Dinosaurs v. Mammals: The Final Conflict

[Queequeg]

Neil said in a topic a while back that an African Lion would stand no chance against one of the big Theropod carnivores.

This got me thinking; are mammals really all we kind of naturally assume we are? For the sake of argument, let's remove our own freakish species from the equation, and instead of Dinosaurs, let's talk about Archosaurs (including Pterosaurs and Crocodiles and things close to Crocodiles), and maybe even diapsid reptiles in general (which includes lizards and all non-turtle reptiles). 

Now, the dinosaurs got a lot bigger, and it is probably fair to say that the greatest Dinosaur carnivore (say, Spinosaurus or T-Rex) would pretty easily make a lunch out of Andrewsarchus.  But I think the more interesting comparison is between the greatest Dinosaur predator and the greatest Mammal herbivore, which would probably be either the Giant Sloth, Indricotherium or the greatest of the Mammoths. I don't see the T-Rex winning without a hell of a fight.

The more interesting argument is more general though. 

Mammals-Advantages:
Relatively large brain
Better sense of hearing
I think better heat management, but probably not totally fair
Specialized teeth
We chew
I think live birth is generally preferable
TITTIES!
Arguably more adaptable
Disadvantages:
Huge heads
Wasteful waste process
4 legs (?)
Archosaurs-Advantages:
Much more efficient breathing
Much more efficient waste
Lighter skull, I think generally a lighter frame, I don't know if mammals have the same type of air sacs
Two-legs
Disadvantages:
Generally speaking, smaller brains

So, let's say I were to introduce a bunch of foxes, rabbits, deer, rats and chimps in to a mid Cretaceous forest.  What happens?  Does the age of Mammals come a lot sooner, or would they be totally out of their class even if we put them in a comparable environment with sufficient numbers?  Were archosaurs simply *better* at doing their things back then than we are now?  The dinosaurs definetely kicked our Therapsid ancestor's butts during the Triassic, but then again we gave the big Birds (basically retconned dinosaurs) a good clobbering at the end of the Eocene, and during the Great American Interchange the big cats pretty rapidly took over top predator position from the big South American birds, though IIRC the big birds were one of the few species to travel north. 

[Admiral Yi]

Damn good question Squeelus.

[Queequeg]

Damn good question Squeelus.

Sarcasm?   

[katmai]

Mutton is physical incapable of sarcasm.

[Syt]

Neil said in a topic a while back that an African Lion would stand no chance against one of the big Theropod carnivores.

This got me thinking; are mammals really all we kind of naturally assume we are? For the sake of argument, let's remove our own freakish species from the equation, and instead of Dinosaurs, let's talk about Archosaurs (including Pterosaurs and Crocodiles and things close to Crocodiles), and maybe even diapsid reptiles in general (which includes lizards and all non-turtle reptiles). 

Now, the dinosaurs got a lot bigger, and it is probably fair to say that the greatest Dinosaur carnivore (say, Spinosaurus or T-Rex) would pretty easily make a lunch out of Andrewsarchus.  But I think the more interesting comparison is between the greatest Dinosaur predator and the greatest Mammal herbivore, which would probably be either the Giant Sloth, Indricotherium or the greatest of the Mammoths. I don't see the T-Rex winning without a hell of a fight.

The more interesting argument is more general though. 

Mammals-Advantages:
Relatively large brain
Better sense of hearing
I think better heat management, but probably not totally fair
Specialized teeth
We chew
I think live birth is generally preferable
TITTIES!
Arguably more adaptable
Disadvantages:
Huge heads
Wasteful waste process
4 legs (?)
Archosaurs-Advantages:
Much more efficient breathing
Much more efficient waste
Lighter skull, I think generally a lighter frame, I don't know if mammals have the same type of air sacs
Two-legs
Disadvantages:
Generally speaking, smaller brains

So, let's say I were to introduce a bunch of foxes, rabbits, deer, rats and chimps in to a mid Cretaceous forest.  What happens?  Does the age of Mammals come a lot sooner, or would they be totally out of their class even if we put them in a comparable environment with sufficient numbers?  Were archosaurs simply *better* at doing their things back then than we are now?  The dinosaurs definetely kicked our Therapsid ancestor's butts during the Triassic, but then again we gave the big Birds (basically retconned dinosaurs) a good clobbering at the end of the Eocene, and during the Great American Interchange the big cats pretty rapidly took over top predator position from the big South American birds, though IIRC the big birds were one of the few species to travel north.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Edit: Turns out that the oxygen content of the atmosphere was lower in the Mesozoic. With that in mind, I think that modern mammals would have serious issues competing until they adapted, assuming they survived that long.

[Admiral Yi]

Sarcasm?   

Hey, it got the thread going.

[DisturbedPervert]

Dinosaurs vs Mammals?  Sounds like something you'd find on the History Channel

[The Brain]

I've seen this porno.

[Viking]

I saw this in King Kong...

But you are comparing animals separated by 50 million years in time. But if you want to compare like with like.

Indricotherum K-T + 37M to 51M years.

Compare that with hunters 37M years into the Jurassic 162M years ago.

Indricotherum ~ 10,000 kg - 20,000 kg
Andrewsarchus ~700 kg - 1,000 kg

Brachiosaurus ~ 25,000 kg
Allosaurus ~ 1,400 kg - 2,000 kg

[Josquius]

Didn't mammals survive in real history at the time of the dinosaurs by being little rodent/rabbity things?
I'd think our modern swarm creatures would do very well assuming they can eat the food and breath the air (handwavium ftw).
In the colder regions I'd imagine mammals do a lot better too....not that there was much in the way of 'cold' regions back then.

[Darth Wagtaros]

http://www.bobheffner.com/dinosaursattack/indexfront.htm
Remember the old Dinosaurs Attack cards.  There is a few when the dinosaurs attack a zoo.  See the mighty Pterodactyl attacking a gorilla. 

Witness the tricerotops raid a wedding. 

And come face to face with the Ultimate Evil who engineered the whole thing. 


Dun dun DUUUUUUUUUN.

[Viking]

Didn't mammals survive in real history at the time of the dinosaurs by being little rodent/rabbity things?
I'd think our modern swarm creatures would do very well assuming they can eat the food and breath the air (handwavium ftw).
In the colder regions I'd imagine mammals do a lot better too....not that there was much in the way of 'cold' regions back then.

Don't forget that the mammal like reptiles dominated the world before the Jurassic.

[jimmy olsen]

http://www.bobheffner.com/dinosaursattack/indexfront.htm
Remember the old Dinosaurs Attack cards.  There is a few when the dinosaurs attack a zoo.  See the mighty Pterodactyl attacking a gorilla. 

Witness the tricerotops raid a wedding. 

And come face to face with the Ultimate Evil who engineered the whole thing. 


Dun dun DUUUUUUUUUN.

Love the kid strikes back one, lol.

[Ed Anger]

Normally I despise Jon Stewart, but this covers my reaction as well.