| 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: |
| Austroraptor cabazai v Utahraptor ostrommaysorum | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 6 2012, 07:12 PM (9,139 Views) | |
| Taipan | Feb 6 2012, 07:12 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Utahraptor ostrommaysorum Utahraptor (meaning "Utah's predator" or "Utah thief") is a genus of theropod dinosaurs, including the largest known members of the family Dromaeosauridae. Fossil specimens date to the upper Barremian stage of the early Cretaceous period (in rock strata dated to 126 ± 2.5 million years ago). It contains a single species, Utahraptor ostrommaysorum. The holotype specimen of Utahraptor is fragmentary, consisting of skull fragments, a tibia, claws and some caudal (tail) vertebra. These few elements suggest an animal about twice the size of Deinonychus. Like other dromaeosaurids, Utahraptor had large curved claws on their second toes. One claw specimen is preserved at 22 centimetres (8.7 in) in length and is thought to reach 24 centimetres (9.4 in) restored. The largest described U. ostrommaysorum specimens are estimated to have reached up to 7 m (23 ft) long and somewhat less than 500 kg (1,100 lb) in weight, comparable to a grizzly bear in size. Some undescribed specimens in the BYU collections may have reached up to 11 m (36 ft) long, though these await more detailed study. Austroraptor cabazai Austroraptor ("Southern thief") was a genus of dromaeosaurid dinosaur that lived about 70 million years ago during the Cretaceous period in what is now modern Argentina. The type species for the genus, Austroraptor cabazai, was described in late 2008 by Fernando Novas of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales. The fossil specimen was discovered in the Late Cretaceous deposits located in the Río Negro Province of Argentina. The species was named in honor of Alberto Cabaza, who founded the Museo Municipal de Lamarque where the specimen was partially studied. Considered large for a dromaeosaur, Austroraptor cabazai measured around 5 metres (16 ft) in length from head to tail. It is the largest dromaeosaur to be discovered in the Southern Hemisphere. Particularly notable about the taxon were its relatively short forearms, much shorter in proportion compared to those of other members of its family. The relative length of its arms has caused Austroraptor to be compared to another, more famous short-armed dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus. Weight: 365 kg (810 lbs). ![]() ____________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, Dec 6 2013, 09:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Fragillimus335 | Sep 10 2012, 02:10 AM Post #16 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Utah has size, hunting ability, weapons, forearms. and a better bite. Utah 90% |
![]() |
|
| Superpredator | Sep 14 2012, 09:52 PM Post #17 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do you mean "hunting ability"? Both were hunters. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Sep 14 2012, 11:59 PM Post #18 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
it has been theorized that austroraptor was a fish eater because of it´s long snout and conical teeth. imo it could also be an adaption for restraining struggling prey tough. |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Nov 21 2012, 12:46 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Utahraptor, simply due to being larger |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 21 2012, 01:41 PM Post #20 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Utahraptor wins due to size advantage... |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Apr 20 2013, 06:28 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually i will probably go as far as saying this is a straight mismatch in favor of utahraptor Austroraptor had long, narrow weak jaws and proportionally had smaller arms than other dromaeosaurs, and is more gracile in build, as well as it is smaller. I think achillobator would be a better match Edited by Carcharadon, Apr 20 2013, 06:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Apr 20 2013, 07:51 AM Post #22 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Jaime Headden's restoration of Achillobator would put it as far too small to face Utahraptor, unless you meant to pit it against (the also larger) Austroraptor. |
![]() |
|
| Big G | Apr 20 2013, 08:03 AM Post #23 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Utahraptor wins easily for size and weapons |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Apr 20 2013, 12:08 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yea i meant to face it against austro |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 20 2013, 04:15 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Weren't Utahraptor's premaxiliary teeth comparable to Velociraptor (which were described to be weak, in the 2010 paper about the Velociraptor vs Protoceratops fossil)? So, even with strong jaws, it won't be helpful, because if the teeth were weak, they could break at a high stress. References: "New Information on the Anatomy and Relationships of Dromaeosaurus albertensis (Dinosauria: Theropoda)" Philip J. Currie Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep. 14, 1995), pp. 576-591 "New evidence for a trophic relationship between the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Protoceratops" David Hone, Jonah Choiniere, Corwin Sullivan, Xing Xu, Michael Pittman and Qingwei Tan (2010 |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 20 2013, 10:16 PM Post #26 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^Velociraptor's teeth are so sharp they really wouldn't need to be very strong. Like in sharks or komodo dragons, they would slice through an oponents tissue without difficulties. have a look at Austroraptor: http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs39/i/2008/364/8/e/Austroraptor_Skull_composite_by_Qilong.jpg This is a different story. The dentary is the first one I see among non-avian theropods that I would actually compare to a gharial. As far as I know the teeth are cone shaped, so they don't have the slicing power to make up for the jaws not being so robust. In the jaws department, Austroraptor stands no chance. It is also outsized here, and Utahraptor likely is superior in most other regards as well, as its morphology must have enabled it to sucessfully hunt large prey, even tough they are not known of Austroraptor. |
![]() |
|
| coherentsheaf | Apr 20 2013, 10:34 PM Post #27 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fowler's RPR paper disagrees with varanid comparison: The peculiar teeth of Dromaeosauridae (with the possible exception of Dromaeosaurus) differ from typical theropods in that the denticles of the posterior carina are particularly elongate, distally hooked towards the tooth apex, and much larger than those of the anterior carina [66]. This character is particularly pronounced in derived Late Cretaceous taxa (e.g., Velociraptor, Saurornitholestes); indeed anterior denticles may be entirely absent in some Saurornitholestes teeth [66], [67]. Denticle reduction on the anterior carina would enhance a piercing function, but the peculiar hooked shape of the posterior denticles would not appear well-suited for tearing through flesh, suggesting behaviour that deviates from more typical theropods. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 21 2013, 06:42 PM Post #28 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, I wasn't aware of that. But what's that "may be totally absent" supposed to mean? Aren't the teeth well preserved enough to tell this for sure? I cannot imagine that in Velociraptor this wouldn't be known for certain. If this really holds true, it wouldn't be that unuausl at all. Have a look at a lateral and an anterior tooth of Allosaurus and tell me they aren't radically different...and still the lateral teeth seem perfect for slicing, in shark or varanid fashion, a paralell that has been drawn in scientific papers. Looking at my Velociraptor skull replica (but it appears less detailed than the original, all the teeth don't show the serrations, even tough msot had them, the anterior ones jsut don't seem as laterally flattened: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Velociraptor_skull_cr%C3%A2ne_2.png) the anterior teeth seem almost needle like. If the jaws couldn't fulfill a slicing function, why are all the other teeth in both Allosaurs and dromaeosaurs perfectly adapted for this? Maybe the premaxillary teeth played some role in securing prey with the first bite, while the slicing was done by the lateral ones. The anterior teeth are pretty small compared to the others, so I cannot imagine them to be much af a hindrance. Or they might be some sort of anchor to prevent loosing the prey item after a slashing bite. No idea whether my scenarios are realistic, but I doubt this had negative effects on the jaw function. Edited by theropod, Apr 21 2013, 06:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Apr 24 2013, 02:47 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| coherentsheaf | Apr 24 2013, 04:39 AM Post #30 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
First of all since you definitely are not the author of this text (Jaime Headden is: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dromaeosaurs-are-terrestrial-hawks/) do not quote yourself on it, quote him, else you are committing plagiarism. Second the first sentence you highlight discusses the general properties of serrationts, it does not specifically concern itself with the denticles of Dromaeosaurs. Fowler et al. point out that the serrations of Dromaeosaurs are different as you can see by reading the text I quoted! The second part you highlight is actually in support of Fowler's hypothesis, the whole section describes Dromaeosaurs as using gravity and their specialized teeth to nip off small pieces of flesh, similar to modern eagles that hold their prey down while ripping off small strips. This is not comparable to sharks or giant monitors, both being designed to deal large structural damage to struggling prey. In short: The passage you highlight is in support of the notions of Fowler et al. A more important quote from it would have been: As such, the denticles are merely suited for quick pulls, nipping bits of flesh apart, rather than prolonged prey engagement, and the same is true for the broader-jawed, broader toothed Dromaeosaurus albertensis (see Therrein et al., 2005, for discussion). Edited by coherentsheaf, Apr 24 2013, 04:40 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 |
2:26 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)








![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






2:26 AM Jul 14