| 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 (110,347 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: | |
|---|---|
| Spinodontosaurus | May 25 2013, 07:43 AM Post #121 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Relevant: Full size version. Note that Celeste also roughly represents UCMP 137538 should you base the latter off of Stan (total length is about 13.5 meters in both instances). EDIT: From what I can gather, in Bates et al. (2009), A. atokensis had a higher density than BHI 3033 but lower than that of MOR 555. Given such a low sample, I don't know if we can really draw any trends from it. Edited by Spinodontosaurus, May 25 2013, 07:48 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | May 25 2013, 08:25 AM Post #122 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"How did the myth of Sue having longer legs emerge?" Coria & Salgado (1995) seem to have started the belief that Sue's femur was 138cm long, this was repeated by Mazzetta et al. (2004) and made bigger by them saying Sue's tibia was 120cm long, but as we now know, thank's to Brochu, the real values are ~6cm shorter than that in both cases. btw welcome back Edited by blaze, May 25 2013, 08:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Gecko | May 25 2013, 08:52 AM Post #123 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think these could go with this topic:![]() ![]() ![]() Source I don't know which T. rex specimen it is (Maybe AMNH 5027?), obviously it's not Sue but it does give a nice comparison of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. From what I see they are comparable in size, Giganotosaurus has a taller body but the Tyrannosaurus body may be a bit wider. Unfortunately there are no picture from the sides so it is a bit difficult to say for sure because of the angles. |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | May 25 2013, 02:44 PM Post #124 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@theropod, could you post a link to the Bates' paper you mentioned? I do not understand why t. rex torso density would be significantly less. if you shrink the torso in hutchinson's restoration, would that increase Sue's density then? The dentary in Hartman's MUCPv-95 is definitely not just 2% deeper than MUCPv-CH1, imo it's drawn bigger than it actually is. @Gecko, the skull looks like AMNH 5027. that specimen does not have legs preserved so it could be AMNH 5027 with Stan's legs. I think giga holotype would be slightly heavier than an average rex. with a bigger mouth giga holotype could have slight advantage against an average rex. a 12 meter robust rex would have advantage against MUCPv-CH1 though. MUCPv-95's size is uncertain, it would be a even match to a big rex to having advantage over a big rex. if MUCPv-95 and fragmentary rex's are taken out of the equation, then these two animals are even. Edited by MysteryMeat, May 25 2013, 02:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 25 2013, 04:37 PM Post #125 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2639725/ |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 25 2013, 04:43 PM Post #126 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Remove Celeste, it's size is a field guess by Jack Horner, and we all know that his theories don't make sense. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | May 25 2013, 04:46 PM Post #127 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suspect that the T. rex may be Black Beauty or other specimen from Canada. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | May 25 2013, 09:48 PM Post #128 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To me that Giganotosaurus seemed somewhat larger than the T. rex, but I have no clue what specimen it is. @Mystery meat: there are several papers that support typical tyrannosaurs had a lower density than carnosaurs: http://palaeo-electronica.org/2009_3/186/index.html http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004532 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026037 The density of Acrocanthosaurus is about 15% higher than that of sue. MOR 555 on the other hand seems to be significantly denser, but it is an exception.
Hutchinson seems to generally have higher densities, at least based on MOR 555 and still Sue is below 800kg/m³. I had noter earlier that the most bulky, wide chested (adult T. rex-) specimens seem to have the lowest density. as you see MOR 555 appears to be an outlier, it is 13% denser than the second-densest specimen. I'm not absolutely sure what effect correcting the trunk-size would have, but the additional mass seems to mainly be flesh (skeletal musculature has a density of 1070kg/m³ according to Snively et al., 2013), not airsacks. The density would probably remain the same or get even lower when adjusting the rib-posture. @blaze: Thanks! @Spinodontosaurus: Were is the actual evidence for C-rex being larger than Sue? All we have seen so far was an on-the-field guess by Horner, promoted by tons of fanboys. If we include it, what about the 2,4m Spinosaurus-skull? Or exclusive scavenger-theropods? I don't believe something Horner claims, unless it is properly published and supported with real figures. Edited by theropod, May 25 2013, 09:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | May 25 2013, 10:45 PM Post #129 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Note that the low density specimens were both carried out by a separate team, which may influence the results. Also the figures obtained for BHI 3033 and MOR 555 are different to Bates et al. (2009); 904.6 kg m−3 and 926.43 kg m−3 respectively, compared to 911.63 kg m−3 for the A. atokensis specimen (Tables 2-4). I would be cautious about interchanging results from studies that don't even agree on the specimens they shared. RE: Celeste, it is more there to represent the 'fragmentary giant' Tyrannosaurus specimens. The uncertainty about it is indicated with [?] after every measurement. I don't see the issue with having her there for comparison purposes, especially given how keen people are to use specimens such as MUCPv-95 where its size relative to other specimens is also poorly known (note that I consider ~6.5% larger for MUCPv-95 to be more reliable than ~10% larger for Celeste) |
![]() |
|
| theropod | May 25 2013, 11:04 PM Post #130 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, sorry, I tought you wanted to use it in this fight-scenario. Of course the densities are rather to be taken as rough figures, but you cannot expect two studies to ahve the exact same results. However it is clear carnosaurs are denser, with the exception of one exceptionally dense T. rex. Also, when using sue to scale an animal up, we should rely on its density as well. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | May 26 2013, 12:03 AM Post #131 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't understand why MOR 555 (being denser than Acrocanthosaurus and BHI 3033) is lighter than both according to Bates et al. (2009). And the least dense Stan is heavier than both in this study. Also Hutchinson et al.'s Sue computer model is around 3.5 ton heavier than Stan. Even at length parity (~11.3 m*), their Sue would be still over 1 ton heavier than BHI specimen. *I know they stated 11.8 m, but it was certainly based on mounted skeleton, which would have long tail. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | May 26 2013, 12:45 AM Post #132 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Because MOR 555 is extremely slender in built, especially for a T. rex, its volume was smaller than both.![]() It is not that much denser than acrocanthosaurus in the bates study, still not enough to make it heavier. For stan, there was a huge amount of tissue below its (already inflated ribcage), that's why the volume and consequently the weight got that high. Stan is also wider than both the Acrocanthosaurus and MOR 555 models. If you readjust the ribs in both, get rid of that superflous tissue and add dorsal musculature running down the spinous processes in Acro, I doubt Stan would be that much heavier. PS: I only see it now, but the dorsal ribs are definitely better articulated in the Acrocanthosaurus mount than in either Stan or MOR. They are clearly pointing caudally, even tough probably not markedly enough. PPS: the above prooves femur circumference is unreliable for theropods. According to Currie & carpenter in their description of the largest known Acrocanthosaurus specimen, they stated the same circumference-based metod that yielded 2,4t yielded 4,2t for MOR 555. It underestimates them all, but some much more than others. Does the creature above seem to be double the weight of Acrocanthosaurus? Edited by theropod, May 26 2013, 12:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | May 26 2013, 01:18 AM Post #133 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is what I disagree with. The differences in Bates et al. are extremely small - 2.4% difference between BHI 3033 and MOR 555, which NCSM 14345 slots in between. These are really the only figures we can directly compare. Given Stan was found to be one of denser T. rex specimens by Hutchinson et al. yet was less dense than NCSM 14345 in Bates et al., it is certainly possible that carnosaurs were denser. But "clear" it is not, and even then the difference is quite small. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | May 26 2013, 03:50 AM Post #134 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But we are talking about Sue here, not Stan or Mor. Hutchinson et al. found one specimen was found to be denser than in Bates et al, another one was found to be less dense. We should assume Sue can be compared, there's equal chance of it being less dense as it should be by comparison as there is of it being denser. However both Carnosaurs in our sample are denser than the vast majority of the T. rex specimens. PS: Thinking about it Stan might have such a high density in Bates et al. because there's such an awful lot of flesh below the ribs. On the other hand, the amount of flesh in Hutchinson et al., was even more extreme, but the animal ended up lighter for some reason. the 2011 study apparently modeled the airsacks much larger... |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | May 26 2013, 04:01 AM Post #135 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Struthomimus is the densest dinosaur in this study. Even denser then T. rex specimens and large Acrocanthosaurus... So from when density make an animal that heavier?? Edited by 7Alx, May 26 2013, 04:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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