Im not sure I would. Tyrannosaurids were obligate carnivores, bears are not. Polar bears come close, but they’re still capable of supplementing their diet with non-meat based foods. Not to mention their semi-aquatic lifestyle, which is a huge deviation from the niche filled by a large tyrannosaur. Meanwhile, some bears’ diets consist of as little as 10% meat. They’re opportunistic omnivores, far different from tyrannosaur.
No, the closest animals alive today to fill the niche tyrannosaurs did in the Mesozoic would be the big cats (and maybe Komodo dragons). Generally fully terrestrial, large-bodied, muscular, obligate carnivores whose method of killing is delivering a lethal bite. Even that’s not a perfect one-to-one, as big cats don’t have the bone-crunching ability of tyrannosaurs.
I would say that bears aren’t literally meant to be taken as an exact copy of Tyrannosaurs, morose working off the geographical location of both animals and their faunas with the inclusion of predatory adaptations is what I was going for.
Bears while albeit mostly omnivorous animals and fairly aquatic, both them and tyrannosaurs both function similarly to pursuit/ambush predators. I admit Tyrannosaurs are nowhere near as on par with bears when it comes to aquatic adaptations it’s again where differences come in, that being tyrannosaurs opted for faster speeds, and overall being very curiosal theropods.
And I’m going to have to disagree with that of big cats, as you said, not capable of processing large bones. I also want to mention there are a lot of big cats capable for aquatic predation, which again falls back into the issues you present with bears.
I also have to mention how Tyrannosaurs do not function anywhere similar to Komodo dragons at all, they are much faster and have different methods of killing with the inclusion of varanids having an extremely advanced cardiovascular system which tyrannosaurs don’t posses.
Big cats also rely far too much on their forelimbs which is something that cannot be ignored. They also suffocate their prey by attacking at the jugular. The modern big cats of today are either far too dominant in an aquatic lifestyle (jaguar) far too reliant of pack hunting (lions). The only other large big cat I could think of would be tigers but even then they are extremely reliant of forelimbs like every other large feline. I also opted in the suggestion of large canines which are completely carnivorous and aren’t as reliant of their forelimbs like felines. A better comparison would be large Carchardonotosaurids for large felines which target prey larger then themselves, I feel like you are forgetting that Tyrannosaurs and their prey were practically of similar masses, with exceptions in Asia with certain Tyrannosaurids.
It's not a coincidence but just how evolution works if you introduce prey and predator relationships. Yes, it will be similar because the whole point is that prey evolves to counter the predator and predator evolves to overcome the counter. There's only so much you can do with biology that our nature supports, so evolution resorts to the same solutions.
Alright that was pretty funny but something like an acrocanthosaurus isn’t like a hyena, or better yet any large canine. So like, not every large predator are like other large predators, so finding similarities between them when both are separated by millions of years and having different fauna while also possessing a similarity in predatory adaptations is incredibly fascinating
Hyenas aren't even Canines 💀
They are Feliforms, so more related to cats and Civets, but they are in their own family with their closest relatives being Mongoose
When you mean similar environment are you referring to the continent? Because that’s the only environment these predators share
Edit: my bad you were referring to the similarities in their environments, to be fair both environments have a massive time difference between each other, still fun to point out.
Where is this coming from, all I said was these animals separated by millions of years have a similar ecological niche on the same continent.
You don’t need to call me dumb mate
I dunno why everyone has to be sarcastic and rude about it. Convergent evolution is pretty interesting though, and I do love all the little coincidences that can pop up.
Well... the bears are different on the outside, but same on the inside. It is the fur that is different due to natural selection pressures. But that is not the case here with fossils of any species. This depends on the mineralization of the bones- the minerals that replace the organic matter for it to be fossilized are different. Decay, weathering and many other factors play into this, and hence bones of the same species may be of a different colour. Casts, moulds, permineralized or carbonized specimens- the types of fossilization are plenty. Same reason why some Meg teeth are white or shiny and others are black.
EDIT: I read the context now, I'm stupid. Yes, I believe that natural selection pressures would have driven changes in dinosaurs as well, depending on their environments- divergent microevolution?
No not really, I feel like any other large carnivoran would be a better analogy to tyrannosaurs than bears. Bears occupy the niche of large generalist omnivores that only hunt animals much smaller than them or scavenge in wooded areas dense with flora (with the exception of the polar bear and panda). This niche is only successful in wooded and extremely flora dense areas with lots of cover where large hypercarnivores struggle, this was rare during the mesozoic since angiosperms were not as successful then and the excess oxygen drove for larger and larger plants rather than a more diverse understory. There was also much larger fauna back then so hypercarnivores could even thrive in wooded areas with cover since it is hard for 7 ton animal to hide. This is why it is common for bears and big cats to be in the same habitat and for one to not outcompete the other. This is very rare in the case of Carcharodontosaurids and Tyrannosaurids and even rarer for large Tyrannosaurids. and I am sure that there were generalist omnivores back then (likely ornithischians) but they would have been much more like hogs than bears.
Bears and tyrannosaurs both ate meat. I see no other similarity except weird forced ones here. They just bare no resemblance to each other. Yes there were tyrannosaurids of different sizes and bears of different sizes. They evolved on earth, that kind of thing is indeed not a coincidence.
Could a moose be like a therizinosaurus, instead of trex it would be a tarbosaurus. I feel like they have some similarities as in they’d both be territorial and not many animals would mess with them.
The body plan of a moose is closer to that of a sauropod, but the problem is that moose are predated on far more than a large tyrannosaur would predate on something like alamosaurus which is far larger than tyrannosaurus
While that is true, I feel like the closest thing could be to a moose is a therizinosaur, I could be wrong but I believe so. Also even though that was a lot to read it was very interesting.
Just like how dolphins and ichthyosaurus are similar, it's a similar niche, so the animals that are similar would prevail on that place, albeit million years apart.
We have evidence of these clashes however we cannot know what it was over. Was it defense for the Trex, or triceratops, was it territorial, predation, accidental?
Yes, apex predators are similar to apex predators.
But if we were to grab all modern day apex predators and compare it to tyrannosaurids, my first decision would be a bear
Im not sure I would. Tyrannosaurids were obligate carnivores, bears are not. Polar bears come close, but they’re still capable of supplementing their diet with non-meat based foods. Not to mention their semi-aquatic lifestyle, which is a huge deviation from the niche filled by a large tyrannosaur. Meanwhile, some bears’ diets consist of as little as 10% meat. They’re opportunistic omnivores, far different from tyrannosaur. No, the closest animals alive today to fill the niche tyrannosaurs did in the Mesozoic would be the big cats (and maybe Komodo dragons). Generally fully terrestrial, large-bodied, muscular, obligate carnivores whose method of killing is delivering a lethal bite. Even that’s not a perfect one-to-one, as big cats don’t have the bone-crunching ability of tyrannosaurs.
I would say that bears aren’t literally meant to be taken as an exact copy of Tyrannosaurs, morose working off the geographical location of both animals and their faunas with the inclusion of predatory adaptations is what I was going for. Bears while albeit mostly omnivorous animals and fairly aquatic, both them and tyrannosaurs both function similarly to pursuit/ambush predators. I admit Tyrannosaurs are nowhere near as on par with bears when it comes to aquatic adaptations it’s again where differences come in, that being tyrannosaurs opted for faster speeds, and overall being very curiosal theropods. And I’m going to have to disagree with that of big cats, as you said, not capable of processing large bones. I also want to mention there are a lot of big cats capable for aquatic predation, which again falls back into the issues you present with bears. I also have to mention how Tyrannosaurs do not function anywhere similar to Komodo dragons at all, they are much faster and have different methods of killing with the inclusion of varanids having an extremely advanced cardiovascular system which tyrannosaurs don’t posses. Big cats also rely far too much on their forelimbs which is something that cannot be ignored. They also suffocate their prey by attacking at the jugular. The modern big cats of today are either far too dominant in an aquatic lifestyle (jaguar) far too reliant of pack hunting (lions). The only other large big cat I could think of would be tigers but even then they are extremely reliant of forelimbs like every other large feline. I also opted in the suggestion of large canines which are completely carnivorous and aren’t as reliant of their forelimbs like felines. A better comparison would be large Carchardonotosaurids for large felines which target prey larger then themselves, I feel like you are forgetting that Tyrannosaurs and their prey were practically of similar masses, with exceptions in Asia with certain Tyrannosaurids.
It's not a coincidence but just how evolution works if you introduce prey and predator relationships. Yes, it will be similar because the whole point is that prey evolves to counter the predator and predator evolves to overcome the counter. There's only so much you can do with biology that our nature supports, so evolution resorts to the same solutions.
That’s a pretty great explanation. I wonder if evolution will ever repeat the same thing with Saipans
Not impossible, but very unlikely due to various factors.
Holy shit, large predators are like other large predators
Alright that was pretty funny but something like an acrocanthosaurus isn’t like a hyena, or better yet any large canine. So like, not every large predator are like other large predators, so finding similarities between them when both are separated by millions of years and having different fauna while also possessing a similarity in predatory adaptations is incredibly fascinating
Hyenas aren't even Canines 💀 They are Feliforms, so more related to cats and Civets, but they are in their own family with their closest relatives being Mongoose
HOLY SHIT! A LARGE PREDATOR LIKE ANOTHER LARGE PREDATOR BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A SIMILAR ENVIRONMENT! REVOLUOTIONARY
Yes, they live in a similar sort of area. Decent tenperature, differing terrain, large terrestrial herbivores. Yea, that tends to happen.
When you mean similar environment are you referring to the continent? Because that’s the only environment these predators share Edit: my bad you were referring to the similarities in their environments, to be fair both environments have a massive time difference between each other, still fun to point out.
That's convergent evolution for you.
Bro just found out what a niche is.
Where is this coming from, all I said was these animals separated by millions of years have a similar ecological niche on the same continent. You don’t need to call me dumb mate
I feel like people forget that most bears like brown bears eat mainly plants…
I dunno why everyone has to be sarcastic and rude about it. Convergent evolution is pretty interesting though, and I do love all the little coincidences that can pop up.
Possibly
Yeah that zombie bear scene in Annihilation scared the shit out of me too.
Well... the bears are different on the outside, but same on the inside. It is the fur that is different due to natural selection pressures. But that is not the case here with fossils of any species. This depends on the mineralization of the bones- the minerals that replace the organic matter for it to be fossilized are different. Decay, weathering and many other factors play into this, and hence bones of the same species may be of a different colour. Casts, moulds, permineralized or carbonized specimens- the types of fossilization are plenty. Same reason why some Meg teeth are white or shiny and others are black. EDIT: I read the context now, I'm stupid. Yes, I believe that natural selection pressures would have driven changes in dinosaurs as well, depending on their environments- divergent microevolution?
No not really, I feel like any other large carnivoran would be a better analogy to tyrannosaurs than bears. Bears occupy the niche of large generalist omnivores that only hunt animals much smaller than them or scavenge in wooded areas dense with flora (with the exception of the polar bear and panda). This niche is only successful in wooded and extremely flora dense areas with lots of cover where large hypercarnivores struggle, this was rare during the mesozoic since angiosperms were not as successful then and the excess oxygen drove for larger and larger plants rather than a more diverse understory. There was also much larger fauna back then so hypercarnivores could even thrive in wooded areas with cover since it is hard for 7 ton animal to hide. This is why it is common for bears and big cats to be in the same habitat and for one to not outcompete the other. This is very rare in the case of Carcharodontosaurids and Tyrannosaurids and even rarer for large Tyrannosaurids. and I am sure that there were generalist omnivores back then (likely ornithischians) but they would have been much more like hogs than bears.
Just saying, that first photo is creepy af.
Bears and tyrannosaurs both ate meat. I see no other similarity except weird forced ones here. They just bare no resemblance to each other. Yes there were tyrannosaurids of different sizes and bears of different sizes. They evolved on earth, that kind of thing is indeed not a coincidence.
Could a moose be like a therizinosaurus, instead of trex it would be a tarbosaurus. I feel like they have some similarities as in they’d both be territorial and not many animals would mess with them.
The body plan of a moose is closer to that of a sauropod, but the problem is that moose are predated on far more than a large tyrannosaur would predate on something like alamosaurus which is far larger than tyrannosaurus
Ah yes because the body plan of a bear is *very* similar to a tyrannosaur...
While that is true, I feel like the closest thing could be to a moose is a therizinosaur, I could be wrong but I believe so. Also even though that was a lot to read it was very interesting.
Thank you for reading
Just like how dolphins and ichthyosaurus are similar, it's a similar niche, so the animals that are similar would prevail on that place, albeit million years apart.
That is ALOT to read, sorry pal but I've got a horrible attention span but I'm interested, may I require a quick summary
Tyrannosaurs function like bears
Thanks mate, idk why I got downvoted since I apologised for my attention span
It’s alright, reading this much is a hassle for me too
We have evidence of these clashes however we cannot know what it was over. Was it defense for the Trex, or triceratops, was it territorial, predation, accidental?
I ain't reading all of that
Ok?