WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Questions
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
One, please read the thread title. Do those posts fit here? No. Two, please read the posts of the moderators. If you'd like to read functional, scientifically supported material on your interests, look around this and you will find much information. You are welcomed to add such scientifically supported and functional material as well in the proper location.
All of those fascinating differences were discussed already in yuku. So the versus debate is over. If you want links we will provide you. You can read there. As tigerluver said you can post scientific facts in appropriate threads but not here. Hope you understand.
I have read that man is closely related to herbivores than to omnivores. The above article proves it. It is truly mesmerizing how he evolved to be the ultimate conqueror despite many odds.
(01-19-2017, 05:57 PM)parvez Wrote: I have read that man is closely related to herbivores than to omnivores. The above article proves it. It is truly mesmerizing how he evolved to be the ultimate conqueror despite many odds. I agree. We have descended from a long line of herbivores. Another bit of evidence not mentioned in the article is the fact that the strong odors from the carcass of an animal, ripped open, is appealing to a true carnivore while being repulsive to a herbivore. Nevertheless, for several million years, regardless of being physically adapted to a vegan lifestyle, both chimpanzees and most hominids have survived as omnivores. As for modern mankind, we each decide as individuals.
@
(01-19-2017, 06:50 PM)parvez Wrote: @ I believe you are in reverse. I believe that mankind's earlier ancestors were vegetarian, but as the African continent began getting dryer due to climate change caused by the appearance of the Himalayan Mountains in Asia, mankind found himself with fewer vegetarian choices and thus learned to supplement his diet with some amount of meat. I would say that, before mankind invented hunting tools ( weapons ) he was ( where meat is concerned ) a scavenger and perhaps a hunter of very small prey. He would be considered as prey himself to large true-predators. 
The control of fire is what allowed their brains to evolve, at least according to the expert I spoke to at oldupai gorge and from what I've read elsewhere. Cooked meat brought out nutrients that correlated with a larger brain mass.
(01-19-2017, 07:24 PM)brotherbear Wrote:(01-19-2017, 06:50 PM)parvez Wrote: @ But it should also be remembered that chimpanzees feed on meat though occasionally. They are our nearest relatives. They have canines which herbivores do not have. So, the ancient ancestors of man may not be herbivores IMO. Anyways you may be right. But no one knows the exact truth unless more research is carried out on this. 
Nice discussions going on here, i'd like to give my views regarding herbivores vs carnivores in this way- carnivores seem to be more smart in using their killing tools like teeth and claws also by using tactics and they can overpower their herbivore prey like going for the throat and attcking vulnerable spots and attacking it repeteadly once an initial damge has been done etc. herbivores on the other hand dont fight with precision attack they are brutes and tend to charge haphazardly to anything projected (provided they are aggressive enough). So, it's hard to know who is stronger maybe herbivores (like in pulling things etc.) but in terms of killing i assume carnivores will overpower by latching unto some body parts until the opponent gives up i.e. using smartness in its favour.
Welcome to Wildfacts Jimmy. I can truthfully say that I agree with all you are saying. I will add that herbivore vs carnivore as to which is stronger is too simplified a topic. Examples: Which is stronger, a cheetah or a rhinoceros? Which is stronger, a tiger or a gazelle? Each herbivore has its own form of defense; for some its brute strength, for some its sheer size, for some its speed, for some camouflage, etc. The same can be said for predators; For the cheetah its speed, lions and tigers need a combination of strength, weight, speed, and agility. A badger needs to know how to dig out a burrowing rodent. Weasels need to be slinky to follow mice. Herbivore vs Carnivore is too wide-ranged for a true comparison of strength.
(12-03-2016, 08:57 PM)parvez Wrote:the 2nd pic is not of a pure wild water buffalo, so i don't count this horn as a typical of the wild form that a tiger naturally encounters. For me wild water buffaloes horn is more suited defensively against tigers. One thing, they are by nature more aggressive and not readily spooked like gaur, when they form phalanx with the herd, their long horns end to end form a great impenetrable chain that would act as a deterrent factor and absolutely discourage any predator from advancing, more so than the gaur, so in the case of the herd, wild water buffaloes definitely poses a greater defense against a predator. Things get more interesting with solitary bulls. but here, wild buffalo still has an upper hand in my view. Even in the case where a tiger actually ambushed and managed to climb on it's back. The long backward reaching horn still poses a threat to the predator on it's back and the horn can score a hit even at this point, if not, it will still keep the predator at bay and prevent it from advancing any further like the nape region. This is quite a contrast with that of a gaur's horn design which is short, good for attacking when the predator is in front but has no reach behind. Now for the design, wild water buffaloes horn functions differently, rather than upward lifting action and hooking like cattle, they go forward and sway quickly sideways slashing, since their horns are triangular in cross section with a cutting edge, albeit a blunt one, if they cut, the base of their horn gradually is so thick and wide that the longer they cut the danger is that they will insert their whole 3 foot horn and start jerking which can tear through and come off. Now will this be effective against other bovine? that i am not sure, and gaurs are one of the most impressive themselves but for toughness i still think buffaloes are more formidable than gaur. Though they don't have large shoulders, hump and muscles, they are more proportionately built, stocky perfect balance with big feet, short legs etc. Gaur will have an advantage with their sharper horns more than anything in my view. If it was in nature like water holes, salt licks etc. i think wild water buffaloes will be up on hierarchy over gaur by a slim margin i believe.(12-03-2016, 08:07 PM)brotherbear Wrote:(12-03-2016, 07:57 PM)parvez Wrote: I believe gaurs horns are more built for combat than water buffalo. can you explain?  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(01-26-2017, 04:44 PM)parvez Wrote: @Jimmy, among elephants, rhinos, water buffaloes and tigers which do you think are stronger pound for pound in Descending order. Please do not mind this question. But you are the one who has great practical knowledge regarding all the animals. That is why i am asking. A 450 pound ( 204 kg ) tiger would IMO be stronger ( in over-all strength ) than an elephant, rhinoceros, or a water buffalo of equal weight. However, you are not likely to find any of the herbivores mentioned weighing said-amount. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |