Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Giganotosaurus carolinii v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jan 31 2012, 05:48 PM (110,344 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Giganotosaurus carolinii
Giganotosaurus ("giant southern lizard"), was a carcharodontosaurid dinosaur that lived 93 to 89 million years ago during the Turonian stage of the Late Cretaceous period. It is one of the longest known terrestrial carnivores, bigger than Tyrannosaurus, but in length and weight, smaller than Spinosaurus. Although longer than T. rex, G. carolinii was lighter and had a much smaller braincase that was the size and shape of a banana. A well-developed olfactory region means it probably had a good sense of smell. Titanosaur fossils have been recovered near the remains of Giganotosaurus, leading to speculation that these carnivores may have preyed on the giant herbivores. Fossils of related carcharodontosaurid fossils grouped closely together may indicate pack hunting, a behavior that could possibly extend to Giganotosaurus itself. he holotype specimen's (MUCPv-Ch1) skeleton was about 70% complete and included parts of the skull, a lower jaw, pelvis, hindlimbs and most of the backbone. The premaxillae, jugals, quadratojugals, the back of the lower jaws and the forelimbs are missing. Various estimates find that it measured somewhere between 12.2 and 13 m (40 and 43 ft) in length, and between 6.5 and 13.3 tons in weight. A second, more fragmentary, specimen (MUCPv-95) has also been identified, found in 1987 by Jorge Calvo. It is only known from the front part of the left dentary which is 8% larger than the equivalent bone from the holotype. This largest Giganotosaurus specimen is estimated to represent an individual with a skull length of 195 cm (6.40 ft), compared to the holotype's estimated at 1.80 m (5.9 ft) skull, making it likely that Giganotosaurus had the largest skull of any known theropod. Giganotosaurus surpassed Tyrannosaurus in mass by at least half a ton (the upper size estimate for T. rex is 9.1 t). Additionally several single teeth, discovered from 1987 onwards, have been referred to the species.

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image

______________________________________________________________________________


Prehistoric Cat
Jan 31 2012, 04:53 PM
Giganotosaurus VS Tyrannosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Yes, because that was Stan, while the only study that tested it and sue together found sue to be much less dense.

Please don't make me repeat myself.

I am doing the exact same thing as you. You are using it to deduce T. rex was wider, don't you? Yet at the same time you cannot accept the density.

Quote:
 
I can't tell whether you are grasping at straws or are actually presenting this seriously.

If you cannot cope with that, you don't have to respond. But you doubt the consistency of density estimates from one and the same study, because it would make sue less dense than stan. Think about that, do you think that is better than doubting the consistency of mounts from different museums, with different amounts of credential, made by different people?

Quote:
 
Did you miss the part where I only did this because you said "I doubt it [MUCPv-95] would be narrower in absolute terms"?


I do, at least I doubt it is wise to assume so since we are basing it on widths in different mounts, all of which are flawed to some extend.


Quote:
 
What is the issue, exactly? Do you propose that they made the flesh hug the shape of the ribcage ala Greg Paul?

You cannot seriously disagree that they gave their Stan a huge amount of flesh but didn't do so with Acrocanthosaurus.

Quote:
 
You can take their lower bound estimate for Stan if you insist, but when you apply Hutchinson's .791 density for Sue, it still comes out as heavier than Acrocanthosaurus.

What I cannot see is what this has to do with the comparison FMNH PR 2081 / MUCPv-95.

Quote:
 
Either way, .73 is far lower than has ever been estimated for Sue.

And have I ever suggested we should use that density?

All I said was sue was conservatively about 12% less dense than Acrocanthosaurus (It is a bit more with the exact figures but I rounded because precise figures are rather pointless anyway), even more when taking Allosaurus. That the estimates in the different studies weren't exactly the same doesn't change that.

Hence what I doubt is your assumption that a carnosaur would be that much lighter than a similar-sized tyrannosaur, size in this case referring to lenght, or torso lenght if you will, that even when it is a good deal longer it still cannot be heavier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Carcharodontosauridae
Jun 12 2013, 04:14 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 12 2013, 04:04 AM
moldovan0731
Jun 12 2013, 03:58 AM
Megafelis Fatalis
Jan 31 2012, 11:48 PM
Posted Image
This is the new version: http://www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giganotosaurus_and_Tyrannosaurus_size.jpg
Both versions are inaccurate, this one is better: http://shartman.deviantart.com/art/North-vs-South-Giant-theropod-square-off-361721772
Actually, I do not think MUPCv-95 was 13.2 meters. I think that the first specimen was about 12.5-13 meters and the second approximately around 13.5+ meters.
If you don't trust in 13.4-13.6 m Mapusaurus because the pubic shaft is larger by few centimeters than in MUCPv-ch1 like you said few day ago. You shouldn't think MUCPv-95 being 13.5+ m. There is also few centimeters if not few milimeters difference in their dentaries (e.g 135 mm vs 138 mm at narrowest point).
Edited by 7Alx, Jun 12 2013, 05:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
7Alx
Jun 12 2013, 05:10 AM
Carcharodontosauridae
Jun 12 2013, 04:14 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 12 2013, 04:04 AM
moldovan0731
Jun 12 2013, 03:58 AM
Megafelis Fatalis
Jan 31 2012, 11:48 PM
Posted Image
This is the new version: http://www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giganotosaurus_and_Tyrannosaurus_size.jpg
Both versions are inaccurate, this one is better: http://shartman.deviantart.com/art/North-vs-South-Giant-theropod-square-off-361721772
Actually, I do not think MUPCv-95 was 13.2 meters. I think that the first specimen was about 12.5-13 meters and the second approximately around 13.5+ meters.
If you don't trust in 13.4-13.6 m Mapusaurus because the pubic shaft is larger by few centimeters than in MUCPv-ch1 like you said few day ago. You shouldn't think MUCPv-95 being 13.5+ m. There is also few centimeters if not few milimeters difference in their dentaries (e.g 135 mm vs 138 mm at narrowest point).
I believe in a Mapusaurus of 13.4-13.6 meters, I would say that some measures are too reductive, I think even 14 meters.

Mapusaurus and Giganotosaurus were both 13.5m +, maybe approaching to 14m.

I write this: http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3928577/46878/

Where do I say that Mapusaurus was 13-14 meters.
Edited by Big G, Jun 12 2013, 05:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
But Mapusaurus holotype is MCF-PVPH-108.1 and the largest specimen may be MCF-PVPH-108.145
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I am doing the exact same thing as you. You are using it to deduce T. rex was wider, don't you? Yet at the same time you cannot accept the density.

It isn't that I don't 'accept the density', it is that I don't consider it sensible to directly compare said density with ones achieved elsewhere, for reasons I have stated.

Quote:
 
But you doubt the consistency of density estimates from one and the same study, because it would make sue less dense than stan.

The issue isn't with Sue's density.

Quote:
 
You cannot seriously disagree that they gave their Stan a huge amount of flesh but didn't do so with Acrocanthosaurus.

They did. But from I can tell, this is because the way the bones were positioned made it necessary. As I said, the alternate would have been along the lines of Greg Paul's Tyrannosaurus skeletal that is shown a few posts above.

Quote:
 
What I cannot see is what this has to do with the comparison FMNH PR 2081 / MUCPv-95.

Because Stan/Acrocanthosaurus are similar in dimensional size, so they are a relevant reference point.

Quote:
 
And have I ever suggested we should use that density?

No, that isn't my point. I used such a low density because it would make Stan as light as possible, so is sort of a 'worst-case scenario' estimate. I.e. even making a Tyrannosaurus less dense than has ever been suggested, it still come out as comparable in size to a carcharodontosaurid of roughly comparable dimensions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And I don't think Giganotosaurus was the same dimensional size as FMNH PR 2081. So you accept Giganotosaurus was the denser animal?

The bunch of tissue ventral to the dorsal ribs is by far not as large in skeletals like Hartman's:
http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/A-T-rex-named-Stan-Version-3-0-125137798

Also, he shows a comparable amount in Acrocanthosaurus:
http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/High-Spined-Reptile-127659068

I do prefer these reconstructions over the moutns for obvious reasons. In the scanned skeletals, the ribs were more or less wrongly mounted, and while giving Stan the aforementioned belly they didn't do the same with Acrocanthosaurus and left basically no space for its gastralia, neither did they recontruct notable muscle mass along the neural spines. With stan on the other hand, they did include a lot of tissue below the ribs, more than necessary (despite the ribcage already being inflated). Therefore I think the volume of Stan's model was seriously overestimated, both in comparison with their Acrocanthosaurus and in absolute terms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The era of Tyrannosaurus as a "winner because the stronger" is over.

http://mambobob-raptorsnest.blogspot.it/2010/06/new-paper-media-response.html

"Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus have always been compared to Tyrannosaurus and people commonly said, 'well Giganotosaurus may have been bigger but T. rex would have ripped its head off!'. Now my study confirms that Tyrannosaurus is a high-efficiency biter but it also shows that carcharodontosaurs had higher efficiency at the back of the tooth row than Tyrannosaurus. That's kind of contrary to what a lot of people have suggested in the past; for instance, Carcharodontosaurus doesn't have strong enough dentition for powerful biting (don't ask me for the source because I don't know; it's one of those 'what palaeontologists have long suspected' type statements that I really don't know where it originated). So personally, I think we should be putting more focus on carcharodontosaur functional morphology."

Now I think Giganotosaurus take this to 60%.
Edited by Big G, Jun 18 2013, 06:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This proves that carcharodontosaurids had a higher efficiency at the back of the tooth row, but why does this prove that their bite was better? It also said that Tyrannosaurus was an efficient biter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 18 2013, 06:32 PM
This proves that carcharodontosaurids had a higher efficiency at the back of the tooth row, but why does this prove that their bite was better? It also said that Tyrannosaurus was an efficient biter.
But this proves that Giganotosaurus had a bite compared to those of Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not at all, it actually shows that they are different. Gigantosaurus was more efficient at the back of the tooth row, while Tyrannosaurus was overall quite efficient. The bites are not really comparable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Giganotosaurus carolinii
Jun 18 2013, 06:16 AM
The era of Tyrannosaurus as a "winner because the stronger" is over.
It was over a long time ago, people just seem to like sticking to the ghosts of the past.

Jinfengopteryx
Jun 18 2013, 06:57 PM
Gigantosaurus was more efficient at the back of the tooth row
A sauropod had a more effective bite at the rear section of the teeth?
:huh:
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Jun 18 2013, 07:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 18 2013, 06:57 PM
Not at all, it actually shows that they are different. Gigantosaurus was more efficient at the back of the tooth row, while Tyrannosaurus was overall quite efficient. The bites are not really comparable.
I wanted to say that they have comparable strength.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You mean in terms of bite force? This was only about efficiency and not about bite force.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 18 2013, 07:00 PM
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 18 2013, 06:57 PM
Gigantosaurus was more efficient at the back of the tooth row
A sauropod had a more effective bite at the rear section of the teeth?
:huh:
It is just incredible how intolerant you are towards typing errors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 18 2013, 07:34 PM
You mean in terms of bite force? This was only about efficiency and not about bite force.
Now I understand well: I wanted to say that the jaws of Giganotosaurus are not weak and inefficient compared to those of Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.