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 (110,332 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:
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I never said being slightly shorter in length or lower in height have any significant advantages, you twisted my words here, I only suggested how being more robust and bulkier in build would help a lot in a fight. Also I'm not discrediting how efficient a slicing bite from giga would be, it's just not an instant kill bite like a bone crushing one from the Rex is. So yeah both could kill each other, but one could do it faster.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've done this too many times already. If you still want to believe that crushing-kills-faster stuff, you've already proven that you won't change your opinion.
And that robusticity you mention is precisely that, being slightly shorter and lower than the carnosaur at equal mass. If you think the advantages of one are negligible, you have to do so with the reverse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Jun 20 2015, 05:13 AM

And that robusticity you mention is precisely that, being slightly shorter and lower than the carnosaur at equal mass. If you think the advantages of one are negligible, you have to do so with the reverse.
It really doesn't work like what you said here, Giga could have a hundred more "advantages" that's irrelevant or far less relevant to this fight, the outcome would still be the same and will not cancel out the more critical advantages a T Rex has.
Speaking of robusticity and bulkiness, the neck of C. saharicus could only lift 424 kg and we know T Rex could lift a hippo (depends what weight you use for an adult 2.5 tons?) So that's a good 5-6 times more powerful. If you account for the heavier skull and neck muscle of the T Rex and have them at parity weight you're still in the ball park of 5 times more powerful. And that's only one aspect of the physical superiority of a T Rex, the barrel like chest, bigger shoulders, huge torso, much bigger thighs and likely calves, also a wider tail would all come into play. T Rex is definitely more bang per kg at equal weight.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27454-could-these-giant-dinosaurs-have-lifted-up-their-pictured-prey.html#.VYfPzkZMRGQ

* Yes I'm using Carchy as example and it's likely Giga was slightly more robust but the outcome still wouldn't change much.
Edited by bone crusher, Jun 22 2015, 07:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
It really doesn't work like what you said here, Giga could have a hundred more "advantages" that's irrelevant or far less relevant to this fight, the outcome would still be the same and will not cancel out the more critical advantages a T Rex has.
You say T. rex has a huge advantage because it is slightly more compact, but the advantages of being equally slightly less compact are meaningless to you at the same time?

Quote:
 
Speaking of robusticity and bulkiness, the neck of C. saharicus could only lift 424 kg and we know T Rex could lift a hippo (depends what weight you use for an adult 2.5 tons?)

Firstly, who claims it could lift a hippo?
Secondly, hippos average closer to 1.5t.
Thirdly, the Carcharodontosaurus in question must have been extremely shrink-wrapped, considering its weight was only 6t even though it was supposed to be SGM DIN 1. The effects of this on the estimates would likely be enourmous, as is evident from the fact that their bite force estimate is only about a 6th of what would result from scaling up an estimate for Allosaurus made using a consistent method (with the one for T. rex at ~5.7t).
I wonder, if we were to restore sue (similar to SGM DIN 1 in ACTUAL size) to be 6t in body mass and have a bite force of just 1t, would it really have a considerably greater neck strength?

Conclusion, either we assume Carcharodontosaurus was a weakling, but the largest T. rex was also just a 6t critter with a bite force comparable to a mid-sized great white, or these estimates are just not very meaningful.

Quote:
 
the barrel like chest, bigger shoulders, huge torso,
Tell me how these are going to be useful, please. Bigger shoulders? Barrel-like chest? Can it fight with those?

Quote:
 
much bigger thighs and likely calves

You mean slightly bigger tighs and slightly smaller calves?*

Quote:
 
T Rex is definitely more bang per kg at equal weight.
So, with T. rex apparently being so vastly more powerful, where do you think all that equal weight went in the carcharodontosaur? It’s apparently so weak, it surely can’t be muscles, or bones. It also can’t be guts, since it is the one with the smaller torso, and it can’t be the skull, since as we all know that part was really (I mean for real!) more lightly built.

*The former shown in the comparison I posted, the latter evident from the size and robusticity of the lower leg bones as e.g. detailed in The Dinosauria.
Edited by theropod, Jun 23 2015, 01:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I can't remember the name of the documentary right now, but yeah male hippo weighs 1500kg - 4500kg, female weighs 1400kg. Even if we take the lowest end of male hippo it's still 3x the power.
Bigger shoulders, barrel chest and bigger torso would grant you more durability, strength and resistance in a close quarter combat, it's so obvious I really don't need to explain it.
At equal weight, Carchy would simply be a bit longer, perhaps taller, just like how a wrestler "T Rex" compares to a tall basketball player "Carchy".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There are no 4500kg hippos, above 2000kg is already very large.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Not that I'm suggesting Rex could lift 4000kg or 3000kg of weight using its neck, it might or might not who knows. But a 2 ton hippo is entirely within scope.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@theropod

You have to remember that not everyone thinks that SGM DIN 1 was larger than MUCPv-CH-1, comparing their model with Hartman's Giganotosaurus, except from some, IMO, unreasonably big legs, they are very similar, their estimated mass of 6.2 tonnes might be because of assuming lower densities than Hartman did rather than being shrink-wrapped.

How is their bite force estimate a "6th of what would result from scaling up an estimate for Allosaurus made using a consistent method (with the one for T. rex at ~5.7t)"? that is exactly what they did, they scaled up Bates and Falkingham (2012) estimates for Allosaurus assuming an skull length of 72cm for SMA0005 (which is probably too short) and scaled it up to that of Carcharodontosaurus (at 163cm, based on Sereno et al. 1996, definitely too long), using an average of the anterior and posterior biteforces using the initial models of Bates and Falkingham (2012) thus resulting in an estimate of 28,200N, almost 3 tonnes, not 1, or are you suggesting Carcharodontosaurus had a biteforce of 17 tonnes? it is true that if we instead use the "MAX bite force PCA +20% FL shortest" model from Bates and Falkingham (2012), from where the 57,000N posterior biteforce of T. rex comes from, it'll suggest a greater posterior biteforce but only of 44,000N.

@bone crusher
We don't know that, you can't just claim that lifting 2 tonnes is "certainly within scope" if we don't even have a point of reference at all.
Edited by blaze, Jun 23 2015, 12:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@blaze:
I’m talking about this:
Quote:
 
Motivated by the work of palaeo-art “Double Death (2011),” a biomechanical analysis using three-dimensional digital models was conducted to assess the potential of a pair of the large, Late Cretaceous theropod dinosaur Carcharodontosaurus saharicus to successfully lift a medium-sized sauropod and not lose balance. Limaysaurus tessonei from the Late Cretaceous of South America was chosen as the sauropod as it is more completely known, but closely related to the rebbachisaurid sauropods found in the same deposits with C. saharicus. The body models incorporate the details of the low-density regions associated with lungs, systems of air sacs, and pneumatized axial skeletal regions. These details, along with the surface meshes of the models, were used to estimate the body masses and centers of mass of the two animals. It was found that a 6 t C. saharicus could successfully lift a mass of 2.5 t and not lose balance as the combined center of mass of the body and the load in the jaws would still be over the feet. However, the neck muscles were found to only be capable of producing enough force to hold up the head with an added mass of 424 kg held at the midpoint of the maxillary tooth row. The jaw adductor muscles were more powerful, and could have held a load of 512 kg. The more limiting neck constraint leads to the conclusion that two, adult C. saharicus could successfully lift a L. tessonei with a maximum body mass of 850 kg and a body length of 8.3 m. Anat Rec, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


I don’t have the details, because I don’t have the paper (you seem so do, so can’t you verify the density hypothesis?). But what I do know is that scaling up SMA 0005 (78cm skull length according to the BHI) from Bates & Falkingham 2012 (I’m always using their max estimates for everything, because the method probably underestimates bite force compared to in vivo methods) to the 157cm skull of Carcharodontosaurus yields a bite force of 2.2-3.5t (rostral-caudal), not .5t as stated in the abstract. Considering that the bite force is so unreasonably underestimated, and the body mass, imho, too, I am very suspicious about the other figures as well. Also allosauroid necks are notoriously under-muscled in my experience. If we follow Snively et al. 2007, the neck of Allosaurus is deeper than a T. rex neck at skull length parity, but this is rarely shown.
I just used a T. rex underestimated approximately 6-fold as an example, hence 1t for T. rex as an analogous figure. Of course that figure is utter BS, it’s just supposed to make a point.

PS: Forgot how I came to assume it was SGM DIN 1 though, perhaps it was just mentioned in some news article…

@bone crusher: So basically, what you are saying is that it is your feeling that a T. rex could lift a large hippo, and that this is evidence that it was x times stronger than a carcharodontosaur?
As if citing a documentary you don’t even remember the name of wasn’t bad enough…

And Giganotosaurus is the one that would just be a bit longer and taller at equal weight (I’ve already posted a comparison), just like T. rex would only be a bit more bulky. Both are equally minor, because they are connected. If at equal weight Giganotosaurus was the same length and height, it would be equally robust.

You don’t explain it because you can’t, not because it doesn’t need explaining. How does a wider chest cavity give T. rex that vastly superior strength you like to assert it had?
–––References:
Bates, Karl T.; Falkingham, Peter L. (2012): Estimating maximum bite performance in Tyrannosaurus rex using multi-body dynamics. Biology Letters, Vol. 8 (4) pp. 660-664
Snively, Eric; Russell, Anthony P. (2007): Functional Variation of Neck Muscles and Their Relation to Feeding Style in Tyrannosauridae and Other Large Theropod Dinosaurs. The Anatomical Record, Vol. 290 pp. 934-957
Edited by theropod, Jun 23 2015, 01:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopredator
Member Avatar
Disaster taxa
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It saddens me deeply that there still exist people who think there are more able fighters as the Überraubtier that is trex.

Spoken as a true man.
Edited by Mesopredator, Jun 23 2015, 01:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
For what its worth animals with crushing dentition typically only kill an animal with one bite that are significantly smaller then them. I think slicing dentition is going to be far more effective against a similarly sized opponent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^I think "far more effective" is pushing it, both would be effective, especially at the sizes we are talking about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@theropod
That's their estimate of how much weight Carcharodontosaurus could hold in their mouths, their biteforce estimate is actually 2.8 tonnes at the middle of the toothrow.

edit:
And yes, the abstract is rounding, their exact mass estimate is 6230kg.

This were their density assumptions:

Quote:
 
For the purposes of calculating the mass and center of mass (CM), the density profile along the axial body was divided into two sections with the tail density being set to 1000 gm/l and the remainder of the body being set to 850 gm/l. This lower density in the pre-caudal region is intended to represent the pneumatisation of the axial skeleton (Wedel, 2005), and the presence of systems of air sacs in the trunk and neck (O’Connor and Claessens, 2005). The arms and legs were assigned densities of 1000 gm/l.


Hartman's were this.
Quote:
 
I used a specific gravity of 1.0 (same as water) for the limbs and tail, and 0.9 for the neck and torso (remember that the torso includes part of the denser upper limbs in this GDI) . The head uses 0.8 to account for the sinuses and empty space in the mouth.


However now that I think better about it while there are density difference is probably not enough to account for the 600kg difference, volume should be lower as well.
Edited by blaze, Jun 23 2015, 02:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^How did they make that estimate then (how much it could hold in its mouth, if that’s not simply the bite force)?
Edited by theropod, Jun 23 2015, 02:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'll send you the manuscript.
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.