| 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: |
| Giganotosaurus carolinii v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 31 2012, 05:48 PM (110,343 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jan 31 2012, 05:48 PM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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. ![]() ______________________________________________________________________________
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Jun 18 2013, 08:37 PM Post #181 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for posting that! While it proves nothing immediately relevant, it is a punch in the face to those morons who think every non-tyrannosaur had a weak, inefficient bite. It also demonstrates you don't need a tremendously robust, thick skull and huge temporal muscles to be an effective biter. Btw the high mechanical advantage is something also predicted by Bates & Falkingham, 2012 for Allosaurus sp.. The teeth suggest to me carnosaurs were not even close to an adductor driven bite force or crushing function comparable to T. rex, however they simply did not need to have a strong mandible opposition force. What many misinterpret is that not being a bone crusher would imply inability to kill quick, bite bony regions or damage bones (contra Hone and Rauhut, 2009, Chure, 2000 and cranial function in extant varanids). It does not imply having a whimpy bite force either. Today, Great white sharks have one of the strongest bites in absolute terms, even tough they are a prime example of a slicer. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 22 2013, 07:39 AM Post #182 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Comments on Hartman's Acrocanthosaurus in deviant art
The belly can't go much below the pubis, is not Bates et al fault that there was no space left for the gastralia, it was all taken by the incorrectly mounted ribs. Edit: The paper mentioned in the blogpost shared by Carolinii998 Link Edited by blaze, Jun 22 2013, 07:52 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 22 2013, 07:06 PM Post #183 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^yes, but stans ribs were just as inaccurate, if not more so, and in it they did add more than enough space for gastralia. it simply has a longer pubis, but that doesn't mean its belly must protrude further down. If you compare to the skeletals, the stan in the models is inflated compared to the Acrocanthosaurus
Edited by theropod, Jun 22 2013, 07:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| retic | Jun 23 2013, 10:12 AM Post #184 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
giganotosaurus wins. it had a slight size advantage and even though it may have had a weaker bite its serrated teeth would of made up for the weaker bite. |
![]() |
|
| retic | Jul 20 2013, 01:24 PM Post #185 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i change my vote, t.rex wins since it was actually the larger animal and it was more robust. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Jul 24 2013, 09:41 AM Post #186 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
tyrannosaurus wins 75-65% of the time for being heavier, bulkier, stronger( I think and if he is stronger its only a little bit), stronger bite force and binocular vision. it also may be bigger but I am not sure |
![]() |
|
| Makaveli7 | Jul 30 2013, 10:37 AM Post #187 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Its a very close match but I'll say Giga 50-55% of the time because it has a longer skull and is just bigger over all. If Rex can use its powerful bite to kill the Giga early it wins but if Giganotosaurus can avoid it and tear off chunks of the Tyrannosaurus then the longer the fight goes on the more of an advantage the carcharodontosaur has. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Jul 31 2013, 02:40 AM Post #188 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
at parity length wise t-rex is around 1.5 tons heavier how does giganotosaurus have a size advantage? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jul 31 2013, 02:53 AM Post #189 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He is likely referring to the average Tyrannosaurus, not FMNH PR2081. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 31 2013, 03:19 AM Post #190 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is nowhere near lenght parity tough, even assuming that assertion to be right. Even less if we don't use the largest but a more moderately sized specimen. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Jul 31 2013, 06:16 AM Post #191 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
comparison made by spinodontosaurus. nuff said still bigger, also what average? here is where he posted it and on which thread. http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8550166&t=9922026 |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Jul 31 2013, 06:18 AM Post #192 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
how? Edited by thesporerex, Jul 31 2013, 06:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jul 31 2013, 06:23 AM Post #193 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The largest T. rex is 12,3m, and MUCPv-95 is likely 13m or more |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Jul 31 2013, 07:23 AM Post #194 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well that is true 12.3 metres vs 13.2 metres, but the weight is almost the same. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jul 31 2013, 06:05 PM Post #195 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He got his mass estimate based on scaling down from FMNH PR2081, which I wouldn't really do, given that FMNH PR2081 is a particularly robust specimen. Scott Hartman guesses that the Giganotosaurus holotype would possibly edge out CM 9380 by a bit. For this fight, I now say 50/50 overall. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest 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