| 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 (110,333 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: | |
|---|---|
| bone crusher | Jun 14 2015, 07:27 PM Post #331 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Did Hartman give any number to other rexes besides Sue? The only weight range from the latest source is Hutchinson's 6000kg - 8000kg for the average of his study samples, while Sue sits at 9500kg. The other one is Hartman's Sue at 8400kg. So Unless you can link me to a more recent 3d modeled weight range, I can't take your own extrapolation of how the majority is actually smaller. As for the fight, I only support giga if it's over 1 ton heavier. Also Thomas Holtz, Jr is pretty confident chances are great Sue was only the average sized T rex in its species and good chances of finding specimens 10-20% larger.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131016-tyrannosaurus-rex-smithsonian-wankel-fossil-day/ Edited by bone crusher, Jun 14 2015, 07:37 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 14 2015, 09:09 PM Post #332 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, total length estimates for several of them. But as it happens the smallest one of those study samples was still only about average-sized on the whole, because there is a collection bias resulting in the handful of most complete specimens are relatively large. as I wrote, I’m being somewhat liberal by using Sue to extrapolate downwards, because it is both the most robust specimen and because some smaller specimens have proportionately longer femora. If you think this has too much of an impact, use the alternatives I provided based on femur circumference, or take the mean of both. But the difference is not huge. The average T. rex is in the 11-11.2m range and weighs 6.1-6.4t. Of course, so do I. But you are also taking this totally out of context. The average fully grown individual is pretty much useless to us, since, as explained for numerous times, fully grown individuals represent only a tiny fraction of the fossil record. Sure, in a population of hundreds or thousands you are going to find a few specimens larger than sue. But even in a population of 15, we’d be likely to find Giganotosaurus specimens larger than the holotype (let’s be honest, we already did, in a population of 2!), whereas we don’t do this with T. rex. Edited by theropod, Jun 14 2015, 09:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 14 2015, 10:05 PM Post #333 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There you go again, conveniently assuming only a few could grow larger than Sue among a population of thousands and totally neglect the same likelihood of Sue being in the lower weight range. And don't even touch on MUCPv 95 without more evidence of it being overall larger. Now I see we simply have a different way of viewing this, but let's just compare them at parity weight for the sake of this fight shall we? We know Sue and a few other Sue sized T Rexes are over kill, so maybe use AMNH 5027 vs MUCPv CH1 for now since they're both more or less the same weight with the former being slightly lighter by perhaps 400kg? Should be an interesting fight. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 14 2015, 10:22 PM Post #334 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is because I know for a fact that sue is not in the lower weight range. Of course if you have thousands of fully grown specimens it’s perfectly reasonable to assume sue would be average sized among them, but I’m talking about a real population, not an imaginary one. In real theropod populations, fully grown specimens were rare, which is why sue is exceptional in terms of size even if it is not exceptional for a fully grown T. rex. I have got no problem with that, it’s as if that isn’t interesting. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 14 2015, 11:14 PM Post #335 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well there is a difference between how rare it is to find a fully grown T Rex in its natural environment due to competition etc and how rare for it to reach its genetic full potential. So given the ideal condition such as ample prey supply, less injury or small competition, it shouldn't be hard to see Sue sized t rex as a norm. So, at parity weight the more bulkier and robust built animal would obviously be stronger and most likely more durable due to a stronger build. Depends on how this fight goes on, if neither lands enough damage through bites and slashes, then the stronger opponent would eventually pin down the weaker one and deliver the final blow. So 60/40 T rex. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 14 2015, 11:26 PM Post #336 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Regarding AMNH 5027, I’m really not sure of its weight. By Hartman’s estimates it’s 11.8m long, implying a weight 88.3% that of sue. However, it is visibly much more slender than sue. This is in fact one of the cases where it becomes difficult to produce an estimate by simply extrapolating (it’s obviously less of a problem on a larger sample). But for the sake of the discussion, let’s say weight parity. In terms of overall built, that makes Giganotosaurus end up taller and longer, T. rex wider and bulkier. That means the former has the advantage in terms of reach, the latter durability. I think both are not going to be of much use, because they are either canceled out by their respective bites which would both have no problem killing the other animal. We also cannot literally translate that robusticity difference into overall strength, because most of T. rex’ bulk is in the torso (and head obviously, we are agreed about bite force anyway), which would be relatively stiff and not provide a lot of effective strength, especially in tyrannosaurs where the torso would be even less flexible than in other giant theropods, due to the huge, amphiplatyan centra. It is a myth that T. rex has the bigger tigh or caudofemoralis muscles, when analysing Hartman’s skeletals it becomes clear that this only applies at similar lengths, not similar body masses. The distal limb elements are thicker in carnosaurs, but mostly because they have a less passive support system. The neck is transversely thicker in T. rex, though most of the additional musculature and bone simply serves to support the heavier head required by its bite force. In anticipation of the inevitable reaction to this point, I’m leaving the carnosaur’s forelimbs aside for now, even though based on Acrocanthosaurus they are going to play a role. That leaves the bite, obviously the most important factor. Here we have two animals with very potent and damaging ones, that would both be quickly fatal to each other if they were to bite the right regions. T. rex is specialized for bone crushing and puncturing, Giganotosaurus excels at slicing and tearing. There’s probably no need to reiterate what both types of bite can do to another animal, as I’m sure you are still familiar with the examples (komodo dragon predation on buffalo, boar and deer, shark predation on pinnipeds and cetaceans, wolf and hyaena predation on large ungulates). Hence my conclusion, at parity it’s an even fight. The edge goes to the animal that has a somewhat notable weight advantage. Perhaps, but such ideal conditions don’t apply to real animals, neither to T. rex nor to other theropods. Hence why in a real population of a giant theropod most animals die before reaching states of maturity equivalent to sue. But they would land enough damage through bites (also read what I wrote above about strenght). T. rex doesn’t even have any way to pin down something without biting it in the first place. Edited by theropod, Jun 14 2015, 11:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 15 2015, 12:19 AM Post #337 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK I don't think you can somehow cancel out the respective advantages of either theropod like bullet points. It is true Giga would be slightly longer and taller but those "advantages" don't serve nearly as much importance in a fight like this. How exactly would a few CM in height or half meter in length be any useful to overcome your opponent? Giga is not head and shoulder taller, length might even hamper your movement as you would turn slower. Now being structurally more robust gains you more power and durability which are a lot more useful in ramming, slamming, shoulder tackling, pushing etc as you would expect they do in a fight. T rex has the bulkiest neck of any theropod and some even more than Sarcosuchus, in the absolute worst case scenario if it's only to support the weight of its skull "which I hardly agree", it still offers far more durability than Giga's, so it has far more protection in its critical area. Also barrel like chest and torso grant you even more protection from a physical impact. As for bite, I think T Rex still has more options than Giga. If Giga could cut through T rex's throat with its sharp teeth then T Rex could just crush the throat, but if neither is lucky to get that throat bite, T Rex could always go for the neck and bone crush it to end it in an instant while the same can't be said for Giga. So at parity I agree both animal could kill each other one way or another but T Rex would have more options to do it and being more durable, those would give it the edge at winning more often. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 15 2015, 01:16 AM Post #338 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not so sure of that. Comparing Sue to MUCPv-95, their caudofemoralis and distal limb musculature are indeed similar, but Sue's thighs are still miles bigger.
Mapusaurus is a better bet than Acrocanthosaurus surely, and on that basis even MUCPv-95 would not have forelimbs any larger than those of Sue. I don't think forelimbs are going to play much role in this fight, and since I agree with you re: their respective bites I also agree that it will probably come down to which animal has a notable weight advantage. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 15 2015, 03:12 AM Post #339 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ CM 9380 and Stan also have a more developed fourth trocanter and their ilium, along with that of AMNH 5027 is longer and taller posterior to the acetabulum than in MUCPv-CH-1, and of course the total size of the ilium and more developed crista tibiofibularis also suggest bigger thighs. Unless all of them are also heavier than MUCPv-CH-1, Tyrannosaurus does indeed have a larger caudofemoralis and thighs than Giganotosaurus at similar masses. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 15 2015, 03:45 AM Post #340 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Regarding the caudofemoralis: Bates et al. 2012 found Acrocanthosaurus to be roughly comparable to T. rex. I’m not sure whether the elevation of the lesser trochanter has a direct relationship to the caudofemoralis’ volume. Anyway, that of Giganotosaurus has never been figured, only mentioned being low in the Tyrannotitan paper. But I can see no real mechanical reason why the height should be important (it does little, if anything, to enhance leverage, since the process is extending in the direction of muscle pull and not at any significant angle to it), the area of the attachment site is the determining factor, and it hasn’t been studied. Looking at Hartman’s skeletals the trochanter is protuding less, but in terms of leverage and area of the insertion it could very well be the same regardless. Concerning the iliofibular muscles, I think you’ve indeed got me. I just checked again, and this was the result: ![]() I think I just messed it up the last time, it is slightly larger in Sue when scaled to equal masses. As for the forelimbs, Mapusaurus would certainly be better than Acrocanthosaurus if any of its forelimbs were associated with any other remains that indicated the size of the specimen.Tyrannotitan is more useful (in terms of size, Acrocanthosaurus still remains the only carcharodontosaur in which the mechanics have actually been studied), and IIRC it was similar to Acro, but I’d better recheck that too. If you have the same mass distributed firther from the center of rotation, but that is not the case here. The carnosaur likely has a lower RI, since while it is a little longer, the parts distributed towards its ends are very light (obvious for the tail, but its skull would also be way lighter) by comparison, while in the tyrannosaur there’s a thickened, heavy skull on one end. And in terms of dimensions, the difference at equal weights is equivalent to the difference there is in bulk. If you consider theone to be insignificant, then you must also do so with the other. Please think about what would happen if Giganotosaurus were to bite the neck. And speaking of more options, I think it has been mentioned one or the other time how Giganotosaurus would have an easier time biting most parts posterior of the neck. Edited by theropod, Jun 15 2015, 03:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 15 2015, 04:17 AM Post #341 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The study this news article references is in a book that I don't have but it appears that they indeed found an effect in the height of the fourth trocanther however that is not what I meant in my previous comment but rather the size of the fourth trocanther but Bates et al. (2012) estimates for Acrocanthosaurus and those of Tyrannosaurus from Hutchinson et al. (2011) do makes this puzzling.
Edited by blaze, Jun 15 2015, 04:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 15 2015, 04:27 AM Post #342 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, the size is indeed important (as that’s what constrains the area of the muscle attachment), but that’s not so easy to judge visually from a skeletal reconstruction. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 15 2015, 01:19 PM Post #343 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think the commonly-used Mapusaurus reconstruction is a good basis. ![]() ![]() If the proportional sizes of the shoulders are anything to go by, it's unlikely that Giganotosaurus has the abelisaur-esque arms of that Mapusaurus skeletal. I don't even think Mapusaurus actually had arms that small, either. It's probably the arms and shoulders of a smaller specimen mixed in with that of a larger one. Does anyone have some scientific papers about Mapusaurus so we can see how large the arms really are? |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 15 2015, 03:03 PM Post #344 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Still waiting for why being a few CM taller and longer would grant Giga any significant advantages in a fight. T Rex's neck is too heavily protected due to massive girth. Giga when delivering a neck bite would only do slash damages that wont even penetrate enough depth of the tissue to reach vital nerve system, much less doing any bone damage whatsoever. So even if it could deal slightly more surface area per bite, it's not deep enough or harmful enough to cause major concern, whereas one good bone crushing bite from the rex could end Giga's life in an instant. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 15 2015, 06:08 PM Post #345 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Still waiting for why being a few xm shorter aand lower should grant T. re, any significant advantages. You are overestimating thee resilience of a bit of muscle tissue by far. Extant animals with slicing bites don't have problems slashing right through such tissue, and so would the carnosaur. And I guess you should be able to realize the consequences cut neck musculature with severe bleedinng will have on a tyrannosaur's fighting ability. Nobody is even talking about reaching the spinal chord, though obviously, with a force of maybe 3t clamping down, damage to the underlying bone structure and nerves is not out of the question either. Somehow you still seem to be under the false impression that a slicing bite is for some reason more superficial than a crushinng bite, which iiss demonstrably wrong. @spinoinwonderland: there is only one humerus. The problem is that all tthee remains are disarticulated, so basically saying anything about its body proportions save for what we can infer from relatives becomes tricky. They used some regression equation based on humeral shaft width to estimate femur length, but I never got it to give the right result, and neither is it detailed anywhere. Maybne you could try (its in the description paper)? |
![]() |
|
| 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