I remember a few months ago I had a borderline mental breakdown after being castigated for being skeptical of the idea that Dromaeosaurs really were so superior to other carnivores in every single metric.
I understand being against "mammalian bias", but it's a bit frustrating when this community seems to be so willing to hyperbolize other extinct creatures just so long as it doesn't fit with that thinking. That you could say reptilian predators are superior to mammalian predators as long as you don't say the opposite. That Ziphodont dentition is innately superior to Incrassate dentition, etc.
This goes back to Dromaeosaurs, a ton of users on this sub and others are very insistent that due to their big skulls, foot claws, and them being archosaurs, they would've easily hunted down any modern macropredator(especially mammalian) of their size with ease.
This goes back to an example like Deinonychus. Why are we so positive that an animal could simultaneously be the most well-built ambush carnivore, a cursorial chaser that would outrun any felid by a country-mile, AND a sophisticated pack hunter, no questions asked?
Pretty much no predator today nor in ANY other clade was so perfect in evolutions for killing. You won't see Mustelids evolve to lion-like sizes, you won't see Felids with crazy long foot claws, you won't see Bears with freakishly large skulls & ziphodont dentition. How are we so sure that not only did Dromaeosaurs have EVERY SINGLE MACROPREDATORY ADAPTATION of all time and was some superlative carnivore that no animal will ever match rather than just another macropredator that occupied the same niche and faced the same threats, and had the same disadvantages as any other extant carnivore of a similar size like the Komodo Dragon, Leopard, or Grey Wolf?
Just for the record, there were literally lion sized mustelids. They were otters, but the point stands.
Fair point, I forgot that Prehistoric Planet s3, but even then E. omoensis was still smaller than say, Smilodon populator or Utahraptor.
This is true.
I haven't read the other comments so sorry if I'm repeating things here, but I think a major part of this discussion is the fact that dinosaur dominant ecosystems are so different than mammal based ones. Size alone is a crazy factor, leading to so many levels of ecosystem interactions that would drive evolutionary pressures.
I'd argue that part of our assumptions about dromaeosaurs are based on the idea that they would compete with the larger theropods (our referring to layfolk). I think your perspective and your argument is very important to keep in mind.
They definitely had the disadvantage of less agility than a lot of mammals as well as worse forearm grappling and were probably less explosive than felids as well. The teeth are a tradeoff, ziphodont teeth are better at general damage and severing muscles or causing massive blood loss, but incrassate teeth are better at gripping and puncturing bones.
Dromeosaurs were excellent predators both within and above their weight class but I doubt they would be absolutely destroying mammalian macropredators of their size.
I’ll compare deinonychus to a leopard as an example
Deinonychus has an overall deadlier bite, enormous claws, greater height, and probably better endurance.
The leopard has better grappling, agility, is probably more explosive, and has a very deadly bite especially to the skull or neck.
They’d be pretty evenly matched, though I think deinonychus would win that specific fight.
This whole thing is an example of an overcorrection of a commonly held wrong mindset (mammals are better predators than dinosaurs). People have switched to “dinosaurs are better predators than mammals” when they are both very successful.
This is where I'm coming from. I'm personally of the opinion that mass beats most adaptations when all things are considered, as they're both macropredators and presumably were hunting similarly-sized prey. I just think that we shouldn't automatically say that one was better than the other considering Deinonychus is literally extinct and we have very little idea of it's muscle attachments, or reflexes whereas those are the exact adaptations that we know of in Felids that enable them to be effective predators today.
This, this is a peak comment, especially the last paragraph it finally puts an end to this stupid debate
Dinosaurs are capable of exploiting trophic levels that are wholly and completely inaccessible to mammals due to their need to gestate their young for longer when they get larger. This effectively limits the size of mammalian predators far more than dinosaurs, and when people say dinosaurs were ‘superior’ predators, that’s what they mean.
They aren’t claiming Deinonychus is a better hunter than a lion, they’re saying dinosaurs produce animals like Carcharodontosaurus and T. rex, something mammals legitimately cannot do and will never do.
Final question, but in your honest opinion, between a peak condition triathlon male athlete, a Deinonychus, and a Jaguar all of the same size, would the human and jaguar be of more comparable strength while the Deinonychus would have the slight strength advantage to both of them?
I’d imagine it’d be the jaguar>deinonychus> human.
Jaguar > deinonychus > man
Cats are so strong not just because of muscle mass but because of leverage and the fact that they can use all 4 limbs to help pull things while having the object in their mouths.
A jaguar is much stronger than a deinonychus and would pretty much win, but i think you kinda underestimate dromeosaurids, a deinonychus would have a very decent chance of winnining from a leopard, btw the winner in this confrontation is likely the one that bites first and gets the better grab of the other, i personally hate power scallining animals because they are not characters, they are livining beings, those fights can end in a lot of ways, and when talkining about non avian dinosaurs vs mammals things get really complicated because we don't really know how they would react or how strong they would be and much less how intelligent they were so all we can do is spec. From the bones of deinonychus and the prey items it hunted it is pretty safe to say between deinonychus vs leopard the winner would be however was in the best position and gets the better grab of the other, so sometimes deinonychus wins and other times leopard wins.
Actually most eudromaesauruians can grappling onto their prey and climbing on the large prey and holding on large prey items
Yes but a jaguar is just way to much for deino, to heavy and to agile to the theropod to grapple onto its back
How heavy is the jaguar
Jaguars vary greatly in weight by region, but large males can get very heavy, typically ranging from 100-250 lbs (45-113 kg), with exceptionally large individuals, especially from the Pantanal region, reaching over 300 lbs (136 kg) or even more, with some records suggesting up to 348 lbs (158 kg) for large males. Females are smaller, generally 70-170 lbs (32-77 kg). Typical Weights: Males: 90–150 kg (198–331 lbs). Females: 60–90 kg (132–198 lbs). Heaviest Recorded (Males): Some large males have exceeded 160 kg (353 lbs). Record-breaking individuals have approached 158 kg (348 lbs). Factors Influencing Weight: Region: Jaguars in the Pantanal (Brazil), an area rich in prey, are often larger and heavier than those in Central America. Sex: Males are significantly larger and heavier than females. In essence, while average weights are lower, a truly massive male jaguar can be a substantial cat, weighing over 300 pounds.
Thanks for letting me know about this
there are a lot of subspecies of jaguar, the smallest if i am not mistaken is the mexican jaguar also called central american jaguar, they are around the size of a large male north american cougar. The largest subspecies is the jaguar found in pantanal and cerrado here in brazil that can get to the size of a small bengal tiger
Can you give some examples of people making these claims cause I doubt anyone with even basic knowledge would say Ziphodont teeth is innately superior to Incrassate teeth among other things you've said.
There was one thread advocating this when dealing with Komodo Dragon bite injuries to a zookeeper. That they didn't need bite force, and from reading it, the user in their post/comment history never did anything to argue that Bite force + Incrassate adaptations might lead to effective injuries.
I mean, maybe Ziphodont dentition might be more effective for some cases, but we never see people pointing out the disadvantages of them when it comes to hunting certain prey items, only that incrassate dentition is overrated.
Ziphodont teeth is absolutely more effective in some cases considering animals like Homotherium evolved such teeth while ancestrally having incrassate teeth. It also goes the other way around with animals like T. rex having evolved incrassate teeth while ancestrally having ziphodont teeth.
But what cases would Incrassate teeth actually work in causing severe injuries and being useful in hunting prey? Like I get that Ziphodont teeth are supposedly specializations towards hunting way bigger prey, but where does that leave Incrassate prey considering just how rare and uncommon it is for herbviores to evolve thick armor compared to just evolving to be bigger?
I mean, any tooth when backed by powerful jaws can cause serious injuries, just look at what pandas can do to you with their jaws that are built to crush hard bamboo.
Incrassate teeth are better for gripping and crushing. Good for hunting slippery prey(like spinosaurs) or prey that is smaller and faster then you that you can effectively wrestle(like T. rex and Edmontosaurus). Armor isn't the only thing a predator would want to crush. The higher bite force incrassate teeth allow for can let an animal eat frozen carcasses or process bone(like wolverines and hyenas respectively). And big cats generally use their bites to suffocate prey by crushing their wind pipes, something that would be much harder with ziphodont teeth.
When you want to overpower prey. Big cats like lions and tigers today have more robust canines when compared to ziphodont dentition and you can observe them using these in conjunction with powerful forelimbs to wrestle down their prey. Their favored method of killing appears to be through strangulation, which more robust teeth + higher bite forces are better at than ziphodont teeth.
Since most theropods hunting megaherbivores were most likely not using their forelimbs to grapple, they probably relied even more heavily on their teeth. T. rex in particular had extraordinarily powerful jaw adductor and neck muscles and this, combined with incrassate teeth would have enabled them to perform such feats as:
Ziphodont teeth do make animals pretty efficient at hunting larger prey but predators with incrassate teeth can get the job done as well, depending on their build and other cranial and post-cranial adaptations.
TBH, I can't think of many cases where ziphodont teeth would be detrimental for macropredation. Ziphodont teeth are great for slicing flesh but they also be effective against armored prey as evidenced by cases of tiger sharks biting through sea turtle shells or komodos cutting each other with their teeth. Although many species of dromaeosaurs didn't seem to have especially powerful bites for their size some species like dromaeosaurus did. Circling back to sharks, whenever I see a shark straight up bite seals in half, I really can't see what advantages a cat or dog's teeth have over a shark's, at least when it comes to killing large prey. Chewing is a great adaptation that sharks and archosaurs were incapable of, but given that some mammals like homotherium had serrated teeth I don't think ziphodonty and the ability to chew are mutually exclusive traits.
I noticed some people in the comments tried to argue that ziphodont teeth would be less effective for strangulation, but frankly, that seems like a moot point since most animals aren't going to be able to breathe if their throat gets shredded by a set of serrated. It's worth pointing out that cats like smilodon sacrificed a lot for their trademark teeth (teeth durability, reduced bite force, effective jaw gape due to sabre's blocking mouth, ect) and at the end of the day their sabers were a lot less versatile than a theropod's ziphodont teeth.
I don't think it's a coincidence that pretty much every macropredatory archosaur fed on terrestrial prey have ziphodont teeth, and the only theropods that didn't were either pscivores, small-prey specialists, or herbivorous.
I am not trying to say that dinosaurs were better than mammals in every single way, but from what I see ziphodont is only disadvantageous against small prey or slippery fish. I suspect the reason modern mammals don't have them is because unlike theropods or archosaurs they can't replace their adult teeth.
actually tiger shark being able to bite through turtle shell is nothing to do with their tooth being Ziphodont and more to do with their highly speciallized bent saw like tooth and their innate tendency to thrath their head side to side and literally saw the turtle shell through. other animals with Ziphodont teeth cannot do that at all(its actually hard to call theor tooth Ziphodont teeth when they are extremly different and only thing resembling is that their tooth is thin). As for komodo dragon, i think their hide is strong but nothing close to the likes of turtles or a really bony animal like bull. all they can do is bite to make small wound and make their saliva do most of the work.
in terms of hunting armored prey and breaking bones, Ziphodont tooth cannot hold a candle to Incrassate teeth and vice versa.
Well, I never said that ziphodonty was the reason tiger sharks can bite through turtle shells, I was just pointing out that they are capable of doing so while having ziphodont teeth. So evidently ziphodont teeth don't seem to diminish their armor piercing ability to any great degree, and you certainly don't see any mammals with much blunter teeth replicating that kind of damage to such hard armored prey. Heck pangolins and tortoises given much larger lions trouble.
In addition, here is a video of a bull shark ripping up a crocodile carcass, so evidently, tiger sharks aren't the one ones capable of biting through armor. Also videos of sharks biting seals in half are also good evidence of a sharks ability to damage bone. You can't bite any animal in half without going through the bone.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CHNoXfnuTyA
Komodo skin, is very tough, there is an article that is that describes how difficult it was to dissect one. Unfortunately it's paywalled now.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/05/the-dragon-autopsy/393890/
So yeah, komodo armor is very tough even if its not on the same level as a turtle's shell. Komodos themselves aren't great at hunting armored prey, but that seems more to do with their weak bite rather than the teeth themselves. The fact that they are able to penetrate each other's armor despite their fairly weak jaw muscles is a credit to their sharpness. It is worth noting that some smaller predators like eagles and mongooses have been known to struggle to bypass the tough leathery skin of monitor lizards (though both still prey on them) despite these species lacking true armor like adult komodos.
Tyrannosaurus is the most famous example of a bone crusher having ziphodont teeth. Sure, their teeth aren't as sharp as a lot of other theropods, but they still posses serrations on their teeth, which is more than any modern carnivoran can say so clearly having ziphodont teeth isn't detrimental to eating large, armored prey.
In addition, a test with a mechanical Acrocanthosaurus skull indicates that carnosaurs with highly ziphodont teeth may have been capable of doing a lot of damage to Borealopelta armor. Obviously they wouldn't be as good as penetrating armor as something like tyrannosaurus but they still may have been able to do a lot of damage to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWuB9Z8aMuU
While Komodo Dragons have weak bite forces they're heavy animals with a body well suited to thrashing with horizontal motion. That alone compensates enough for any weak bite force. If an incrassate animal like a Jaguar got its hands on a Komodo Dragon, It'd probably be capable of inflicting major spine and cranial damage even quicker than another Komodo Dragon might.
Sure, if we are comparing a high bite force jaguar to a ziphodont animal with a weak bite force than yeah the jaguar is better suited for penetrating armor.
But what if we compared jaguar to a theropod/archosaur that possesses a powerful bite and serrated teeth like an abelisaurid? I am not confident that the jaguar's would better suited for dealing with armor given that tiger sharks can chomp through sea turtle shells, whereas hyenas seem incapable of bypassing a pangolins defenses directly. Here is a case of hyena needing to drown one before it could begin eating it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8nVmF6RuI
Note that I earlier on I was under the impression that incrassate and ziphodont teeth weren't necessarily mutually exclusive as I thought adult tyrannosaurus fit under both categories. Apparently that's not the case. So yeah, my amended opinion is that serrated teeth don't seem to have any drawbacks for macropredation.
If you compare a ziphodont tooth to an incrassate one with serrations, then yeah, clearly the latter does obviously have the advantage. But I think theropods and archosaurs generally have an edge over extant carnivorans in teeth department thanks to their serrations.
I mean, the tiger shark's need to have high bite forces to deal with it because they don't have gravity on their side. Animals like Carnosaurs or Abelisaurs can utilize vertical motion to achieve damage. Also, Pangolins are basically rolled up bowling-balls, you'd need a pretty sizeable gape(probably more so than a Hyena's) to actually get the whole thing in your mouth. Same reason why an Alligator or Crocodilian can consume turtles while you'd be hard-pressed to see wolves do it even though their bites are convergent with ziphodonts(they're not ziphodont, but their still convergent in purpose).
Ziphodont/serrated and high bite forces are not mutually exculsive things which is why I think that theropods generally have deadlier bites than modern mammalian carnivores.
For instance, Dromaeosaurus had a incredibly powerful bite for its size while still having serrated teeth. I genuinely don't see what advanatages a similar sized cat or canines teeth would have over them at least in regards to macropredation.
In regards to the hyena, at one point the hyena actually does bite the pangolins uncoiled tail, and you can see that it still has difficulty breaking through the armor even though it is a biting a thinner part of its body.
Likewise, I've never seen a jaguar tear through caiman as easily this shark ripped open a crocodile's midsection. The jaguar might be better at skull biting than a similar sized bull shark, but I think it would hard to claim that the jaguar's teeth are better at dealing with armor when the bullsharks teeth can tear through scutes much quicker than a jaguar can.
https://streamain.com/en/PCoD5hVn7eY8m4i/watch
Crocodiles probably do beat tigersharks in armor penetrating capabilities, at least in regards to targets that they call fully enclose their jaws around, but I wouldn't be surpised if an animal like erythrosuchus could match their AP abilities.
I gotta ask, do you think a bite by leopard or Jaguar would be considerably more survivable than a Komodo Dragon for example?
"So evidently ziphodont teeth don't seem to diminish their armor piercing ability to any great degree, and you certainly don't see any mammals with much blunter teeth replicating that kind of damage to such hard armored prey. Heck pangolins and tortoises given much larger lions trouble."
No its not. There are ton of videos showing alligators and crocodiles cracking turtle shell outright and you ain't seeing any other animal with ziphodont teeth doing that unless they are significantly larger than the turtle. Also, yes having ziphodont teeth technically would not diminish their armor piercing capability if you were evolved to not give a fk about breaking your tooth which is extremely rare and majority of all animals with ziphodont teeth never evolved strong bite force because all the animals with ziphodont teeth who didn't give a fk about their tooth and had uniqly strong bite all end up breaking their tooth and crippling themselves and got extinct or they evolved to have non-ziphodont teeth.
"In addition, here is a video of a bull shark ripping up a crocodile carcass, so evidently, tiger sharks aren't the one ones capable of biting through armor. Also videos of sharks biting seals in half are also good evidence of a sharks ability to damage bone. You can't bite any animal in half without going through the bone."
Crocodile armor is not that tough compared turtle shell. Even other mammals can pierce it if they had the chance. All sharks are unique in that unlike other animals with ziphodont teeth, they are the only animal that can replenish fast enouph not care about their tooth breaking at all. no other animal can replace as fast as sharks, even dinosaurs who replaced their tooth really fast cannot do what shark can do that can simultanously have 3-4 rows of new tooth like some tooth factory. That is also why sharks managed to evolve and support strong enouph biteforce without going extinct. Also Shark biting seal is a joke, seals are protected with nothing but blubber and fat and sharks biting clean through seal has a clear size disparity and even humans can bite through chicken bone or break bones of animals like rabbits if they ever bite them.
" It is worth noting that some smaller predators like eagles and mongooses have been known to struggle to bypass the tough leathery skin of monitor lizards (though both still prey on them) despite these species lacking true armor like adult komodos."
Eagles have even more weaker bite force than Komodo dragons, they don't even have tooth and only have more weaker beak made up of keratin rather than Enamel, them struggling should be obvious and eagles never really needed evolve to quickly eat their prey like land animals do since they could just fly with its prey and they are used hunting animals smaller than them. As for Mongoos, they are social creature that is not built for strong biteforce and Vastly smaller than Monitor lizard. Of course they would struggle with Monitor lizard. as for Komodo dragon. Although they are resistant to their own venom, its not immunity. Enough doses will still do major damage and Komodo has enough saliva for every bite. Also majority of the Komodo dragons that die are smaller juvinile komodo dragons that Adult komodo dragon could swallow whole. Larger full adult komodo dragons rarely get cannibalized in the wild.
"Tyrannosaurus is the most famous example of a bone crusher having ziphodont teeth. Sure, their teeth aren't as sharp as a lot of other theropods, but they still posses serrations on their teeth, which is more than any modern carnivoran can say so clearly having ziphodont teeth isn't detrimental to eating large, armored prey."
Also Adult T,rex tooth is not considered a ziphodont tooth even if some adult still has a serration. T.rex loses its laterally compressed tooth immediately after it becomes adult and starts to transition into Incrassate tooth with serration. T.rex is famous for having ziphodont teeth when they are young and quickly starts to have Incrassate tooth. T.rex is actually prime example how Incrassate tooth is an adaptation for an extremely strong biteforce. if T.rex didn't need Incrassate dentition, They would still have really sharp but laterally compressed knife like fragile ziphodont tooth, but fossil hisotory and their leanage clearly shows T.rex was very much evolving out of ziphodont tooth to Incrassate tooth cause Incrassate tooth is just far more suited for stronger biteforce without breaking from the force(specially when T.rex is thrashing cause flat plade like tooth are really fragile agains side to side heavy thrashing. conical incrassate tooth are perfectly adapted for that.)
Also there needs to be clarification of what is considered ziphodont tooth and what is considered Incrassate tooth. although seration and dentickles on tooth is in ziphodont tooth definition and not really on Incrassate tooth. That doesn't mean Incrassate toot having seration and dentickles are unheard of. The most striking difference of ziphodont tooth to Incrassate tooth is rather its their shape than the serration IMP. ziphodont tooth are flat blade like tooth that even if they don't have serration, they are often still far more sharper naturally. As for Incrassate tooth, they are more conical and rounder and naturally has 1 sharp end that is its pounty end but most cases that pointy end gets plunded as the tooth gets used but it is significantly more robust and highly durable from vertical and horizontal force. the Scientists and paleontologist who consider T.rex adult tooth to be incrassed does support this from my observation but this is my opinion so i want to hear your definition on this subject. ziphodont tooth to Incrassate tooth almost needs a triangle diagram rather than only 2 sided diagram since some tooth shape clearly has characteristics of both but non of the negatives
"Crocodile armor is not that tough compared turtle shell. Even other mammals can pierce it if they had the chance."
It's not simply a matter of piercing of the armor. Did you see how quickly the shark tore open the crocodile? I never seen a jaguar rip open even a young caiman like that.
"Also Shark biting seal is a joke, seals are protected with nothing but blubber and fat and sharks biting clean through seal has a clear size disparity and even humans can bite through chicken bone or break bones of animals like rabbits if they ever bite them."
You're being ridiculous. Being able to slice through a seal is incredibly impressive feat. Here is a famous photo of a great white shark that got killed by a larger great white. Name any modern carnivoran that has every inflicted this kind of damage on a smaller rival or ungulate calves.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/monster-shark-bites-great-white-in-half/news-story/0418ddd92b370a94ef058f2c1e623f8e
Here is a video of a pack of wolves attacking a coyote. Notice that despite their huge number and size advantage they aren't able to rip chunks out of the coyote like a shark can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXCvLzDNWz0
"Eagles have even more weaker bit force than Komodo dragons, they don't even have tooth and only have more weaker beak made up of keratin rather than Enamel,"
I wasn't talking about their beak. I was talking about their talons, as that is their primary weapon. They are multiple accounts of martial eagles failing to kill rock monitors despite being nowhere near as armored as adult komodos. This is notable because we have accounts of golden eagles killing much larger animals like adult pronghorn.
[quote]for Mongoos, thye are social creature that is not built for strong biteforce and Vastly smaller than Monitor lizrd. Of course they would struggle with Monitor lizard.[/quote]
I am not talking about African mongooses. I am talking about solitary Indian grey ones, and the bengal monitors they target are either smaller or of a similar mass. Here is an account of one that ended up giving up attacking a bengal monitor. I don't know where you got the idea that mongooses have weak bite forces.
https://www.conservationindia.org/gallery/mongoose-vs-monitor-lizard
"as for Komodo dragon. Although they are resistant to their own venom, its not immunity. enouph doeses will still do major damge and Komodo has enouph saliva for every bite. Also majority of the Komodo dragons that die are smaller juvinile komodo dragons that Adult komodo dragon could swallow whole. Larger full adult komodo dragons rarely get cannibalized in the wild."
None of this relevant to what I said. The point is komodos are able to penetrate each others armor despite how strong it is and how weak their bite force is. They are not built for killing armored prey, yet their teeth are so sharp they are able to pierce each others armor to some degree, an impressive feat given that people with steel scalpels struggle to dissect them.
"Also Adult T,rex tooth is not considered a ziphodont tooth even if some adult still has a serration. T.rex loses its laterally compressed tooth immediately after it becomes adult and starts to transition into Incrassate tooth with serration."
I already had this conversation and amended my statement. Several papers I read treated tyrannosaurus teeth as ziphodont so I was under the impression that they could be both ziphodont and incrassate. I realized that this wasn't correct, so I have amended my statement to "I don't think serrations have any notable disadvantages for macropredation"
The serrations on a tyrannosaurus teeth were beneficial for splitting bone, so I don't see any advantage for a macropredatory theropod to ever completely get rid of them.
"The serrations on a tyrannosaurus teeth were beneficial for splitting bone, so I don't see any advantage for a macropredatory theropod to ever completely get rid of them."
i mean having serration doesn't mean you have ziphodont tooth and i never argued that having serration was a disadvantage in any way. All my comment is instead calling the knife like latterally compressed tooth does have disadvantage against more rounder incrassed tooth.
Serration was never the issue. It is beneficial in carnivores and herbivores.
And I already acknowledged that I was mistaken about tyrannosaurus teeth being ziphodont and I should have just used the term serrated instead.
The OP seemed mostly interested in comparing modern mammals and theropods though. And my initial comment was mainly eloborating on why I think that serrated teeth belonging hard biting theropods like dromaeosaurus or tarbosaurus don't really have any downsides for killing large prey when compared to modern mammalian carnivores.
Some extinct mammals likes hyaenodon or some extinct toothed whales might have had comparable bites at parity, but from what I've seen the extant mammalian carnivores just have less potent bites.
I think serration on tooth is pretty good indication of highly specialised tooth for either Carnivore or herbivores(serration is little different but a lot of highly herbivorous animals has seration adapted for cutting plants).
Non serrated tooth is baseline tooth that really has 1 advantage being less likely to ripp but far more stability to grab a prey or item(another thing is marsupials or other animals that has tooth that continuously grows also tends to have non serrated tooth, for example Proborhyaenidae proborhyeana had continues growing tooth that it could self sharpen and had abilty to concentrate all its biteforce in razor sharp edge without caring it the tooth edge breaking at all(defnetly had absurd PSI if somebody ever do the math). I think that could be the hidden potential advantage of Non-serrated tooth.
( i am not trying to argue anymore since we basically has similar opinion on serration being really advantageous and instead discuss the hidden potential of non-serrated tooth that never really talked about as much. For example the continuously growing tooth always seem to be non serrated tooth because its the most simplest one direction growth and when ever growing tooth meets self sharpening behaviour leeds to really scary combination that can be even more sharper and suited for puncture and slicing potential than any serrated tooth).
I mean, Tyrannosaurs and Crocodilians were both macropredatory archosaurs with incrassate teeth.
Tyrannosaurus had ziphodont teeth as well though. Ziphodont and incrassate are not mutually exclusive.
As for crocodilians, they are aquatic animals. A lot of their diet is comprised of fish, and while large species like saltwater will transition to larger prey as they grown bigger it takes like 30 years for the larger species to reach skeletal maturity. A young crocodiles needs teeth that are good at gripping slippery prey. In addition, adults take advantage of their environment and typically drown large mammalian which incentivizes gripping teeth rather than ripping teeth.
I never said that you need ziphodont teeth to be macropredators, I just don't see any disadvantages that come with ziphodont when it comes to terrestrial macropredation. Sure, if we are talking about aquatic animals, I can teeth why losing the serrations can be useful, but like I said, I don't think its a coincidence that all the macropredatory and terrestrial archosaurs seemed to have ziphodont teeth to some degree.
Ziphodonty, just seems to be a really useful trait that most modern predators don't have.
No they didn't. Ziphodont teeth are laterally compressed ontop of being serrated, which T. rex teeth aren't(compressed, I'm not denying their serrations)
I'm not denying that, but they are still archosaur macropredators that have incrassate teeth.
I never said you said that, I was just pointing out a couple examples of archosaur macropredators that lack zyphodont teeth.
Here is a paper that included tyrannosaurus in their discussion about ziphodont teeth and it notably stated that ziphodonty is nearly ubiquitous amongst theropods.
"however, among toothed theropod dinosaurs, ziphodonty is nearly ubiquitous."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12338
On twitter, one of the authors also claimed that tyrannosaurus and other theropods had teeth that were more efficient at cutting flesh than animals like dimetrodon because their denticles are more evenly spaced.
https://x.com/kirstisaur/status/1037109030706020352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1037109030706020352%7Ctwgr%5E38e8463c2700213db62baf0c9fa73e96ccf42403%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheworldofanimals.proboards.com%2Fsearch%2Fresults%3Fcaptcha_id%3Dcaptcha_searchwhat_at_least_one%3Dziphodontwho_only_made_by%3D0display_as%3D0search%3DSearch
So yeah, because of that paper I was under the impression that tyrannosaurus teeth still counted as ziphodont. If that's not correct, I will amend my statement and state that I don't see any drawback to having serrated teeth (at least when it comes to macropredation.)
That paper seems to define ziphodonty as just having serrated teeth "The teeth of Theropoda, the only clade of predominantly predatory dinosaurs, are characterized by ziphodonty, the presence of serrations (denticles) on their cutting edges." While I was using the wikipedia definition.
Yeah it's a bit annoying that there appears to be lot of disagreement on what ziphodonty means. For example, I found one paper that claimed that komodos are the only ziphodont monitor lizard while another claimed that there are several ziphodont monitor species.
I am just going to use the term serrated for now on, f the scientific jargon lol.
If anything I’ve seen the opposite (T.rex vs Giga).
Considering how eagles have been known to kill kangaroos and deer, and how raptors have similar adaptations in their claws for gripping, I think they’d be very powerful predators.
I’ve mostly seen the opposite claims, that pound for pound, mammalian predators are superior, that or people dramatically downplaying Dromaeosaur predatory capability.
In particular, I’ve seen people claim that Velociraptor only hunted small animals, when not only does it have massive jaws for its size (around the size of a Komodo Dragons despite being around the size of a lynx), its teeth are pretty clearly designed for macro predation, being the same overall size and shape as those of large monitor lizards.
That and it had a fairly respectable bite force of 304 N, which is comparable to a cheetahs.
Do you not see the problem here, instead of just saying they were probably identical to coyotes you just have to harp on that they have giant-ass skulls as if they were specialized macropredators and that the implication is that they were superior to modern animals that already exist and occupy those niches. If you were talking about Dromaeosaurus or Shri then I could understand but now I feel like we're falling back into overhyping Velcoiraptor as if it was this honey badger or wolverine-like animal.
The "size of a komodo dragon" ignores the fact that these animals had way narrower skulls at the posterior compared to Komodo Dragons and unlike Komodo Dragons didn't have the mass to really saw back and forth and inflict the real nasty tissue damage that we see Komodo Dragons capable of doing on ungulate prey. It'd be like saying that Buiteraptor was an intimidating macropredator considering it also had a very long skull as well.
There's a reason why you don't see Perenties and Water Monitors(which mind you also have serrated teeth and are roughly comparable in size to Velociraptor). When you look at animals today which are the same size and have semi-macropredatory diets, like the above-mentioned monitors AND mammals like the Coyote, Jackal, Caracal, or Serval. All of which have been documented hunting animals closer to their own size or larger but none do it regularly.
Except on this sub and other paleo subs, those people get downvoted to hell and are responded to by someone who acts like Dromaeosaurs were genuinely superior to modern carnivores of the same size.
I think ur confusing “better armed” with “superior.”
Objectively, there were no other predators that had a combination of zipodont teeth (sometimes with exceptionally powerful bites), raptorial forelimbs and “hyper-raptorial” hind limbs (such that the hind talons could be used for killing prey outright). By these standards, dromaoesaurs were better armed.
However, in practice, dromaeosaurs were probably no more macropredatory than mammalian grappling predators of similar size are. Just because you have more tools at ur disposal to do the job doesn’t actually make you better at doing the job, and in this case, tools of mammalian analogues were just as effective as dromaeosaurs. Additionally, there were a number of aspects that mammalian analogues outperformed dromaoesaurs, namely forelimb dexterity, speed / acceleration, and bite force.
It’s also worth noting that two of the things you pose as being recognized traits of dromies — cursoriality and pack tactics — aren’t really recognized as definitive traits of dromaoesaurs.
By and large, dromaoesaurs weren’t very cursorial, even as deinonychosaurs (a group that themselves aren’t that cursorial for theropods) go. Their feet were more robust for grappling, but as a consequence, they weren’t terribly cursorial. A comparably sized mammalian analogue would easily outpace it, and a properly cursorial mammal (e.g. canids and hyenas) would do considerable better than it on the tin
Pack hunting isn’t confirmed for dromies, and “examples” of them doing so may very well be simple gregariousness like in crocs and komodo’s (not to say that they couldn’t hunt in packs or even hunt cooperatively outside of a pack, but nothing concrete has been confirmed).
Were Dromaeosaurs able to kick and use their legs in intraspecific combat like many carnivorans are capable of doing?
Almost certainly, albeit said kicks had the potential to inflict way more damage than comparable mammalian analogues.
More specifically, were they able to use their legs in the same way that a Bear or a Machairodont might've been capable of using its forelimbs?
Yes, in so far as they were able to grasp and grapple with prey using them.
So they could use their legs and sickle claws with the same range of motion and utility when it comes to intraspecific combat that a bear might use its forelimbs and paws? I thought you said that Dromaeosaurs had reduced kicking ability due to their metatarsals?
One, the speed and range of their kicks would be reduced thanks to their shortened range of their metatarsals, but the actual range of motion would not have been reduced, and the effective gripping power and shock absorption would have been increased.
Two, in order to use a set of limbs in the way a bear uses its forelimbs, you need a set of limbs behind the limbs at use to support the body to free up the limbs at use. Bears could do this because they could rely on their hind limbs to support the body, but dromies couldn’t do this.
Personally, I think introspection combat between dromaeosaurs worked like a hybrid between the combat of ratites and of raptors. Like ratites, it would involve a lot of jumping and kicking, but like raptors, it would also involve a lot of grabbing of each others feet and biting.
Thank you for the clarification.
Also, just to add more to the grappling discussion and Raptor Prey Restraint, see falconry eagles killing coyotes and small wolves that weigh a lot more than the eagle. A dromeaosaur would have considerably better and more weapons than an eagle, while also weighing a lot more.
Falconry eagles implied that those animals were specifically trained by humans. Furthermore, those birds have gravity and CAN FLY
Them being able to fly lends them a disadvantage too by weighing a lot less, not having arms with claws, and having beaks instead of large jaws full of serrated teeth.
That's still 10+ lbs falling through the sky at terminal velocity. The mammal has no way to evade getting struck in the head or the neck and it can't even reach the animal that it's attacking because it can fly.
When we're talking about Dromaeosaurs we're talking about animals that DO NOT FLY, they are on the same plane.
Dromaeosaurs, because they're theropods, do not have anywhere near the range of motion in their forelimbs that a quadrapedal grappling ambush predator can do, especially animals like Felids, Mustelids, and Bears.
It doesn’t need to fly. It can leap onto the other animal and use all its advantages that way.
I wouldn’t say anywhere near, but maybe not as much. However, that wouldn’t matter because they have killing hind limbs that would do get the job done and be more effective at pinning the other animal down.
You ever seen this:
https://youtu.be/s8195fpXw5Y?si=fUNfutplJbaPezL2
You do realize that those other predators can also jump right?
And that would mean needing to consistently jump higher than the animal they're hunting and high enough that they can also reach onto their backs. Against animals that can also jump that high if not higher.
Ok, earnest question, do you believe that the strength gap between Carnivorans and Dromaeosaurs is so great that the average Leopard or Jaguar is more comparable in strength to a human compared to a Deinonychus for example?
Why would that matter? It can leap onto another animal. The leopard would instinctively go on its back in a defensive posture anyways like cats do. Perfect to be pinned down.
Part of the reason TRAINED Eagles are able to hunt Canids can't rotate their bodies to attack opponents behind or above them, nor are they able to swipe and grasp at said opponents with their forepaws.
There's a reason why Martial Eagles(pretty much the only known Eagle to semi-regularly hunt felid prey) preferentially hunt and have better documentation of hunting canids. Hell, there seems to be an equal number of anecdotal cases of Caracals hunting Martial Eagles as there are of Martial Eagles hunting Caracals.
There's a pretty big difference between hunting a passive herbivore and another carnivore relatively close in size.
You also didn't answer my question: Do you think that based on your belief the gap in strength between Deinonychus and an extant Jaguar or Leopard would be significantly greater than the gap in strength between a Jaguar or Leopard vs. a fit adult man?
Idk about the gap in strength.. It probably had stronger legs but weaker forearms? Stronger bite maybe.
I’m referring to overall strength and killing ability? Would a Leopard be closer in strength to an Athletic man whereas something like Deinonychus would be in its own league?
How about Varanids would they be closer to Dromaeosaurs or to Felids?
They seem to have been extremely successful and plentiful animals, and routinely punched way above their weight. I liken them to some of the modern mustelids in that regard. Sorry to hear about your mental breakdown though.
Mustelids don't have freakishly large skulls and are uniformly tiny. What about felids or varanids for example? And in the case that you'd say that Dromaeosaurs did punch harder above their weight than say Felids or Varanids, would you say that Felids and Varanids are closer to each other in strength while Dromaeosaurs were in their own league?
Mustelids do have big ass skulls. Look up a picture of a skull of a ferret. Almost zenomorph.
Here's what I'm referring to, a Honey Badger skeleton and a group of Cat Skeletals, and the Mustelid's skull is proportionately bigger but not by much.
Meanwhile, this is how large a Dromaeosaur skull is compared to its body
Most theropods minus some like abeliosaurids or noasaurids have giant noggins, and droms even more so. You’re definitely right.
But, try looking at a smaller mustelid like a stoat or ferret.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTv4WsfU8f8cLyNhg0YkCCV4ipeYSgxc6Z8v2O5pjeE87EtGrw16ssn2SuKL1695YtNjAKGqJnDvjke4PmJtCsNISwiPkKCSF-p5nfyJLSW&s=10
Having seen mustelid and felid skulls side-by-side, they don't look that much different in terms of proportional size to their body(barring Cats having much longer legs)
These kind of debates are completely meaningless. There is no objective superiority in nature. All that matters is how well adapted an animal is in the environment it lived in.
THANK YOU
I don’t think I’ve seen half the claims you just accused others of making
OP is just a mentally unstable person with zero nuance and a child-like mind. They love making shit up because they themselves admitted they lack the knowledge to properly comprehend scientific papers.
In the threads they made before, people have instead argued the opposite that dromaeosaurs were not inherently superior predators to mammals, but rather their adaptions for killing make them very suited for macropredation. If you value your time, I suggest not responding to the OP further
Except many people in those threads didn't just say very suited for macropredation but outright implied that they were superior to modern-day macropredators of the same size(even thought said animals hunt prey of similar size).
No one with a rational mind would say that a Wolf is an inferior or weaker carnivore than a Mountain Lion and vice-versa, nor would they say that a Hyena is weaker than a Lion, they'd point out that whatever cases where one won against the other is due to sheer size or numbers. However, on this sub and others people automatically say a bigger skull and Ziphodont teeth as if they want to imply that Deinonychus was objectively hunting way bigger animals and would easily win against modern carnivores, when I've never seen a scientific paper actually say that. The papers I have read do suggest that they are well-suited to macropredation with that degree of specialization varying amongst the species, but not that they are better or worse than modern predators.
What I don't like is that people take measurements and automatically power-scale these animals in the name of fighting a bias that pervades while deliberately ignoring that they're creating a new bias based on animals that have not only been dead for millions of years but also are animals that we have no idea how they behaved, how their muscles were attached, or their respiratory capacity.
The only power scaler here is you when everyone in this sub, r/dinosaurs, r/paleontology or any of these other subs you visit generally frown upon power scaling real world animals unless they were a child. It's been explained to you in great detail how dromaeosaurs aren't inherently better than modern day animals, especially felids, but if you refuse to listen, that's on you, not anyone else
Also thank you for calling me mentally unstable instead of maybe asking the OP if they needs help or if they're going through something, YOU DON'T KNOW ME.
Then why is it I literally see comment after comment here claiming they would beat any felid of the same size in a 1v1? Do you think that's not power-scaling?
People have provided in-depth explanations to you as to why raptors might have an edge in one to one combat with modern felids of equivalent sizes. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who is mentally challenged and is in dire need of therapy.
Saying a predator has a skull that is proportionally larger to its body size than another predator isn't "power scaling". That is literally comparing 1:1. Get out of your cradle and start learning what power scaling means
Let's give the example of Bears, Bears don't have particularly big skulls for their size or for macropredatory needs but they do have massive and maneuverable forelimbs that enable them to effectively grapple and take down ungulates their size or larger. A bigger skull does not automatically mean it will win, it means it was more reliant on its skull for predatory restraint and weakening compared to predators of today. And unlike say, Carnosaurs, Tyrannosaurs, or Phorusrhacids we don't really have any gauge as to weather or not Dromaeosaurs were nearly as as effective at using their necks to amplify any potential bite damage or effectively grapple in the same way. Maybe it was more effective at killing herbivores quicker, but it doesn't automatically mean that the Dromaeosaur would win against a predator that(while having a smaller skull) still had a bite more than capable of killing animals of that theropod's size.
We do not know how Dromaeosaurs behaved other than the fact that some of them hunted in groups. We have and will never have any idea how they interacted with other carnivorous theropods or pseudosuchians they might've coexisted with.
But again, I want to repeat, we do not know how well they could last in terms of endurance, we do not have any gauge on their reflexes, we don't have any gauge on how good their burst speed might be compared to extant predators, . Shit that actually does play a role in how modern macropredators interact with each other in intraspecific and interspecific competition. The main reason WHY I believe that a Deinonychus like animal might beat out a Felid or Ursine is solely because in general they were capable of reaching larger sizes than a Mountain Lion or Sun Bear.
What I'm against is the certainty. Paleontology is inherently a speculative discipline due to the paucity of data, so why dabble in certainty about how one animal would beat another animal when all we know is that both clades had a similar range of sizes and occupied similar niches?
At this point, you're just going to question the "authenticity" of the research we do have and when pointed irrefutable evidence, you're just going to get depressed and cry at not being smart enough to absorb the information from papers again. It's the same song and dance with you. What you are asking now is literally the same arguments you made months ago, which were refuted then. If you want attention, go find your mommy, I'm done
Ok, first question, are you a legitimate PHD with academic research published?
2nd, the vast majority of users who use research aren't exactly academics themselves and draw conclusions about these carnivores while refusing to go into research about the modern-carnivores they supposedly claim are lb-for-lb weaker.
3rd, Why are you so mad at me, I didn't insult you specifically nor am I verbally harassing anyone here. I want answers just as much as you feel certain in having them
You literally already came up with the first two before, try harder. As for the third, you're a waste of time to everyone. End of story
I feel like I see it everywhere. As long as you claim that you're going against "mammalian bias" you could say that Deinonychus was capable of regularly hunting leopards and mountain lions had they coexisted and you'd get no pushback or general skepticism.
No one says that.
I’ve never seen anyone say they can outrun felids. Quadrupedal stance is usually superior for pure explosive speed than a bipedal stance. (Unless it’s a sprawling stance like a lizard) To match the running speed of four legs, something with two legs would need very long legs, like an ostrich, but it would still be less explosive in terms of acceleration.
However, dromaeosaurs likely did have better endurance than most four legged animals, especially cats. I believe birds in general have superior endurance than mammals.
They were probably very agile too. Maybe not as agile as cats or like a leopard leaping on and off trees or walls, but generally able to leap high enough and make tight turns. (Maybe a good comparison would be like a roadrunner to a tiny cat?)
I think the grappling ability would also be pretty close to felids, as seen in the fighting dinosaurs fossil.
They would have had superior vision than any mammal as well. Other than primates, mammals aren’t known for great vision.
So where they are superior would be in pure weaponry, endurance, and vision.
Or maybe a hawk to a cat?
I get that Avemetatarstalians had better endurance on a basal level than mammals, but even mammals can evolve to be cursorial while there are dinosaurs that evolved to be more ambush-specialized.
If that is the case, how can we know for certain that Dromaeosaurs in general were genuinely speed-specialized in a manner that even surpasses canids and by how much are we talking about here? W.r.t to felids are we saying that Dromaeosaurs were 50% more cursorial, 100%, 200% better at chasing?
This is an area I'd definitely agree with
Again, how does the forelimb structure of a Dromaeosaur compare to that of an Ursid or Felid, would they have the same range motion and the ability to defensively swipe their paws in the same way?
Again, from what I have read in recent years dromaeosaurs are in fact not known for speed. They are only fast compared to some other larger dinosaurs. Despite their depiction in the Jurassic Park movies, recent research has indicated they didn’t have high top running speeds. However, they were still likely pretty agile with leaps and turns. Agility and speed are usually seen as two different things.
I don’t think they would have the same range of motion in their forelimbs as cats and bears, but still pretty good. I think the main advantage for their grappling is their hind limbs and feet being the primary weapons instead of forelimbs. It enables them to keep their vital areas, like their head and neck, farther away from danger when grappling and attacking with RPR than an animal primarily using its forelimbs and face to restrain and attack.
I’m pretty sure Felids have great vision though. But I can see where you are coming from.
Not that great during the day. They are near sighted.
This is my first time hearing about this, is there any peer reviewed studies going over this?
Didn’t look for peer reviewed but from cat vision wiki:
“They also have a high number of rods in their retina that are sensitive to dim light.[2] While these improve the ability to see in darkness and enable cats to see using roughly one-sixth the amount of light that humans need, they appear to reduce net visual acuity, thus detracting when light is abundant. A cat's visual acuity is anywhere from 20/100 to 20/200, which means a cat has to be at 6 metres to see what an average human can see at 20 or 30 metres. Cats seem to be nearsighted, which means they cannot see far objects as well.”
Eh, i disagree with the vision claim in a general sense. Color vision specifically? Absolutely, but many predatory mammals still have amazing eyesight with felids having a binocular field of 140 degrees compared to a dromaeosaur's 60 degrees(from what I could find for both of them.)
Predatory mammals, or any non-primate mammal, actually do not have great eyesight during the day. Most of them are near-sighted. Most Herbivore mammals have especially poor eyesight. Cats have great night vision, but that’s about it. Mammals primarily hunt with smell and sound. Modern birds have the best eye sight of any animal today. Theropods, like T-Rex had the best eye sight of any animal period and dromeaosaurs likely had about the same ability.
Seems like awesome bro power scaling to me.
Like said before, theyre probably superior to most other predators ( except maybe things like piatnitzkysaurs and etc ) in a parity fight, but that's not all that matters
I mean, what about something like a Proceratosaur, Terror Bird, or Alioramine Tyrannosaur?
Terror birds are impressive and they're pretty similar to dromaeosaurs superficially but as a whole i would not favor them. They have the advantage of a naturally higher stance and ( depending on the dromaeosaur ) longer feet, as well as likely better able to guve blunt force trauma with their skulls, and although probably a useless advantage due to their size but the arms of phorusrachids are more flexible than dromaeosaurids. With that said, the proportionally large skulls, wide gapes, ziphodont teeth and neck powered bite of dromaeosaurs outclass them. Dromaeosaurs also have more developed foot claws and actually usable forelimbs, and larger dromaeosaurs are a bit more robust ( except maybe devincenzia ), and the neck of most terror birds just seem to be unfortunately conveniently placed to be easily abused by a dromaeosaur. ( kicks are the saving grace for that situation )
I don't see anything particularly notable about alioramine tyrannosaurs , unless I don't know something. They have obviously smaller forelimbs, although probably longer feet. And their bite, while probably deadly, isn't much to write home about afaik. Even with that they'd probably still be able to kill a similar sized dromaeosaur, but probably not as often as the other way around i think
Proceratosauridae is one of those theropod groups that has many dromaeosaur sized theropods so we can say that most of them can be considered to be part of that whole "small-mid" size theropod form, which i would generally say are some of the most impressive predators pound for pound, I just think dromaeosaurs particularly have an overall edge due to their weaponry with foot claws.
Obviously these are generalizations, can't really say concretely because dromaeosaur and proceratosaurs specifically have a lot of variation in morphology between members. Suffice to say there are definitely at least some theropod groups/species that would rival dromaeosaurs, such as piatnitskysaurids which could be both more robust in morphology than pretty much all dromaeosaurs ( even utahraptor ) and with freakishly huge hands/claws. But there isn't really enough information to confirm that. And smok if that's a dinosaur. And then there are also avian raptors if we count them, even tho they're kind of glass cannons. And then outside of dinosaurs there are several archosaurs and other reptiles that rival them, and quite a few mammalian groups such as machairodonts. But if we were to have like a tier list solely for fighting ability at parity size, dromaeosaurs would probably be A or S tier. Esp for things like shri rapax and utahraptor
Would you say that modern mammalian predators, especially ambush-based ones are more of a C or B tier, with maybe Varanids in that A-tier category as well?
In their environments they did their niche. And did it better than modern predators would have. Because they were adapted for that. The other way around goes the exact same. There is no superior hunter.
This is what I believe in, but so many users like to bring up bigger skulls or claws as if these animals could be properly power-scaled and that there were no limitations to an animal that we know way less of because they're extinct and have been extinct for millions of years.
I feel like this depends on the hunting style of the raptors in question. The big raptors like utahraptor (particularly utahraptor) probably weren't grapplers and just used their heads to kill like other large therapods alongside not being social. This would leave them vulnerable to big cats and bears since once say a grizzly or tiger pinned it that's game over and while they have a much stronger bite than the likes of hyenas and canids they would lack the numbers to deal with them. The only mammalian top order carnivores I could see bulky dromaeosaurs actually outcompeting is creodonts like megistotherium and hyeanodon since they weren't social and did just use big jaws to kill. The smaller raptors would fare better since they were built to climb, grapple, and run through cover, all things that would essentially make them seriemas from Hell.
No. They weren't fast, and their bites weren't particularly strong. The "evidence" that they hunted in packs is now regarded as suspect. However, they were agile and they got strong feet in which those infamous large claws simply gave them good grip.
About the pack huntining we actually have a lot of evidence for deinonychus being one, tracks of various individuals of different ages all movining together side by side, various individuals found dead together and the most solid one is tenontosaurus bones with deinonychus theeth belongning to different individuals, btw a full grown tenontosaurus would be Either extremily hard for a single deinonychus to take down to even impossible for one single of these to take down, really don't know why deinonychus isn't already considered a pack hunter, just like in other theropods with evidence of pack huntining it is pretty much just pure outdated mammal superior, reptile dumb to work in packs.
People exaggerate cats compared to most cynodonts, and dromeosaurs have a somewhat similarly agile build compared to most theropods, so yeah, kind of. I usually don't see people pitting and arguing over Coelophysis against Epicyon, or Arctodus against Megaraptor.