| 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 (110,331 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 23 2015, 06:21 AM Post #361 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@blaze: Thanks! That's actually very interesting. While I think that they are somewhat underestimating overall body size and plausibly also neck strength (large carcharodontosaurs also have taller neural complexes than Allosaurus) mainly it seems that I was just generally overestimating theropod lifting potential. My bad, I should really be more cautious when discussing stuff I haven't read. Edited by theropod, Jun 23 2015, 06:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 23 2015, 07:56 AM Post #362 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That was my impression of their estimates too. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Jun 23 2015, 09:55 AM Post #363 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, perhaps "far more" is pushing it, but i'm inclined to believe that slicing dentition is going to be more effective when dealing with a similarly sized animal. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 23 2015, 10:36 AM Post #364 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
IMHO, in this particular instance, they will be just as effective. There are some crushing bites that I'd consider to be inferior to at least some slicing bites, but those of tyrannosaurids are not among them.
Edited by Ausar, Jun 23 2015, 11:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 23 2015, 12:42 PM Post #365 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here it is, "Clash of the dinosaurs: Perfect Predators" from Discovery channel, starts from 4:05. T Rex So yeah use whatever adult male hippo weight you wish, but no note even a female weighs 1400kg and male hippos are far larger. Also at same weight, the amount of weight on Giga would be redistributed to its length, not bulkiness thus a more slender, elongated animal than T Rex. This to me looks very significant in a fight. ![]() Tell that to the 6-10 ton triceratops which T rex would kill on a routine basis. A bone crushing instant kill bite is utmost crucial to penetrate the tough defense of a Tric. Edited by bone crusher, Jun 23 2015, 12:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 23 2015, 03:02 PM Post #366 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Clash of the dinosaurs is a dreadful documentary. No study has ever been done for how much could T. rex lift, it is really surprising that until Henderson and Nicholls (2015) no one ever even had enough interest to answer the question "how much can a giant theropod lift in its mouth?" Male and female hippos are not really that different in body size, from several publications gathering data from culling operations in the 60s, females and males across several populations commonly average about 1300kg and 1500kg respectively with the largest individuals seldom exceeding 30% over those values (Laws, 1963. Pinaar et al., 1966. Ledger, 1968). That size sexual dimorphism is less pronounced than even ours, in fact, while males are heavier, Laws found that body length and torso girth average exactly the same between sexes. However this bit of hippo trivia is largely off topic. ![]() More on topic, how do you know T. rex only targeted Triceratops its own size or larger? how do you know it killed them with a single bite? no bone crushing predator alive today kills with a single bite. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jun 23 2015, 10:56 PM Post #367 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well no bone crushing animal alive today is built like a T rex is there? I didn't say T rex only targeted Tric, it may very well targeted anything it could get a bite on, but the point is its jaws are quite capable of crushing bones of a large animal as big as itself given its bite force and teeth function. Adversely how do you know it didn't do all that? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 23 2015, 11:47 PM Post #368 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And no slicing animal is built like a Giganotosaurus. Your point? Again one of those feely arguments à la "I personally think it is capable of that, which is evidence that it is better"? So you assume that T.rex was superior to all extant analogues because you found nothing proving tthe contrary, but Giganotosaurus wasn't...why exactly? Edited by theropod, Jun 23 2015, 11:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Lukose | Jun 27 2015, 09:54 AM Post #369 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm going to vote Tyrannosaurus here. It's kind of like pitting a pitbull terrier against a husky. |
![]() |
|
| steakbush1357 | Jun 27 2015, 10:02 AM Post #370 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote:@Tutorman said: Yes, I know, this ones a year old+ topic, however being a fan of these magnificent animals and at one point wanting to be a paleontologist, I would like to say a few things. First things first, this would be an epic battle of many proportions, however a significantly unfair one at that, and that is that the Giganotosaurus would be at a distinct disadvantage against the T-Rex and for many reasons I'll explain here. Size --- Winner: Slight advantage to Giganotosaurus - When looking at the two indicated here, there really is no size significance from T-Rex to Giganotosaurus, who is only about 8% larger. Being 1 ton heavier is insignificant as well in this case, in fact the size ratio difference from a Tiger to Lion is more significant then the size ratio between a Giganotosaurus to a Tyrannosaurus Rex, so although Giganotosaurus is slightly larger, its only by a hair's worth. Nevertheless, its an advantage is only slight. Skull structure- A Giganotosaurus skull like the majority of the other giant theropods in that it had a relatively narrow snout from the front, and its lower jaw bones were not wide, indicating that it didn't have a significantly powerful bite force. This makes sense since its teeth would not be capable of such a thing, and were pertained to cutting and slicing, a form in which nearly all primitive theropods used. This was an effective killing tactic, because it would have been great up against the giant sauropods of its time, so such a method would have been efficient. Strength --- Winner: Tyrannosaurus Rex. Every mainstream paleontologist who is not biased to either creature would state Tyrannosaurus Rex is lb for lb the most powerful land predator that we have ever discovered up to date. Giganotosaurus is indeed a powerful predatory animal, and in comparison to say Spinosaurus whom is larger then Giganotosaurus and Rex, but nowhere near as heavily muscled as either or. Now Giganotosaurus is indeed a robust and powerful animal, but T-Rex anatomically is far more stocky, more barrel chested and significantly muscled through skull, neck, body and tail. It's neck muscles are nearly almost as strong as its leg muscles which truly shows you the scope of how much the Tyrant Lizard King packed. So in a case of who would overpower who, the T-Rex has no equal on land in terms of predators, nothing even comes close. Within the animal kingdom...strength is huge, and in this case, T-Rex is the obvious victor. Edited by steakbush1357, Jun 28 2015, 08:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| DarkGricer | Jun 28 2015, 06:16 AM Post #371 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe it would be a fantastic answer, if it wasn't for the fact that it is complete BS. Size: this one is sort of correct. The sizes given are wrong, but he/she is correct to say that the size difference is minor (At least for now) and won't play much part. However, he/she IS wrong to say that a 1 ton advantage is minor. If Giganotosaurus where a full ton heavier, it would definitely be able to overpower the T.rex. Skull and teeth: So what if Giganotosaurus wasn't a crusher? A bite from those teeth would sever muscle and other tissues. A good bite in the leg, and T.rex can't walk properly anymore. A good bite in the neck and... Ugh. You know what's located there. Basically, T.rex's bite is deadly, but so is Giganotosaurus'. Just because it COULD wait for it's victims to bleed out doesn't mean it can't deal significant damage with just a single bite. Also, I doubt that T.rex could actually bite down with over 20 tons of force. Strength: Ahahahahahah! How cute. Yes, T.rex's proportions where more for strength and bulk, but Giganotosaurus wasn't a weakling. At equal size, there would be little difference in strength. And seeing as the Giganotosaurus holotype is bigger then the average T.rex (And the second specimen was likely even bigger), Giganotosaurus is probably going to be a bit bigger then it's opponent. And as I said before, T.rex's superior jaw strength doesn't matter because Giganotosaurus doesn't need it. Advancement: Animals are not iPhones. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better. Evolution doesn't make things better, it makes things better suited to what they need. The brain size isn't really relevant. Neither animal would have been paticularly smart. Not to mention, most of T.rex's increased brain size was dedicated to their sense of smell. In reality, neither would have been much smarter then the other. And the eyes, well, I haven't read anything scientific that said Giganotosaurus had worse vision then T.rex. As for binocular vision, that's a tool of hunting (One that plenty of animals can do without too!). In a fight, it makes little difference. Basically , while it's possible T.rex has the advantage in this fight, it would be slight and NOWHERE NEAR a 80-90% win rate. Personally, I think this fight is about even at simmilar sizes. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 28 2015, 07:18 AM Post #372 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually nearly all of the increased brain size comes down to forebrain enlargement. The thing is, I don't think that's going to help it significantly. Unless the animals acquired martial arts training, they are going to fight using instinct, not intellect, and that applies to both of them. Having a bigger cerebellum would actually be more useful in all likelihood. As for that quote, I concur, it's BS. Edited by theropod, Jun 28 2015, 07:20 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| steakbush1357 | Jun 28 2015, 07:38 AM Post #373 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@DarkGricer Yes, I agree with you that "Tutorman" is quite wrong about a few things. I was in a rush when I posted the quote, so I didn't have time to edit all the crap out according to what I wanted to say, but I will do so after this post. That being said, I think he is at least partially right on a couple of things. I'll address your post by responding to each of your points. Size- I agree with you, his numbers aren't all that accurate. He is correct in saying that Giganotosaurus isn't all that much larger than Tyrannosaurus. Skull/teeth- Agree. Tutorman's tyrannosaurus bite force estimate is overestimated. Both could do lethal damage to the other. Strength- I think you are incorrect on this one. Giganotosaurus may be larger, but it doesn't have as much muscle. Unless Giganotosaurus is a good deal larger, there's no reason to conclude it could overpower T.Rex. In fact, given analysis on T.Rex, it appears to be more muscular, although Giganotosaurus is certainly powerful, so I would say that given the fact that T.Rex is more so built for brute strength/power, that T.Rex is more likely to overpower Giganotosaurus. Advancement- Agree. Brain- The only thing I want to say here is that T.Rex had a larger cerebrum, the part of the brain associated with strategy, as well as a larger cerebellum, allowing for better coordination, and was more experienced/resilient due to the fact that it was adapted to taking down similarly sized, dangerous prey. Yes, brain size isn't an issue, its how you use it that is, and I give Rex the edge here, this is a large advantage. I'm fully aware that Giganotosaurus was no stranger to conflict, but T.Rex prey probably put up more of a fight, so Giganotosaurus doesn't have the advantage the Rex has. Eyes- Agree. Based on the above, I'd say the Rex takes at least a slight majority, though nowhere near something like 9 out of 10. In conclusion, yes that quote was mostly BS so I admit I was wrong to post it, I just partially agreed with Tutorman on some points. If you wish for me to delete the quote I can do so. It was good talking to you though, hope you find something to address. Edited by steakbush1357, Jun 28 2015, 10:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| DarkGricer | Jun 28 2015, 03:16 PM Post #374 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Theropod: Hmmm... I did not know that. Still only a minor advantage if you ask me. @steakbush1357: Strength: I doubt it. Scott Hartman made an image of the Giganotosaurus holotype compared to the absolute largest and bulkiest (I think?) specimen of T.rex we have, Sue. I would post it right now, but my iPad won't let me right now. Either way, one has to remember that in the picture, they are two specimens of simmilar length, not mass. Scale the two to be of simmilar mass, and you will see little difference in their muscle mass. If you take a more average specimen if T.rex, this will be even more true. Edit: I hey. I forgot the very picture I was talking about is on this page already. Convenient. Brain: Well, as Theropod pointed out, it's still not much of an advantage. Neither combatant was very brainy either way. A difference in inteligence rarely matters in fights, unless it's huge. And what T.rex hunted makes no difference. An Ankylosaurus or Triceratops might put up quite a fight, but they aren't going to fight like a Giganotosaurus. Any experience a Trex may have gained against them isn't going to help against a Giganotosaurus. The only experience that would matter is the experience gained from fighting other large, carnivorous theropods. And we cannot just assume that Giganotosaurus did less fighting other theropods then T.rex did. Not until we find more specimens. Also, T.rex likely hunted hadrosaurs such as Edmontosaurus most of the time. Big, armored spiky things would have been, well, too big, armored and spiky to make for a safe, main source of food. Same goes for Giganotosaurus and sauropods. Giganotosaurus COULD hunt giants, but likely feasted mostly on things closer to it in size most of the time. Edited by DarkGricer, Jun 28 2015, 03:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 28 2015, 05:19 PM Post #375 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Citation needed for T.rex having aa larger cerebellum. And also for them using what you call "strategy". I still think people are WAY overestimating the strength benefits (and even more that supposed larger muscle mass, what do they think Giganotosaurus' body mass consists of then) that come from being a little more barrel-chested, if any exist. T.rex has a marked advantage in the lateroflexive neck muscles due to he width of its skull and specializations of its muscle groups, to an extend the dorsifllexors (though as I said before, not sure how much of that will actually be usable), and a slight advantage in the thigh-muscles. Giganotosaurusas an advantage in the calve and foot, obviously the forelimb, and possibly the head ventroflexors (but the last thing I'm not sure about, it would just be a carnosaur trend, and not necessarily consistent with its occipital anaromy as far as I can discern). That is at weight parity. If you go back a few pages, you'll see why I think Giganotosaurus is at least 400kg heavier on average (which is ignoring MUCPv-ch1). People sure like to make unsubstantiated claims suggesting major disparities in this regard, but from what I can tell the strength advantage could go to Giganotosaurus just as well. That being said, nobody has yet given me a satisfactory explanation as to how they would even be able to exploit more or less marked strength advantages at relatively similar sizes, considering that they will have to bite first, which will already decide the fight. At these scales, you cannot just shrug off a metre-long bite with a force of several tons clamping down on you, despite some fanboys on youtube suggesting thia for the tyrannosaur with wronf claims about carnosaurian bite effectiveness. Edited by theropod, Jun 28 2015, 05:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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