| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Tyrannosaurus rex v Ankylosaurus magniventris | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 28 2012, 10:08 PM (48,653 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jan 28 2012, 10:08 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus rex Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago. It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes. ![]() Ankylosaurus magniventris Ankylosaurus is a genus of ankylosaurid dinosaur, containing one species, A. magniventris. Fossils of Ankylosaurus are found in geologic formations dating to the very end of the Cretaceous Period (about 66.5–65.5 Ma ago) in western North America. Although a complete skeleton has not been discovered and several other dinosaurs are represented by more extensive fossil material, Ankylosaurus is often considered the archetypal armored dinosaur. Other ankylosaurids shared its well-known features—the heavily-armored body and massive bony tail club—but Ankylosaurus was the largest known member of the family. In comparison with modern land animals the adult Ankylosaurus was very large. Some scientists have estimated a length of 9 meters (30 ft). Another reconstruction suggests a significantly smaller size, at 6.25 m (20.5 ft) long, up to 1.5 m (5 ft) wide and about 1.7 m (5.5 ft) high at the hip. Ankylosaurus may have weighed over 6,000 kilograms (13,000 lb), making it one of the heaviest armored dinosaurs yet discovered. The body shape was low-slung and quite wide. It was quadrupedal, with the hind limbs longer than the forelimbs. Although its feet are still unknown, comparisons with other ankylosaurids suggest Ankylosaurus probably had five toes on each foot. The skull was low and triangular in shape, wider than it was long. The largest known skull measures 64.5 centimeters (25 in) long and 74.5 cm (29 in) wide. ![]() ______________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, May 25 2018, 11:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 20 2014, 12:13 PM Post #211 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
1. I never said it exceeded 7 tons. When you said 5 tons, I said I remembered higher estimates. Then when you said 23 tons was a load of bull, I merely asked you to explain. "Common sense" is not a logical argument. 2. You're right, I didn't give evidence, I gave reasoning. If I recall correctly, your arguments were based on the idea that the scorpion's tail had a purpose other than defense, and that scorpions were anatomically different. Both of which, by the way, were irrelevant. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 20 2014, 12:26 PM Post #212 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i'm sorry...is a scorpions tail( made up of cartilagenous material) not dissimilar to an ankylosaurus tail? scorpions utilize their tails in hunting, the venom partially softening the preys innards, which aids in digestion. defensive purposes, though useful, are secondary. ankys tail is PRIMARILY a dedensive weapon, if not its only purpose. you're drawing a parellel between to completely different animals, with different defensive weaponry, which is made up of a completely different substance, while ignoring that ungulates have similar defensive weaponry, made of the same material, serving the same purpose, only on the opposite end of the animal. but somehow, the scorpion is the better analogy do you see the hole in your logic?
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 20 2014, 12:49 PM Post #213 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Firstly, you're confusing scorpions with spiders. Scorpion venom when used against prey is solely for killing, and scorpions try to avoid using venom whenever they can, preferring to use brute force. Secondly, its purpose in hunting is irrelevant and its substance is irrelevant. It is a weaponized tail that is one of its most important defensive assets, and that is what matters here. And yes, being on different sides of the body makes horns and tails very different, but as I've said before it's not even just that. Horns are rigid and attached firmly to the head; tails are structurally more similar to necks than to horns, even if they are armored. And no, they are not made of "the same material". All horns I know of are comprised of keratin, not flesh. The only similarity there is they both have interior bones. Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 12:50 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 20 2014, 01:06 PM Post #214 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
no, im not confusing scorpions with spiders. it depends on the species. some, with the bulbous, enlarged claws rely on their claws more then their venom.us the tincy pincered species with a bulbous stinger, those rely on venom to make up for the small pincers. or are you going to say this is irrelevant, now? anything i state is incorrect solely because it doesn't go with your argument cheers, matefyi, horns are bones at the core, guess what ankys club is made of? there goes your argument. Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 20 2014, 01:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 20 2014, 01:13 PM Post #215 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whether they rely on venom or not does not change anything. They do prefer using their claws alone as venom is intensive to produce, and their venom was not for digesting their prey. Many species of spider do use digestive enzymes to help consume their prey, but this was because those particular spiders were usually not able to eat their prey whole and had to liquefy their prey's insides to consume it. Scorpions do not need digestive enzymes, and their venom is not for digesting their prey.
Did I not say they both had bones? I think I did. Besides, I was speaking for the tail as a whole, not the club alone. Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 01:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 20 2014, 01:28 PM Post #216 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
you need to read my posts more carefully, i said aided in digestion- the digestive enzymes in its saliva actually digest the prey item. your posts make no sense, and i'm tired of going back and forth with you, when you can't understand simple concepts. |
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 20 2014, 01:33 PM Post #217 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Digestion is the process of breaking down food into smaller components to be more easily absorbed by the body. If, as you say, the venom increased the rate of breakdown within the organism's body intended for consumption, that is digestion, even if it doesn't take place inside the scorpion's own body. Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 20 2014, 01:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 21 2014, 01:43 AM Post #218 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
my apologies for lack of sources, got my laptop and now we're good to go ![]() http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03051664#page-1 I think you need to brush up on arachnid feeding habits.Scorpions are arachnids, contrary to what you appear to think, and also share the same feeding strategies. Once again, the dependancy of venom to dispatch prey is related to the species. For example, a large pincered, small stinger species, the emperor scorpion rely on brute strength to dismember prey. Their sting has been likened to a bee sting. Slender pincered species tend to have bulbous stingers, and are much more dangerous http://www.ntnu.no/ub/scorpion-files/faq.php Of the 1,500 species of scorpions worldwide, only about 20 to 25 are regarded as dangerous. Moreover, to further my point, Scorpions use "pincers first, stinger second". Because, you're right, enom is a precious resource it needs to reserve for hunting http://animals.pawnation.com/scorpion-protects-itself-2178.html My source for Tyrannosaurus bite force coming nowhere close to 23 tons(something you seemed to believe from the get go; Establishing maximum bite force of Tyrannosaurus using body mechanics Abstract; Bite mechanics and feeding behaviour in Tyrannosaurus rex are controversial. Some contend that a modest bite mechanically limited T. rex to scavenging, while others argue that high bite forces facilitated a predatory mode of life. We use dynamic musculoskeletal models to simulate maximal biting in T. rex. Models predict that adult T. rex generated sustained bite forces of 35 000–57 000 N (8,317 lbs = 4 tons - 12,814 lbs= 6 tons) at a single posterior tooth, by far the highest bite forces estimated for any terrestrial animal. Scaling analyses suggest that adult T. rex had a strong bite for its body size, and that bite performance increased allometrically during ontogeny. Positive allometry in bite performance during growth may have facilitated an ontogenetic change in feeding behaviour in T. rex, associated with an expansion of prey range in adults to include the largest contemporaneous animals. I suppose you can't point me to anything higher then that? Now, onto Anky's tail.. http://cjes.geoscienceworld.org/content/41/8/961/F14.large.jpg You claimed that Tyrannosaurus was going to "bite it off" how, would you suppose it do that? that thick of bone being swung at high velocity, even if it's at the 'end of the swing' is not just going to be caught by the tyrannosaurus. I suppose you think Anky is just going to let the Tyrannosaurus catch its only defensive weapon? ![]() It's safe to say that Anky swung that tail with some agility. And the force behind it would surely break the jaw of a Tyrannosaurus foolish enough to try to disable it. As to your point on Anky's tail not being that "well armored" ![]() It seems to be well armored enough to prevent a tyrannosaurus from "biting it off" One last thing; How you appear to think that Ungulate horns, though surrounded by keratin, aren't a good analogy for the club of Ankylosaurus is beyond me. It appears your argument hinges solely on the fact that the scorpions "defensive appendage" is on its tail, which i've stated above is not the primary reason for the stinger. You can go on and on about how irrelevent it is, but it's not because you haven't provided any sort of evidence to support your argument, besides "reasoning" which had no base to begin with. http://books.google.com/books?id=aJUART__UF8C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=ankylosaurus+tail+similarities+to+ungulate+horns&source=bl&ots=pO2GRikmAX&sig=cAY3B7GEvLT46piOWJ20xHIQxn8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mDNFVKqMOdG0yASI1oKIDw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=ankylosaurus%20tail%20similarities%20to%20ungulate%20horns&f=false This is a good read, and i suggest you do so because you clearly don't have an understanding of defensive mechanisms in extant or extinct prey animals and/or why they evolved. Edited by Taipan, Jul 13 2015, 06:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 21 2014, 07:00 AM Post #219 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Edited by Taipan, Jul 13 2015, 06:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 21 2014, 08:47 AM Post #220 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
there's no insults in my post. why you imply that, or that i didn't know the difference between spiders and scorpions in order to dismiss my points, i have no clue. but, that's the reason i've stayed on the subject this long. you've provided 'evidence' in the form of reasoning. that's good and all, but you haven't provided documents to back it up. thus, i take most of it with a grain of salt. no offense intended. keratin =/= bone, you've stated horns are comprised of bone, and now they're comprised of keratin? it's one or the other.(minus one or so exceptions) yes, that book goes on about defensive mechanisms in extant and extinct herbivorous animals. i never stated it was part of my argument, merely you should take a look. that's your assumption, take it as you will. as i've stated, i have yet to see any basis for your claims other then reasoning. can you post sources for the claims of; - tyrannosaurus is going to bite through the osteoderms of ankylosaurus' tail - a scorpion tail being analogous to ankylosaurus' tail -ungulate horns not being analagous to ankys' tail - the tail of anky not being well armored it's fine to make claims, but it's best if you have evidence backing it up. Edited by Ceratodromeus, Oct 21 2014, 09:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 21 2014, 09:49 AM Post #221 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, I never said horns were made of bones entirely, I said they had interior bones. And I also did not say they were made of keratin entirely, just that they were made of keratin. Horns are made of solid bone and solid keratin in a single, rigid piece. But enough of that. Either way, it seems this debate has proved indecisive. I am exhausted of this. I have given my reasoning and examples, but if that does not convince you then I do not know what will. I don't know what I would need to convince you, and frankly I think convincing you is a lost cause. Tyrannosaurus biting off a triceratops horn is not enough to convince you, modern predators severing a scorpion's tail is not enough to convince you, the relatively thin nature of the osteoderms on the tail is not enough to convince you, etcetera. In fact, I am so worn out that I do not even feel like trying to convince anyone else, even though all my reasoning concludes the idea of tyrannosaurus biting the ankylosaurus's tail to disable it to be a most distinct possibility. I still do not understand why you consider the modern analogy of a lion not biting an ungulate's horns to be more valid than a contemporaneous analogy of a tyrannosaurus biting the horns and frills of a triceratops, or the modern analogy of a predator severing a scorpion's tail, but it seems I won't be able to convince you. And so, I'm going to stop trying. Edited by Dilophosaurus, Oct 21 2014, 09:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 21 2014, 10:17 AM Post #222 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
fair enough bout the horn thing. evidence. evidence would convince me, but you can't seem to provide any. assumptions appear to be quite abundant on your part. i used the lion analogy to show they don't attack preys defensive weaponry, i did the same with examples of wolves, leopards, etc. fact of the matter is, predators don't attack their preys defensive weaponry, as stated by me and others. you used a scorpion for an analogy, and made claims with no evidence to support them, and still haven't for that matter, instead claiming you're 'worn out' if you provided Anything supporting these ideas, it would be a much different story. you won't convince me of anything you've claimed primarily because you haven't produced any evidence other then your 'reasoning'. you think it's hard trying to convince me with this“evidence”? good luck with the majority of members here. cheers. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 21 2014, 08:03 PM Post #223 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Horns can be made out of keratin (e.g. rhino) or surrounded by keratin like a claw (e.g. bovines, ceratopsians). These are very different things, but both are caller horns. @dilophosaurus: Do you have any information on the "comparatively thin nature of the osteoderms" or are you just guessing? Not saying that tail would not be vulnerable to a bite if it was caught, but its still a very thick piece of bone, adapted to resist its own impact, and its covered in osteoderms that would surely make biting it more difficult. It does fit in a T. rex' mouth, but that doesn't mean it can just be snapped off easily. As regards the inertia, I'd suggest you let someone swing a hammer at you and see whether you can catch it. Sure, the club has a lot of inertia, but would it really surprise you that a T. rex' head has too? And in addition to placing a bite being more difficult than grabbing something (which would already be difficult enough), and its skull being massive and likely far slower than the Ankylosaurus' tail (which has a stiff shaft-section and all the musculature concentrated near the base for a reason!), it would have to move its body in order to reach the club, unless it was within the club's reach before. Surely you will agree that all this will take much longer than for the Ankylosaurus to simply flex the tail back. Edited by theropod, Oct 21 2014, 08:05 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 22 2014, 02:26 AM Post #224 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 22 2014, 02:42 AM Post #225 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That really doesn’t tell us much. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:24 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)









![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
then you went on about how my arguments are 'irrelevant' and invalid without giving evidence! keep in mind that only occured because i called into question your scorpion example which is baseless and false. i've stated reasons why/how my claims have a basis. yours however, do not.
do you see the hole in your logic?



2:24 AM Jul 14