| 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 (48,659 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: | |
|---|---|
| blaze | Jun 3 2013, 02:00 AM Post #121 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Did you use the femur to scale Ankylosaurus? 6.25m is for Carpenter's reconstruction, Paul's wider and longer, it'll be at least 7.1m from tip to tip. Edit: no you didn't... Edited by blaze, Jun 3 2013, 02:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 3 2013, 02:13 AM Post #122 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I only believe there were smaller predators such as dromaeosaurids, troodontids, and alvarezsaurids around in Maastrichtian western North America. I don't believe in a large carnivorous contemporary of T.rex. As for the matchup, I'm not sure anymore. While I believe Ankylosaurus can break T.rex's legs, I also believe T.rex can break Ankylosaurus' armor. Edited by Ausar, Jun 3 2013, 02:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 3 2013, 02:16 AM Post #123 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't forget Nanotyrannus. Ankylosaurus would fend them off rather easily. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 3 2013, 02:51 AM Post #124 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh.....right, that thing. Well it was still smaller than T.rex (whether you believe the Albertosaurus-sized idea or not, I do now), I at least don't really think there was a contemporarious carnivore that rivaled, equaled, or exceeded T.rex. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 3 2013, 02:52 AM Post #125 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() At the real size of NMC 8880, and don't forget how wide the pelvis/torso of Ankylosaurus would be, the pelvis of Ankylosaurus is unknown and while Carpenter (2004) reconstruted it at only ~1.2m wide, based on Eplocephalus, its sister taxon, that of Ankylosaurus would probably be 2m wide. If the Ankylosaurus is giving T. rex the back constantly, there's no way the T. rex could bite any of it. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 3 2013, 03:25 AM Post #126 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In that case, Ankylosaurus would have the advantage. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 3 2013, 03:48 AM Post #127 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I change my opinion, slight edge towards the ankylosaur. Doesn't look as small as I had envisioned it, even tough its not the behemoth shown in WWD What does the tail base on? it looks so short. Wouldn't a longer one be more advantageous? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 3 2013, 03:49 AM Post #128 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hasn't Carpenter said 6,25 m would be the maximum? It is interesting how opinions can vary. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 3 2013, 03:50 AM Post #129 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I wouldn't trust him too much, after all he's the same guy who believes that Argentinosaurus was a scaled-up Saltasaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 3 2013, 03:59 AM Post #130 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you want to list the errors which a paleontologist somewhere made, you could aswell do so with Paul. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 3 2013, 04:00 AM Post #131 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, but at least he gets the basic skeletal build right. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 3 2013, 04:47 AM Post #132 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And all the time you keep claiming how he shrinkwraps all his skeletals so badly. Paul's sue is actually pretty inaccurate. But you could hardly trust any scientist if you listed all the mistakes or things you don't agree with. I don't regard his argentinosaurus as likely either, but that doesn't mean he cannot be right on other things. I disagree with Hartman concerning the built of Torvosaurus or Allosaurus being slow, but yet most of his work is great. I also disagree with the weight-results from Hutchinson et al., 2011, but I still use their total- and leg-lenght figures. I could continue like this if you want. In fact, there probably is no scientist that never produced something I would not agree with, that's jsut the nature of science, much is wrong or gets outdated quickly, especially in palaeontology. |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Jun 3 2013, 05:06 AM Post #133 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So ankylosaurus could actually grow 7 m? |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 3 2013, 05:53 AM Post #134 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, but lengths for different hypothesis aren't intercangeable, that's what skeletal reconstructions are, hypothesis and while Carpenters proposed 6.3m at maximum, Paul's is some 7.5m at maximum![]() Here are the two skeletals at the same scale, humerus is equally long and the head is the same size, it seems that Paul completed Ankylosaurus with Euoplocephalus (good choice given their phylogenetic position) or at least looks like his Euoplocephalus skeletal, Carpenter's reminds me of his Sauropelta skeletal from 1984 but he seems to have started reconstructing them differently too as his newer Sauropelta skeletal looks more like Paul's getting rid of that hunched back his older Ankylosaurs had (which also reduced their length). |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Jun 3 2013, 07:44 AM Post #135 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ theropod Paul is good and bad. His Sue is actually very bad; many bones are drawn at wrong size, and the entire animal is too short. In this case it's hard to say. He drew the axial elements much larger than they are in Carpenter's image. Carpenter is THE expert on Ankylosaurs, but you can disregard his sauropod studies...Argentinosaurus is more closer related to Antarctosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia then to Saltasaurus. How flexible is the tail of Ankylosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| 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