| 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 (48,652 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 22 2014, 02:47 AM Post #226 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It shows you that the tail osteoderms (in white) are widely spaced apart and thinner than the vertebrae itself. If that is not relatively thin, then I don't know what would be. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 22 2014, 03:25 AM Post #227 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don’t think I know any animal whose osteoderms are thicker than its vertebrae, unless you count Stegosaurus’ plates and tail spikes, but those are not forming armour, so… Being widely spaced is not the issue, they must have been embedded in a tough, keratinous skin, similar to crocodilians’. You cannot imagine that armour as some scattered, isolated pieces of bone sticking out of it. And yes, the distal part of the tail in fact is relatively thin, but also very heavily ankylosed. That’s in fact what would allow it to be accelerated very quickly. Edited by theropod, Oct 22 2014, 03:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 22 2014, 03:41 AM Post #228 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The armor of the tail might not be relatively thin compared to other animals, but it was relatively thin compared to the rest of ankylosaurus. Tyrannosaurus would not have had a problem with those osteoderms and some thick skin. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 22 2014, 03:46 AM Post #229 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
being 'relatively thin' compared to the osteoderms, say, on the ankylosaurus' back doesn't equate to them be thin and easy for the jaws of tyrannosaurus to crush, though. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 22 2014, 04:15 AM Post #230 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not to mention that even if Tyrannosaurus was able to bite the distal end of the tail and damage it, the attempt to do so would just be plain stupid. Especially when keeping in mind what theropod said about acceleration. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 22 2014, 07:07 AM Post #231 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yup, that was the important part. Biting a swinging Ankylosaurus tail is among the stupidest things for a predator to do, and will very likely result in a few badly broken skull bones and teeth. Far more promising to rush in and hope to hit some less dangerous part before the Ankylosaurus hits your legs. That’s at least possible and exploiting the ankylosaur’s limited reach. and short stature. Edited by theropod, Oct 22 2014, 07:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 22 2014, 10:15 AM Post #232 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you seriously believe ankylosaurus could move its tail faster than tyrannosaurus could move its head? That's just... what. I can't even comprehend that. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 22 2014, 10:28 AM Post #233 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
what you aren't getting is that ankylosaurus has the ability to swing it's tail quite rapidly, no one said it could swing its tail faster then T.rex could move its head - which is possible due to the points of acceleration and inertia brought up by theropod - the fact remains attacking ankylosaurus' tail is incredibly stupid, as the risk of being seriously injured is high. i can't quite grasp why you fail to understand this. predators avoid the defensive weaponry of prey to avoid such events. Tyrannosaurus wouldn't be any different. |
![]() |
|
| Dilophosaurus | Oct 26 2014, 02:15 PM Post #234 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Except when it's biting triceratops horns, of course. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 26 2014, 07:40 PM Post #235 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not necessarily (I think it could move its tail faster than T. rex could move its head, body and jaw to bite the aforementioned tail, that’s quite a difference). But that isn’t as ridiculous as you make it sound. Ankylosaurus’ tail end is a far lighter structure than T. rex’ head (probably at least 3-4 times). I don’t see why T. rex should be able to move its head faster, and even if it could, that still leaves the other two components making it unlikely that it could just bite it at the extreme of its oscillation. |
![]() |
|
| retic | Jul 13 2015, 02:45 AM Post #236 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ankylosaurus' tail swing is said to have been able to do considerable damage. http://www.wired.com/2009/08/dinotails/ I think that ankylosaurus should win more often than not. |
![]() |
|
| Delude | Jul 13 2015, 03:50 AM Post #237 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It seems strange to me that the very reasons people decided Giganotosaurus should beat Ankylosaurus have been ignored when they apply to Tyrannosaurus in the same match up. Once Ankylosaurus was downsized nearly everyone immediately changed their vote, the same does not appear to have happened here. It seems a bit odd to me since Tyrannosaurus had the better weaponry for dealing with armoured prey. |
![]() |
|
| retic | Jul 13 2015, 04:03 AM Post #238 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i, personally, would still favor ankylosaurus over giganotosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Jul 13 2015, 04:05 AM Post #239 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't it almost certain that Ankylosaurus would beat T. Rex most of the time? I mean otherwise it would be just a walking dinner for the theropod since it probably couldn't outrun the Tyrannosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Delude | Jul 13 2015, 04:25 AM Post #240 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A prey item only needs to present enough threat to be "not worth it" in most cases to dissuade a predator. Tyrannosaurus would probably have preferred feeding on the relatively unarmed hadrosaurs of its time, who it could most likely outpace on foot, by the last estimations I'd looked at. Considering how numerous said prey item seems to have been, it could have been a case of strength in numbers meaning not enough of you are taken by predators to keep your numbers down. Is there any census or estimation on the relative populations of Tyrannosaurus compared to its prey? It seems probably to me that such a large predator existed in very, very small numbers compared to its prey, due to the insane amount of necessary territory and the relative lack of evidence of groups larger than familial ones. |
![]() |
|
| 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)



2:24 AM Jul 14