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
  • 3
Austroraptor cabazai v Utahraptor ostrommaysorum
Topic Started: Feb 6 2012, 07:12 PM (9,138 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
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.

Posted Image

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).

Posted Image

____________________________________________________________________________


Dracorex128
Feb 6 2012, 04:56 AM
Utahraptor vs Austroraptor
Edited by Taipan, Dec 6 2013, 09:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
coherentsheaf
Apr 24 2013, 04:39 AM
Black Ice
Apr 24 2013, 02:47 AM
Jaime A. Headden
 
[\color]Fowler et al. (2011) discuss the elements of prey acquisition, but also of processing, especially in the manner in which raptors consume their prey. Because dromaeosaurs lack a beak (a subject I discussed here) their processing must be done with teeth (a thing I’ve been told that they have). Dromaeosaur teeth are characterized by particularly large denticles on the distal carina as well as occasionally having apical hooking of the denticles, a feature that varies in the degree of “hookedness”. They can be either extremely sloped in some teeth, essentially angled towards the crown apex, or outward (Currie et al., 1990). Denticles are useful for many purposes: As denticles, they produce both a point along the crown where pressure from the crown as a whole is imparted, focused toward small separate portions rather than as a whole if the carina were not a single ridge; they also provide slots (or kerfs) between which tissues such as ligament or muscle fibers may be caught, increasing the tearing and thus rendering power of the tooth (Abler, 1992, 2001). Shape of the denticles varies, with some denticles having a largely rounded aspect, others with a sort of tilted-peak, and still others more triangular than squared as well as the inverse. Most denticles are typically hooked, having the aspect of a square with one corner extended, and this corner is always the apical edge of the denticle; thus, the denticles always have a peak that points apically, even when the angle varies (Currie et al., 1990).
Posted Image
Fowler et al. argue that the hooking of the denticles (which as can be seen above point outward in a general 45° angle from the angle of the crown of this tooth) is related to the posture of the head, which when in mantling behavior would be nearly or sub-vertical, nose pointed down and between the legs. Thus the angle of the teeth would be horizontal and create pressure using gravity to assist in tearing of the flesh; in this manner, the denticles would be pointed not posteriorly but close to vertically, as they are generally oriented toward the back of the mouth, now upward. Such a model proposes that gravity would then pull engaged flesh downward against the denticles. Fowler et al. support this model by noting that the jaws are “not particularly robust,” citing work by Therrien et al. (2005) and Sakamoto (2010). These studies show that dromaeosaurid jaws act as simple levers, indicated by a largely level force profile along the jaw, and more suited to quick nip and pull motions than prolonged periods where the teeth are embedded in flesh, which is indicated by high force profiles in the back of the jaw as is seen in stouter jaws such as in Allosaurus fragilis, or Gorgosaurus libratus. The subjectivity of “robustness” aside, this suggests that the thin jaws, thin teeth, where slashing teeth. 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).

The morphology of some dromaeosaur teeth differ strongly from the hooked denticles of taxa noted by Fowler et al. (2011). Note, above and below, the presence in Saurornitholestes langstoni (after Currie et al., 1990), that while the morphology of the “main” body of the denticle (or corpus) is hooked, each denticle is paired with a apical and a basal “keel,” which converge into the diaphyses between denticles (in some teeth, this diaphysis, the space between denticles, terminates in a narrow slot with a rounded bottom, called a cella. These keels afford the denticles less of a elongated, slender profile and more of a rounded, hump-like one, and can substantially alter the effect the hooking provides when the teeth are engaged in a substrate. It is interesting enough that one can treat the morphology of denticles as miniature teeth — so that each crown has it’s own “jaw” of teeth along the edge — and thus infer a general model that they might act like saw blades or a method of distributing compression force along the carina. Such a model may seem useful, but is certainly untested when it comes to predatory theropod dinosaurs, just as such a model might come under fire when adapted to ornithischians, or sauropods, or a range of denticulated, ziphodont or non-ziphodont dentition in Archosauria, mammals, etc.

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).
I wasn't commiting plagiarism. I simply pulled up an old post I made or part of it in which i put the relevant part in. In the full post I cited.

SecondlyI know that, the point of denticles is to aid in ripping/tearing otherwise why would you have them?

Thirdly I never said it was comparable, just shows their teeth tear flesh contrary to the specific part you quoted.

Lastly their jaws worked like jacknives. Even todays BOP use their (bites) when killing to paralyze the nervous system of their prey which is still effective nonetheless.

Perhaps I should have made it extremely clear why I posted that no?
Edited by Black Ice, Apr 24 2013, 05:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coherentsheaf
Member Avatar
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Apr 24 2013, 05:56 AM
I wasn't committing plagiarism. I simply pulled up an old post I made or part of it in which i put the relevant part in. In the full post I cited.

As of the time of this posting the posts with the name Headden in them, as well as the posts with the part you quoted are comfortably accessible via the search function and none of them has you giving credit (It could be that I missed it though you are free to point out the post but I think every reader would prefer it to not be edited recently). But this and your answer is irrelevant to the problem that you cited yourself with Headden's text. It makes no difference that you gave him credit earlier as most readers will not make the connection to any earlier post.
Quote:
 
SecondlyI know that, the point of denticles is to aid in ripping/tearing otherwise why would you have them?
E.g.: Cutting? Piercing?
Quote:
 
Thirdly I never said it was comparable, just shows their teeth tear flesh contrary to the specific part you quoted.
I think that Fowler et al. meant exactly the function described in the part you cited. It is very clear from the context that they make a distinction between the function the teeth fulfilled in other macropredatory theropods and Dromaeosaurs, with the first having a function comparable to that of varanids, something they explicitely denoted as tearing through flesh, while Headden used tearing in a more broad context, indicating exactly the same function as Fowler et al. in his description namely ripping off small junks of flesh. So the only contradiction you have found was one of word usage - not one of content.
Quote:
 
Lastly their jaws worked like jacknives. Even todays BOP use their (bites) when killing to paralyze the nervous system of their prey which is still effective nonetheless.
Why is this relevant?
Quote:
 
Perhaps I should have made it extremely clear why I posted that no?
Clear would have helped enough.
Edited by coherentsheaf, Apr 24 2013, 06:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Utahraptor has nearly every conceivable advantage. It wins 90% of the time.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
utahraptor easily wins. it's bigger and it has far superior weapons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

spinosaurus rex
Dec 6 2013, 01:03 PM
austroraptor vs utahraptor


Here it is!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mismatch, Utahraptor completely obliterates the piscivore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Significant weight advantage+significantly better weaponry= great mismatch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vivyx
Member Avatar
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
EXTREME mismatch in favour of the Utahraptor. Utah is bigger, and has WAY (way, way) better weaponry than the Austroraptor. Austroraptor has very small teeth and small claws with very small arms. Will do almost nothing to a creature bigger, with more killer instinct and better weaponry than itself.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Makaveli7
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Utah raptor: slightly bigger and more (deadly) weaponry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BITEFORCE MASTER
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Actually I'm voting the austroraptor because his size and speed would be better for this battle :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BITEFORCE MASTER
Feb 6 2014, 03:05 PM
Actually I'm voting the austroraptor because his size and speed would be better for this battle :D
Utahraptor is rather significantly larger. And speed isn't going to help austroraptor, when its already completely outmatched in every way in the weaponry department.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naronu
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BITEFORCE MASTER
Feb 6 2014, 03:05 PM
Actually I'm voting the austroraptor because his size and speed would be better for this battle :D
Agility matter more in this fight as it is close combat. Utahraptor has a significant size and weaponry advantage so it wins this fight about 65%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
its actually likely that it's even more then that. utahraptor was superier in possibly every way when it comes to weaponry. even the robustness of utahraptor possibly outclasses every dromaeosaur species at parity
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naronu
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah thats probably right about how robust Utahraptor was, but I think Achillobator or another raptor closely related would be about as robust. Utahraptor 80%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
actually no, utahraptor was the most robust in propotion to body size out of any raptor so far greatly due to it's size. based on scott hartmans newest utahraptor silohette, utahraptor was a creature that relyed more on strength and power then speed and agility.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.