This cagematch was inspired by David Attenborough's enthusiastic description of the Vampire Squid.... FROM HELL. We knew it would only be a matter of time before we found an appropriate opponent for the vampire squid. Sure enough, the recent discovery of giant frog fossils in Madagascar unearthed the perfect opponent: Beelzebufo ampinga, the Devil Toad FROM HELL can surely give Vampyroteuthis infernalis, the Vampire Squid FROM HELL a run for his money.
Reaching up to 40cm in length and weighing in at 4kg, Beelzebufo was a dry-land frog who lived during the Cretaceous period and was likely able to gobble down juvenile dinosaurs for breakfast. In contrast, Vampyroteuthis is a deep-sea cephalopod related to octopi and squid, reaching a maximum of 30cm in length. Lack of oxygen at depth means that Vampyroteuthis has slow metabolism and weak musculature; defensive strategies include a strong beak, fleshy spines, and confusing bioluminescent displays.
Assuming we could establish a pressure, temperature, and salinity at which both competitors could survive (which obviously isn't happening), my money is on the frog. I don't think that a flashy light show would deter the devil toad from slurping down a squid or five for dessert after a main course of baby velociraptors. CHOMP CHOMP.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Fourth Cage Match: Superb Lyrebird vs. Kea (special southern edition)
In honour of our colleague Obdurodon who has recently joined the blog, this cagematch pits against each other two birds from south of the equator. In one corner we have the Superb Lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae), the third largest songbird in the world (males can reach one metre in length). Native to Australia, the Lyrebird is a skilled mimic, imitating anything from chainsaws and car alarms to crying babies and gunshots.
In the other corner is the Kea (Nestor notabilis), an alpine parrot from the south island of New Zealand. Half the size of the Lyrebird (about 50cm), the Kea is a known troublemaker to farmers and tourists. This curious and playful "clown of the mountains" has been known to cause serious damage to vehicles by eating out the rubber seals around windows. On a more sinister note, the Kea has been observed to tear flesh off the backs of live sheep during stealthy nocturnal attacks... creepy. (On a side note, how incredibly lame are these sheep not to defend themselves from some pesky little birds?)
In any case, as cool as the lyrebird sounds, I'm not sure how useful mimicry would be in a cagematch... Maybe in some sort of stealthy distraction maneuver involving waving its very pretty tail feathers? After all, being Superb must count for something. I shall open this up to my colleagues for debate...
GGS: Once again, the parameters of the cage could play a part in the outcome of this one. While the Kea is much more vicious, if the cage were designed in such a way that the lyre bird could hide and mimic a chainsaw, perhaps it could scare the Kea in a Texas chainsaw massacre kind of way.
In the other corner is the Kea (Nestor notabilis), an alpine parrot from the south island of New Zealand. Half the size of the Lyrebird (about 50cm), the Kea is a known troublemaker to farmers and tourists. This curious and playful "clown of the mountains" has been known to cause serious damage to vehicles by eating out the rubber seals around windows. On a more sinister note, the Kea has been observed to tear flesh off the backs of live sheep during stealthy nocturnal attacks... creepy. (On a side note, how incredibly lame are these sheep not to defend themselves from some pesky little birds?)
In any case, as cool as the lyrebird sounds, I'm not sure how useful mimicry would be in a cagematch... Maybe in some sort of stealthy distraction maneuver involving waving its very pretty tail feathers? After all, being Superb must count for something. I shall open this up to my colleagues for debate...
GGS: Once again, the parameters of the cage could play a part in the outcome of this one. While the Kea is much more vicious, if the cage were designed in such a way that the lyre bird could hide and mimic a chainsaw, perhaps it could scare the Kea in a Texas chainsaw massacre kind of way.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Third Cage Match: Rock Wallaby vs. Mountain Goat
In North America we are familiar with the Rocky Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus), a four legged ungulate that climbs the peaks of the Rockies... It should not have come as a surprise that a marsupial would have filled this niche in Australia. However, seeing the Rock Wallaby (genus Petrogale) recently on a nature documentary was just too much. How do those guys not fall over on their faces when hopping around on steep ledges? Apparently their feet are adapted with grippy skin soles instead of claws, who knew.
The adult male Rock Wallaby generally has a combined body/tail length of 1-1.3m and a mass of 5-7kg, while the adult male Mountain Goat stands about 1m at the shoulder and weighs 45-100kg. The goat's pointy horns (30cm long) should also be noted. While we already stated that the wallaby lacks claws, we also suspect that we shouldn't ignore those childhood cartoons of boxing kangaroos... they must be based in fact, right?
So, do we think that the goat will just sit on the wallaby and call it a day, or would the little guy have the advantage of agility to give the goat a smack upside the head with its sturdy little tail and knock it off the mountain entirely? (Obviously this cagematch would be on a rocky cliff). I'd like to root for the wallaby in this competition, especially if it was the kind with a ringed tail like a lemur. They are just so much cuter than mountain goats, they deserve to win on that basis alone!
GGS: Unfortunately I must point out to my otherwise brilliant colleague that cuteness is not a factor that can aid an individual in winning a cage match. If that were the case, we would see results such as a baby beaver winning against a crocodile in a cage match. My vote goes for size backed up behind pointy horns.
GTP: After consultation with my colleague Obdurodon who is in fact Australian, I have confirmation that kangaroos and wallabies are good boxers, and that rock wallabies and feral goats are a fair match on the rocky outcrops of the outback. She kindly brought in the following source which states "[the wallaby's] habitat is overrun by feral goats which compete with it for water, food and shelter." Perhaps it's not over yet for the feisty rock wallaby.
GGS: Hmm... how much does a feral goat truly differ from a formerly-domesticated-lovable-ungulate that you would happily allow your infant to play with in the yard?... A true mountain goat has sharp pointy horns, and a feisty temper with which to leap upon the unsuspecting wallaby, piercing it's opponent before the wallaby has a chance to get a kick-box in.
GTP: Now look who's playing the "cute and loveable" card... I hardly think you would let your infant play with a feral goat.
The adult male Rock Wallaby generally has a combined body/tail length of 1-1.3m and a mass of 5-7kg, while the adult male Mountain Goat stands about 1m at the shoulder and weighs 45-100kg. The goat's pointy horns (30cm long) should also be noted. While we already stated that the wallaby lacks claws, we also suspect that we shouldn't ignore those childhood cartoons of boxing kangaroos... they must be based in fact, right?
So, do we think that the goat will just sit on the wallaby and call it a day, or would the little guy have the advantage of agility to give the goat a smack upside the head with its sturdy little tail and knock it off the mountain entirely? (Obviously this cagematch would be on a rocky cliff). I'd like to root for the wallaby in this competition, especially if it was the kind with a ringed tail like a lemur. They are just so much cuter than mountain goats, they deserve to win on that basis alone!
GGS: Unfortunately I must point out to my otherwise brilliant colleague that cuteness is not a factor that can aid an individual in winning a cage match. If that were the case, we would see results such as a baby beaver winning against a crocodile in a cage match. My vote goes for size backed up behind pointy horns.
GTP: After consultation with my colleague Obdurodon who is in fact Australian, I have confirmation that kangaroos and wallabies are good boxers, and that rock wallabies and feral goats are a fair match on the rocky outcrops of the outback. She kindly brought in the following source which states "[the wallaby's] habitat is overrun by feral goats which compete with it for water, food and shelter." Perhaps it's not over yet for the feisty rock wallaby.
GGS: Hmm... how much does a feral goat truly differ from a formerly-domesticated-lovable-ungulate that you would happily allow your infant to play with in the yard?... A true mountain goat has sharp pointy horns, and a feisty temper with which to leap upon the unsuspecting wallaby, piercing it's opponent before the wallaby has a chance to get a kick-box in.
GTP: Now look who's playing the "cute and loveable" card... I hardly think you would let your infant play with a feral goat.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
The second cage match: General Sherman vs. the blue whale
My colleague Giant Ground Sloth proposed this cage match after a viewing of David Attenborough's Planet Earth. After the ensuing discussion, I was inspired to start this blog and invite GGS as my co-author.
General Sherman is a Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) located in Sequoia National Park, California, and is generally thought to be the world's largest living organism. It is 84m high and has a circumference of 31m at its base. The Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is thought to be the largest animal that has ever lived, and can reach a length of 33m.
My initial thought was that General Sherman may have the size advantage in this particular cage match. However, the discussion quickly became heated:
GGS: I agree that General Sherman has the advantage of superior size with which to pummel the blue whale off the face of the earth, but he is limited by mobility.
GTP: A sack of blubber flopping around on shore does not constitute a real mobility advantage against the stately, grand General Sherman.
GGS: The stately, grand General Sherman may be at a disadvantage once the sack of blubber is re-submersed in it’s aquatic environment.
Then, Giant Ground Sloth's partner weighed in on the discussion:
Due to the fact that the habitats of these organisms are vastly different, a fair cage match would have to be decided in a best of 3 format; one match would take place underwater (Blue Whale home ice advantage); a second would take place in the forest (General Sherman home ice advantage); and the final battle would take place in an area composed of both ocean and land.
More specifically, the third arena would consist of a shallow ocean with an island in the middle on which General Sherman would be perched. Only in this format could we be guaranteed a fair fight. My bet: Now that we have the balance of 3 arenas of battle I can say for certain that Sherman would win the land battle, the Blue Whale the underwater battle and due to the ability of the whale to breach at a high speed with extreme force, it would win the final battle.
I, however, was not convinced:
GTP: I disagree on the outcome of the final battle... I do not believe that the Blue Whale has the agility to breach with speed and force required to injure General Sherman. The attempt to breach and destroy General Sherman would only result in the whale beaching itself. Unable to flop its way back to the water, the whale would die a slow, uncomfortable death, while General Sherman would not have to lift so much as a twig in achieving victory. The benevolent redwood would, however, provide shade to the blue whale in its final hours, making its death somewhat less unpleasant.
Another guest expert, my father, pointed out that in the third battle arena (small island in shallow sea), the whale could repeatedly squirt salt water on General Sherman, ultimately killing it with the high salinity. However, if the whale was not vigilant in watching the dead, weakened tree, it could be squashed flat itself when General Sherman ultimately topples over.
This one seems to be a draw at this point.
General Sherman is a Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) located in Sequoia National Park, California, and is generally thought to be the world's largest living organism. It is 84m high and has a circumference of 31m at its base. The Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) is thought to be the largest animal that has ever lived, and can reach a length of 33m.
My initial thought was that General Sherman may have the size advantage in this particular cage match. However, the discussion quickly became heated:
GGS: I agree that General Sherman has the advantage of superior size with which to pummel the blue whale off the face of the earth, but he is limited by mobility.
GTP: A sack of blubber flopping around on shore does not constitute a real mobility advantage against the stately, grand General Sherman.
GGS: The stately, grand General Sherman may be at a disadvantage once the sack of blubber is re-submersed in it’s aquatic environment.
Then, Giant Ground Sloth's partner weighed in on the discussion:
Due to the fact that the habitats of these organisms are vastly different, a fair cage match would have to be decided in a best of 3 format; one match would take place underwater (Blue Whale home ice advantage); a second would take place in the forest (General Sherman home ice advantage); and the final battle would take place in an area composed of both ocean and land.
More specifically, the third arena would consist of a shallow ocean with an island in the middle on which General Sherman would be perched. Only in this format could we be guaranteed a fair fight. My bet: Now that we have the balance of 3 arenas of battle I can say for certain that Sherman would win the land battle, the Blue Whale the underwater battle and due to the ability of the whale to breach at a high speed with extreme force, it would win the final battle.
I, however, was not convinced:
GTP: I disagree on the outcome of the final battle... I do not believe that the Blue Whale has the agility to breach with speed and force required to injure General Sherman. The attempt to breach and destroy General Sherman would only result in the whale beaching itself. Unable to flop its way back to the water, the whale would die a slow, uncomfortable death, while General Sherman would not have to lift so much as a twig in achieving victory. The benevolent redwood would, however, provide shade to the blue whale in its final hours, making its death somewhat less unpleasant.
Another guest expert, my father, pointed out that in the third battle arena (small island in shallow sea), the whale could repeatedly squirt salt water on General Sherman, ultimately killing it with the high salinity. However, if the whale was not vigilant in watching the dead, weakened tree, it could be squashed flat itself when General Sherman ultimately topples over.
This one seems to be a draw at this point.
The first cage match: Giant tropical penguin vs. giant ground sloth
The beginnings of this cagematch have been lost to the ether, but the basic question was: Who would win in a cagematch between the giant tropical penguin Icadyptes salasi (a 1.5m tall penguin that lived 36 million years ago in what is now Peru) and the giant ground sloth Megatherium americanum (a 6m sloth that lived 1.9 million - 8000 years ago with distribution from Argentina to Texas).
Initially, this author (Giant Tropical Penguin or GTP) thought that the faster-moving penguin might have a slight mobility advantage over the slow, lumbering sloth. However, my colleague favoured the sloth for reasons described below, and shall hereby be referred to as Giant Ground Sloth (or GGS).
GGS: But... the giant ground sloth was up to 12 feet tall, and though it would inevitably have moved slowly, could a 6 foot tall giant tropical penguin actually catch it? Hmmm... yeah, probably, I'll still put my money on the penguin... but the size advantage yielding a larger distance covered by a sloth (even slow moving), might be a point in the sloth's favour. Unless an entire colony of giant tropical penguins ganged up on a ground sloth and surrounded it...
GTP: We do also need to consider the space limitation of the cage. Is distance moved even a factor for the sloth?
GGS: Hmm... you make a good point... Perhaps instead of distance we may take into consideration body mass. The giant sloth could just fall over onto the giant penguin and squish it.
GTP: If the sloth carelessly sat on the penguin, the sharp pointy beak could cause major internal bleeding in the sloth, therefore turning the cagematch into a gruesome double murder.
GGS: It the sloth fell on the penguin in a non-careless manner, it might prevent a gruesome double murder and kill the penguin, sever it's beak and now have a weapon with which it could attack more penguins.
GTP: That is diabolical, killing giant tropical penguins with one of their own.
GGS: Diabolical but brilliant.
Looks like round one goes to the giant ground sloth.
Initially, this author (Giant Tropical Penguin or GTP) thought that the faster-moving penguin might have a slight mobility advantage over the slow, lumbering sloth. However, my colleague favoured the sloth for reasons described below, and shall hereby be referred to as Giant Ground Sloth (or GGS).
GGS: But... the giant ground sloth was up to 12 feet tall, and though it would inevitably have moved slowly, could a 6 foot tall giant tropical penguin actually catch it? Hmmm... yeah, probably, I'll still put my money on the penguin... but the size advantage yielding a larger distance covered by a sloth (even slow moving), might be a point in the sloth's favour. Unless an entire colony of giant tropical penguins ganged up on a ground sloth and surrounded it...
GTP: We do also need to consider the space limitation of the cage. Is distance moved even a factor for the sloth?
GGS: Hmm... you make a good point... Perhaps instead of distance we may take into consideration body mass. The giant sloth could just fall over onto the giant penguin and squish it.
GTP: If the sloth carelessly sat on the penguin, the sharp pointy beak could cause major internal bleeding in the sloth, therefore turning the cagematch into a gruesome double murder.
GGS: It the sloth fell on the penguin in a non-careless manner, it might prevent a gruesome double murder and kill the penguin, sever it's beak and now have a weapon with which it could attack more penguins.
GTP: That is diabolical, killing giant tropical penguins with one of their own.
GGS: Diabolical but brilliant.
Looks like round one goes to the giant ground sloth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
