough to find enough carcasses or others' kills to feed that huge mass. Note that terrestrial animals anywhere near that size are all herbivores. There is a good reason for that.
- Carnivores need to be fast and agile. You can't be either of those while dragging around 3000 kg. Note that the largest carnivores actually get most of the food by scavenging than by killing it themselves. Grizzly bears are a good example. They don't hunt down deer, moose, or whatever, because they'd never catch a normal healthy animal.
- The largest terrestrial (aquatic environment has totally different tradeoffs, but that is not what you asked about) mainly-carnivore is probably the polar bear. But, it does that by hunting very specific prey on land where the prey can't move well. Polar bears and wolves overlap ranges in some places, but polar bears don't regularly take down wolves. They also don't take down caribou, but wolves do.
- So, your large animal is a scavenger at best, although even that is doubtful.
- <blockquote>3000kg is huge, but that's no where near the largest size a terrestrial carnivore ever, T Rex by comparison was 8000kg to 15000kg</blockquote>
- <i>T. rex</i> lived in a very different environment. You'd have to change a lot of things for an animal like that to make any sense today. However, the real point is that <i>T. rex</i> was likely not a carnivore at all, but a scavenger. To be fair though, reputable scientists still disagree about that one.
- <blockquote>Additionally the animal I propose is not fast and agile, and like other large animals carnivores and other animals, like bears, would rely on sprinting for short distances</blockquote>
- But what it is supposedly catching can also sprint for short distances. You said that your animal's prey is "pack hunters". Those are able to run quickly, because that's how they catch their own dinner.
- If this could work, then why don't grizzly bears do exactly what you propose for your animal? Grizzly bears and wolves have overlapping ranges. A grizzly could certainly kill a wolf if it could catch one, and grizzlys can sprint reasonably fast for a short distance. Think about why they don't. Now consider that your animal is considerably bigger, and therefore less agile, than a grizzly bear.
- <blockquote>Finally, I didn't ask if my creature was possible to begin with, my question was about hiding such an animal at certain ranges.</blockquote>
- It's rather difficult to posit what the hiding strategy might be of a creature that can't exist.
#2: Post edited
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-08-22T16:38:57Z (about 4 years ago)
- What you are asking for is unrealistic. 3000 kg is <i>huge</i>. That's over four times the mass of a typical rhinoceros, for example.
- Being really large like that lets it bully its way to some other animal's kill. Even as a carcass scavenger, it will be very tough to find enough carcasses or others' kills to feed that huge mass. Note that terrestrial animals anywhere near that size are all herbivores. There is a good reason for that.
- Carnivores need to be fast and agile. You can't be either of those while dragging around 3000 kg. Note that the largest carnivores actually get most of the food by scavenging than by killing it themselves. Grizzly bears are a good example. They don't hunt down deer, moose, or whatever, because they'd never catch a normal healthy animal.
- The largest terrestrial (aquatic environment has totally different tradeoffs, but that is not what you asked about) mainly-carnivore is probably the polar bear. But, it does that by hunting very specific prey on land where the prey can't move well. Polar bears and wolves overlap ranges in some places, but polar bears don't regularly take down wolves. They also don't take down caribou, but wolves do.
So, your large animal is a scavenger at best, although even that is doubtful.
- What you are asking for is unrealistic. 3000 kg is <i>huge</i>. That's over four times the mass of a typical rhinoceros, for example.
- Being really large like that lets it bully its way to some other animal's kill. Even as a carcass scavenger, it will be very tough to find enough carcasses or others' kills to feed that huge mass. Note that terrestrial animals anywhere near that size are all herbivores. There is a good reason for that.
- Carnivores need to be fast and agile. You can't be either of those while dragging around 3000 kg. Note that the largest carnivores actually get most of the food by scavenging than by killing it themselves. Grizzly bears are a good example. They don't hunt down deer, moose, or whatever, because they'd never catch a normal healthy animal.
- The largest terrestrial (aquatic environment has totally different tradeoffs, but that is not what you asked about) mainly-carnivore is probably the polar bear. But, it does that by hunting very specific prey on land where the prey can't move well. Polar bears and wolves overlap ranges in some places, but polar bears don't regularly take down wolves. They also don't take down caribou, but wolves do.
- So, your large animal is a scavenger at best, although even that is doubtful.
- <blockquote>3000kg is huge, but that's no where near the largest size a terrestrial carnivore ever, T Rex by comparison was 8000kg to 15000kg</blockquote>
- <i>T. rex</i> lived in a very different environment. You'd have to change a lot of things for an animal like that to make any sense today. However, the real point is that <i>T. rex</i> was likely not a carnivore at all, but a scavenger. To be fair though, reputable scientists still disagree about that one.
- <blockquote>Additionally the animal I propose is not fast and agile, and like other large animals carnivores and other animals, like bears, would rely on sprinting for short distances</blockquote>
- But what it is supposedly catching can also sprint for short distances. You said that your animal's prey is "pack hunters". Those are able to run quickly, because that's how they catch their own dinner.
- <blockquote>Finally, I didn't ask if my creature was possible to begin with, my question was about hiding such an animal at certain ranges.</blockquote>
- It's rather difficult to posit what the hiding strategy might be of a creature that can't exist.
#1: Initial revision
by
Olin Lathrop
·
2020-08-21T16:50:43Z (about 4 years ago)
What you are asking for is unrealistic. 3000 kg is <i>huge</i>. That's over four times the mass of a typical rhinoceros, for example. Being really large like that lets it bully its way to some other animal's kill. Even as a carcass scavenger, it will be very tough to find enough carcasses or others' kills to feed that huge mass. Note that terrestrial animals anywhere near that size are all herbivores. There is a good reason for that. Carnivores need to be fast and agile. You can't be either of those while dragging around 3000 kg. Note that the largest carnivores actually get most of the food by scavenging than by killing it themselves. Grizzly bears are a good example. They don't hunt down deer, moose, or whatever, because they'd never catch a normal healthy animal. The largest terrestrial (aquatic environment has totally different tradeoffs, but that is not what you asked about) mainly-carnivore is probably the polar bear. But, it does that by hunting very specific prey on land where the prey can't move well. Polar bears and wolves overlap ranges in some places, but polar bears don't regularly take down wolves. They also don't take down caribou, but wolves do. So, your large animal is a scavenger at best, although even that is doubtful.