all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 50 points 2 months ago (1 child)

I had a hard time resolving the front legs:

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    teeth would tell you it’s prey

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Teeth will tell you about the animal's own diet - not whether it's being preyed upon. Carnivores and omnivores are preyed on as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    aren’t most obligate carnivores not directly eaten often?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It depends a bit on your scope. If you think of obligate carnivores as typically very large, possibly apex predators, then they might not be preyed on much in the traditional sense. But carnivores also number insects, arachnids, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and lots of smaller mammals like weasels, bats or cats that are themselves prey to other animals.

    The point is that being 'predator' does not exclude an animal from also being prey. 'Predator' and 'prey' describe relationships, not mutually exclusive categories.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    i get the point you are making, and i concede it

    but i was specifically thinking mammal given the context and for which teeth would make it obvious

    even the smaller ones, cats in natural habitats come to mind are apex, and i remember learning the avoidance of eating them had to do with parasite avoidance when other food was available

    I did not realize weasels were obligate carnivores and bats were a great example as well

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    *eye placement not teeth.

    Prey animals have eyes on the sides of their head for better peripheral vision. Predators have eyes on the front for hunting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Is that skeleton actually from a rabbit, or is it a hare? There's not a huge difference, but hares definitely look way more like the drawing (minus the ears) than rabbits do.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    So my take away is that some dinosaurs probably had floppy ears.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago*

    *What the animal's skeleton looks like.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Sure. But to be fair, you take the fur off a bunny and it looks pretty similar to the scientist's aproximation.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Get the holy hand grenade!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Maybe that’s how artists without a scientific background would recreate the animal but that’s not how scientists would recreate the animal.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, the skeleton looks as scared of the world as the bunny does, and the underfeathered reconstruction also has a vibe of mortal terror

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Have you shaved a rabbit?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago
    [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • 73 comments in c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world view that post