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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 44
Giganotosaurus carolinii v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jan 31 2012, 05:48 PM (110,349 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:
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Gryposaurus notabilis
May 22 2013, 12:06 AM
What do you think about Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus? I know that there is already a thread, but it was closed for reasons that I did not understand. You could do it again?


Topic reopened!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DinosaurMichael
Jan 31 2012, 11:30 PM
Giganotosaurus is only slightly bigger. I favor T-Rex since it had a stronger bite, and was much more robust. Not to mention it was the most advanced big theropod.
Bite force doesn't mean everything, and "most advanced" is bs, evolution is a tree not a ladder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bandog
Member Avatar
Everything else is just a dog.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
May 22 2013, 06:34 PM
DinosaurMichael
Jan 31 2012, 11:30 PM
Giganotosaurus is only slightly bigger. I favor T-Rex since it had a stronger bite, and was much more robust. Not to mention it was the most advanced big theropod.
Bite force doesn't mean everything, and "most advanced" is bs, evolution is a tree not a ladder.
I don't necessarily agree, in the evolutionary arms race, it is certainly possible that the more recent tyrannosaurus will have adaptations that give it an advantage in inter-theropod conflict that weren't a selective pressure for giganotosaurus. Entirely speculative though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SameerPrehistorica
Feb 1 2012, 02:03 AM
DinosaurMichael
Jan 31 2012, 11:30 PM
Giganotosaurus is only slightly bigger. I favor T-Rex since it had a stronger bite, and was much more robust. Not to mention it was the most advanced big theropod.
I agree that.It was only slightly bigger than T.Rex. Eventhough the new estimates of T.Rex is 10 tonne.In that case T.Rex is slightly bigger.Whatever...... Giganotosarus - 40 % Tyrannosaurus Rex - 60 %


The 10+ tonne estimates were heavily exaggerated. Don't use them.

And @Taurus, I can't believe how biased you are.


Taurus
Feb 1 2012, 07:09 AM
Trex has much better chances to kill a Gigantosaurus.


Gigantosaurus is a sauropod, one likely large enough to easily decimate your beloved Tyrannosaurus.

Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantosaurus

Taurus
Feb 1 2012, 11:32 AM
DarkGricer
Feb 1 2012, 11:20 AM
??? I posted here, but my post didn't apear. Strange.

Anyway: Giga wins this. It's bigger, more agile and can cause more serious injuries much quicker using those gigantic scicors. Giga wins 60% of the time.
How the agility helps in the match? Also Trex can causes more serious injuries easily and it is possible for Trex to crushed Giga's skull. Giga wasn't much bigger than Trex as Trex is quite heavier than Giga. Trex wins 70% of the time.


What fanboyism. Giganotosaurus is the heavier one, NOT Tyrannosaurus. And you seriously expect others to believe the smaller animal to win 70% of the time? Also, a crushing bite isn't deadlier than a slicing bite.

Taurus
Feb 2 2012, 01:48 AM
Darkgricer has never changed at all and don't do his research as usual.

Giga wasn't heavy than a Trex as it is a little taller and a little longer but that doesn't mean Giga is bigger and heavier than a Trex.

So Giga' fragile skull is too big for a Trex to crush? Also do you think Giga can kill a robust Trex through breaking its neck? Giga wasn't built for combat while Trex was a combat creature.

Giga's skull wasn't that robust or sturdy as Trex's skull.


Giganotosaurus is larger than Tyrannosaurus, the smallest known Giganotosaurus is roughly around the size of the largest confirmed Tyrannosaurus.

Giganotosaurus's skull isn't fragile at all, look at Scott Hartman's skeletal. And the not built for combat part is total bs. You say that Darkgricer didn't do his research, but you apparently are the one who is stating mainstream fallacies. Refrain from being a hypocrite.


Taurus
Feb 2 2012, 08:09 AM
DarkGricer
Feb 2 2012, 03:34 AM
Taurus
Feb 2 2012, 01:48 AM
Darkgricer has never changed at all and don't do his research as usual.

Giga wasn't heavy than a Trex as it is a little taller and a little longer but that doesn't mean Giga is bigger and heavier than a Trex.

So Giga' fragile skull is too big for a Trex to crush? Also do you think Giga can kill a robust Trex through breaking its neck? Giga wasn't built for combat while Trex was a combat creature.

Giga's skull wasn't that robust or sturdy as Trex's skull.
1: Oh, please. You want to apply T.rex's new weight, wait for tests to be done for Giganotosaurus. Until there's new weight for Giga, Giga is bigger.

2: No. But it's to big to bite. T.rex can't bite a head it ifs bigger than it's jaws. The only way it could bite it is by twisting its head, allowing Giga to finish it off instantly. You see, if the T.rex twists its head and bites Giga's, Giga could bite it's opponnets head as well, meaning it to has a grip on it. Then it could use its claws to get extra grip. Then, using its neck and arm muscles, it could twist the already twisted head to to point where the neck breaks.

3: Like that matters. Bite force helps. But giant flesh scicors help just as much.
rolleyes

Giga's just lighter than Trex due to less dense in the bones. The new weights of Trex was never applied to Giga or other theropods as the article has never mentioned of them.

Trex has dealt with other trex so why Giga should be different? I find it unlikely that Giga could broke Trex's neck and would use it's pathetic claws to twisting Trex's head.

Also Trex dealt with other trex and they often have scars on the skulls. Trex's teeth has serrated edges which are no different from Giga's teeth, just thicker. I see no evidence that Giga's head is too big for a Trex to bites on and crush the skull.

You know it's fun to see you get wrong all times and we have to correct you all times.


It's funny how you try to insult Darkgricer when you're the one stating bs. The Giganotosaurus holotype is already similar in size to the largest confirmed Tyrannosaurus specimen. Also, Tyrannosaurus would be the one with less dense bones, being closer to birds than carnosaurs. You're trying to correct Darkgricer with bias, it would be better for you to go and do some research yourself.


Taurus
Feb 2 2012, 09:37 AM
Trex's skulls are robust, yet there are scars all over on Trex's skulls. Giga on other hand, have fragile skull which isn't sturdy at all makes easier for a Trex to crush Giga's skull.

It doesnt matter if Trex's skull is "25"% smaller than Giga's skull.

Twisting a neck with pathetic arms of Giga, that's just unrealistic as usual when it comes from you.


Show me evidence that Giganotosaurus' skull is fragile.

Anomonyous
Feb 2 2012, 02:15 PM
Nein...ZE BEAUTIFUL LOGIC...it is being ignored! Such BLASPHEMY!

OK.

Tyrannosaurus wins. Giganotosaurus has virtually no advantage except for a larger gape. Tyrannosaurus is taller, smarter, faster, has binocular vision and a deadlier bite. Weight has no bearing in this matchup, so forget about it. They're not sumo wrestling.

An allosaurid design does not indicate agility; also, keep in mind that tyrannosaurus has longer legs and broader hips for more muscle attachment. Breaking tyrannosaurus' neck? Laughable. How do you break a taller theropod's neck if its neck vertebrae are thicker and the muscles are more developed? Hmm? Oh, and add the fact that you're receiving more than 6 tons of pressure on YO FACE.

Tyrannosaurus had a hinged jaw that allowed it to open its mouth wide enough to take in massive amounts of flesh with a single bite. The scissor-jaw thing is a futile argument. Tyrannosaurus doesn't even need slicing teeth to kill. The bite force alone is enough to rupture and crush vital organs, bones, and blood vessels. However, if you wish to pursue that issue again, here you go:

Posted Image

How's this for slicing?


You're just like Taurus, a biased fanboy. And aren't you the one ignoring logic?

Posted Image

Giganotosaurus is the one taller. And the Tyrannosaurus there is FMNH PR2081, the largest confirmed Tyrannosaurus, an average one would be even smaller.

As for speed, this is a fight, not a race, and intelligence is irrelevant here. And more muscle mass = more strength.

I would continue with more of the pathetic posts in this thread, but I don't have the patience to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bandog
May 22 2013, 06:45 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
May 22 2013, 06:34 PM
DinosaurMichael
Jan 31 2012, 11:30 PM
Giganotosaurus is only slightly bigger. I favor T-Rex since it had a stronger bite, and was much more robust. Not to mention it was the most advanced big theropod.
Bite force doesn't mean everything, and "most advanced" is bs, evolution is a tree not a ladder.
I don't necessarily agree, in the evolutionary arms race, it is certainly possible that the more recent tyrannosaurus will have adaptations that give it an advantage in inter-theropod conflict that weren't a selective pressure for giganotosaurus. Entirely speculative though.
The problem with that is that Giganotosaurus was rather different from tyrannosaurids...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Shut up Broly! Stop correcting over 1 year posts! They have been inactive for long time.
Edited by 7Alx, May 22 2013, 06:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bandog
Member Avatar
Everything else is just a dog.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
May 22 2013, 06:54 PM
Bandog
May 22 2013, 06:45 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
May 22 2013, 06:34 PM
DinosaurMichael
Jan 31 2012, 11:30 PM
Giganotosaurus is only slightly bigger. I favor T-Rex since it had a stronger bite, and was much more robust. Not to mention it was the most advanced big theropod.
Bite force doesn't mean everything, and "most advanced" is bs, evolution is a tree not a ladder.
I don't necessarily agree, in the evolutionary arms race, it is certainly possible that the more recent tyrannosaurus will have adaptations that give it an advantage in inter-theropod conflict that weren't a selective pressure for giganotosaurus. Entirely speculative though.
The problem with that is that Giganotosaurus was rather different from tyrannosaurids...
The principle hold true though, the later animal has likely faced more selective pressures, some beneficial for fighting, than the older animal. Though it is only a possibility
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus wins. It was at least as large, if not larger than Giganotosaurus, and holds most of the advantages imho, besides height (which is still pretty comparable) and probably jaw gape.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
May 23 2013, 02:05 AM
It was at least as large, if not larger than Giganotosaurus
Have you not seen Scott Hartman's size comparison?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Super Kaizer Ghidorah
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus is still the undefeated theropod. He aint the king for nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
^He aint the king to begin with.

brolyeuphyfusion
May 23 2013, 02:12 AM
Spinodontosaurus
May 23 2013, 02:05 AM
It was at least as large, if not larger than Giganotosaurus
Have you not seen Scott Hartman's size comparison?

Of course.
Tyrannosaurus' torso is just as long, deeper and wider. It's tail is shorter, as are it's legs, but skull (probably) heavier.
So, in my opinion, FMNH PR2081 and MUCPv-95 are comparable in size, with MUCPv-Ch1 being smaller.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Giganotosaurus is bigger, taller, heavier, but not so dramatically, but only slightly, and probably Tyrannosaurus had to be more intelligent, but I do not know what is used in a fight. I would say 50/50.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
May 23 2013, 02:05 AM
Tyrannosaurus wins. It was at least as large, if not larger than Giganotosaurus, and holds most of the advantages imho, besides height (which is still pretty comparable) and probably jaw gape.
Tyrannosaurus was smaller than giganotosaurus at around 6-7 tons (correct me if I am wrong). Giganotosaurus weighed around 8-9 tons. I would agree that giganotosaurus was less heavily built, but it still had superior weaponry (excluding the obvious advantage that t-rex had bite-force wise); knife-like teeth, more powerful forearms, and a wider gape.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gryposaurus notabilis
May 23 2013, 02:55 AM
Giganotosaurus is bigger, taller, heavier, but not so dramatically, but only slightly, and probably Tyrannosaurus had to be more intelligent, but I do not know what is used in a fight. I would say 50/50.
Perhaps it is taller and longer, but I am not sure if it's heavier.
According to my calculation, MUCPv-Ch1 would only weigh about 85% as Sue (it's torso is smaller and narrower, and legs much smaller); comparable to an rather average rex.
While Hartman's MUCPv-95 would weigh 3% more than Sue. But Hartman's MUCPv-95 dentary shallowest depth at 7% more than MUCPv-Ch1, when it really should only be 2% deeper. I think Hartman's MUCPv-Ch1 is slightly over-sized.
Sue: 12.3m, 85000kg?, MUCPv-Ch1 12.4m, 72000kg, MUCPv-95 12.7-13.2m, 80000-87000kg?

The largest specimens of both species weigh about the same, while giga is a lot longer at weigh parity. But that's just my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Godzillasaurus
May 23 2013, 03:01 AM
Spinodontosaurus
May 23 2013, 02:05 AM
Tyrannosaurus wins. It was at least as large, if not larger than Giganotosaurus, and holds most of the advantages imho, besides height (which is still pretty comparable) and probably jaw gape.
Tyrannosaurus was smaller than giganotosaurus at around 6-7 tons (correct me if I am wrong). Giganotosaurus weighed around 8-9 tons. I would agree that giganotosaurus was less heavily built, but it still had superior weaponry (excluding the obvious advantage that t-rex had bite-force wise); knife-like teeth, more powerful forearms, and a wider gape.
not true, MUCPv-Ch1 clearly has overall volume less than Sue.
if you think largest rex only weighs 7t, then MUCPv-Ch1 would weigh 6t, not 8.
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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 44

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.