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 (110,321 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:
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My replies are in orange.

TheROC
 
-No.

It was not actually 600 lbs 'per square inch'. That same guy measured croc bite forces using the same units.

'Per square inch' is just a common miss-usage for total bite force recordings that still happens on tv for some reason. It was a Lbs of force rating. Afterall, he directly reference it being about 5 times more than a human bite force, which we know is in the low 100 lbs of force.

So yes, it was a Lbs of force reading.

[Well that's pretty stupid if you ask me. But there's something else I should note. A quick look at one of theropod's links on his website reminded me that Komodo dragons use pulling forces to tear flesh, which actually makes in vivo forces much greater than simulated forces (by an order of magnitude he said). With this in mind--and the fact that the Komodo dragons in the video, sure enough, swung the bite test gauge once and subsequently rag dolled it--I'm not really sure if jaw adductors were the only things contributing to that 600 pound force figure.]

-A 40 foot Komodo would be about 8 tons. So within the same range as a theropod. On top of this, komodo dragons have a tiny skull relative to their lengths compared to carcharodontosaurs.

[Okay.]

-If I recall correctly, the mechanical advantage was significantly higher in the back of the tooth row for the Carcharodontosaurus than the T.Rex. In the front of the tooth row the difference was more moderate but I believe it still had the advantage there too. I will double check.

Mechanical advantage isn't the be-all-end all obviously. A lion has a better mechanical advantage along its tooth row than a crocodile, but the crocodile makes up for it with sheer musculature.

Giant theropod musculature isn't going to vary as much as the difference between a lion and a crocodile of course. Those animals are built much differently from each other.

[Well, yeah. The differences in musculature in two predatory theropods won't be as great as those in a cat and a crocodile. But fundamentally, just as with a crocodile and a lion, Tyrannosaurus would make up for its apparetly inferior mechanical advantage to a carcharodontosaur with the sheer force of its jaw adductors.]

Again, my statement was simply that it would not surprise me if Giga could bite comparably as hard at equal weights. At equal weights, it skull would tend to be bigger from my recollection.

[In what regard, though? From what I can tell, its skull would only be larger in terms of skull length (and not really by that significant of a degree either). In terms of the width of the posterior end of the skull for example--the area where the jaw muscles are housed--Tyrannosaurus would be larger.

If Giganotosaurus turned out to bite about as hard as an equivalent-sized Tyrannosaurus, it would surprise me a lot.]


I should still have a pdf of the study from Dr. Sakamoto. If anyone wants it please PM me your email and I will send it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
It has been estimated that the jaw muscles of the related allosauroid Allosaurus SMA0005 would have exerted a bite force on its posterior and anterior teeth of 6,809 N and 4,179 N, respectively (Bates and Falkingham, 2012). Taking the average of these two bite force estimates, equal to 5,494 N at the midpoint of the tooth row; and assuming that th e jaw adductor muscle cross-sectional areas will increase proportional to the square of s ize increase when the 0.72m skull of SMA0005 is scaled up to the 1.63 m of C. saharicus , a factor of 2.26 2 in this case; and that bite force is directly proportional to muscle cross-sect ional area; implies that C. saharicus could have a exerted a bite force of 2.82x10^4 N at the midpoint of the tooth row (5,494 N × 2.26 2 ).


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23164/abstract

As far as I know that's lower than the lower end for T. rex.

Posted Image

Posted Image

pictures by theropod
Edited by Spartan, Jul 28 2016, 10:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
You gotta stop putting words in my mouth man, I only said it would be hard for giga to bite if it's pinned down on the ground, say having a t-rex foot on its face. I already said giga could bite multiple times while in the process of getting overpowered by the t-rex. Slash wounds on the body especially wont kill the rex instantly as adrenaline helps keep you moving. And again I'm not saying this happens every time or is easily achieved, but if t-rex positions itself well without getting kicked or bitten in the throat while pinning giga on the ground, then it's over. It's a possibility be it 20% or 50%, but it does tip the odds to rex' favor statistically speaking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Here's something I've read regarding Tyrannosaurus' bite force.

Snively et al. (2015)
 
Despite these caveats, bite force estimates for Basilosaurus isis appear to be comparable to those of very large white sharks, although relatively lower than those of some large-headed reptilian predators of similar skull length (Table 6). Reptiles have a laterally unconstrained, multi-aponeurosis m. pterygoideus posterior/ventralis that loops around the lower jaw, and pennate temporal muscles with greater forces per ACSA than the 30–37 N/cm2 specific tension (ST) values for mammals. (When isometric ST for Tyrannosaurus is scaled to ST of the tuatara Sphenodon, the tyrannosaur’s posterior bite forces reach the 100,000 N values estimated through structural mechanics, and calculated for giant crocodilians.) Forces remain lower in B. isis even with greater estimates of specific tension in mammalian jaw muscles. Thomason found that the dry skull method can underestimate mammalian bite forces at 30 N/cm2 by 1.3–1.5. Scaling up to these values to assume 39–45 N/cm2 of specific tension, maximum estimates for mandible elevation in B. isis (load case 1) would therefore be 17,350–20,020 N using our method. These reaction forces are still lower than estimated for the largest Crocodylus porosus.
link

Interestingly enough, I remember blaze suggesting something similar over a year ago, referring to the same citations the paper above gave.

blaze
 
Recent estimates like that of Bates and Falkingham (2012) put that of T. rex with a 1.3m long skull (Stan specifically) at 35,000-57,000N using multi-body dynamics but there's studies (Curtis et al. 2010) that find actual in vivo measurements to be up to 3 times more than such estimates, suggesting T. rex might have had a biteforce over 100,000N.
link
Edited by Ausar, Jul 29 2016, 12:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Panther
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not putting words in your mouth. It is just that you make it sound like the rex will floor the giga rather then just bite eachother first in the fight when it really wouldn't. And also you are making it sound like it can just tank multiple bites from the giganotosaurus, adrenaline is helpful but it won't slow bloodloss in fact it might actually increase it which will cause it to die quicker. If they both bit eachothers side both would have severe injuries of course but the giganotosaurus would have delt the worst bite since its maw is perfectly designed for bitting larger areas of flesh. The ribs don't matter and would most likely break when bitten. Animals with slicing dentition can and will break bone when they come in contact(generally smaller bones like ribs) the teeth just aren't adapted for bone crunching.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
HyperNova
Jul 28 2016, 12:24 PM
Does t-rex had serreted teeths?
I missed this. Anyway, yes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ausar
Jul 29 2016, 12:06 AM
Here's something I've read regarding Tyrannosaurus' bite force.

Snively et al. (2015)
 
Despite these caveats, bite force estimates for Basilosaurus isis appear to be comparable to those of very large white sharks, although relatively lower than those of some large-headed reptilian predators of similar skull length (Table 6). Reptiles have a laterally unconstrained, multi-aponeurosis m. pterygoideus posterior/ventralis that loops around the lower jaw, and pennate temporal muscles with greater forces per ACSA than the 30–37 N/cm2 specific tension (ST) values for mammals. (When isometric ST for Tyrannosaurus is scaled to ST of the tuatara Sphenodon, the tyrannosaur’s posterior bite forces reach the 100,000 N values estimated through structural mechanics, and calculated for giant crocodilians.) Forces remain lower in B. isis even with greater estimates of specific tension in mammalian jaw muscles. Thomason found that the dry skull method can underestimate mammalian bite forces at 30 N/cm2 by 1.3–1.5. Scaling up to these values to assume 39–45 N/cm2 of specific tension, maximum estimates for mandible elevation in B. isis (load case 1) would therefore be 17,350–20,020 N using our method. These reaction forces are still lower than estimated for the largest Crocodylus porosus.
link

Interestingly enough, I remember blaze suggesting something similar over a year ago, referring to the same citations the paper above gave.

blaze
 
Recent estimates like that of Bates and Falkingham (2012) put that of T. rex with a 1.3m long skull (Stan specifically) at 35,000-57,000N using multi-body dynamics but there's studies (Curtis et al. 2010) that find actual in vivo measurements to be up to 3 times more than such estimates, suggesting T. rex might have had a biteforce over 100,000N.
link
Wouldn't the same apply to every bite force figure for nonavian dinosaurs out there? All bite force estimates for nonavian dinosaurs are dry skull estimates (for obvious reasons).

Also, I would be a bit cautious with that sort of thing, it would imply that an ~8-meter long Allosaurus fragilis could bite down with over 26 kilonewtons of force with it's jaw muscles alone (~8724 newtons * 3 = ~26,172 newtons).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SpinoInWonderland
 
Wouldn't the same apply to every bite force figure for nonavian dinosaurs out there? All bite force estimates for nonavian dinosaurs are dry skull estimates (for obvious reasons).
I guess so?
SpinoInWonderland
 
Also, I would be a bit cautious with that sort of thing, it would imply that an ~8-meter long Allosaurus fragilis could bite down with over 26 kilonewtons of force with it's jaw muscles alone (~8724 newtons * 3 = ~26,172 newtons).
Well, I guess it is what it is? I dunno, I'm not 100% sure if that's really plausible or not.

For what it's worth, Therrien et al. (2005) predict that based off of the bite force of an American alligator and analysis of jaw bending strength that an Allosaurus fragilis would bite even less than that value you've calculated (20,311 N). And this is the same study that calculated that Tyrannosaurus' bite force would reach a whopping ~300 kN.
Edited by Ausar, Dec 20 2017, 09:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Their results are far lower than what was measured in the video.
\
OK, you just weren't very clear in your initial post. thanks
Quote:
 
You gotta stop putting words in my mouth man, I only said it would be hard for giga to bite if it's pinned down on the ground,

im not putting words in your mouth and the assertion i have is so laughably ridiculous, i mean its evident you're grasping at straws here with this. c'mon now.
your reply to black panther
Quote:
 
Black Panther
Jul 28 2016, 07:58 PM
"Giga could nip, slash all it wants to the sides of t-rex but what good is it if you ultimately fail at reaching that Critical bite" rolleyes generally when you wrestle something down you are in very close contact with your opponent, and that's when the giga will get to place it's critical bite. It will surely get more then a "nip" when this is happening, added to the fact that it has 5 foot jaws and is fighting for it's life. A single bite from a giga would easily be just as deadly as a T.rex's bite.
Er not necessarily. By pinning it down basically you put a foot on your opponent's head so that you're restraining the head from moving about while you're going for a neck bite. Not to mention when you're pinned down your head movement would be very limited thus your bite wouldn't be nearly as effective as in optimal head position. See a predator always try to avoid dangers such as horns and hooves when the prey is subdued, sure their heads are in close proximity but when was the last time a downed buffalo was able to gore a lion when the latter was performing a throat bite?

But i guess you want to play with being vague and contradicting yourself within your comments so that's nice for you.

at any rate you are rather wrong, there is no "not necessarily" when being in close proximity in wrestling down another animal -- you are always always always going to be in contact with the animal you are trying to get to the ground -- that's an unarguable facet i'm afraid.
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Jul 29 2016, 05:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HyperNova
Wild Animals Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Forgive my ignorance, but is there any theories about how giganotosaurus use their jaws? Do they bite and pull out for tearing with their serrated teeth?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I guess that's a more or less accurate way of thinking of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LeonardosHeir
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ausar which theropod did your vote go to?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I didn't vote. I don't tend to do that nowadays and I think a fight at similar weights could go either way (50/50).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LeonardosHeir
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Fair enough. I gave my vote to Gigi due to larger bite (not bite force) and it's ability to move its arms to a better advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The arms won't be a factor here. Giganotosaurus' arms are hardly much bigger than those of Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.