| 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: |
| Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM (130,017 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus This huge meat eater was 45 feet long (5 feet longer than T-rex) and weighed 8 tons, making it one of the largest carnivores that ever walked the earth. This African carnosaur had a gigantic 5’4" long skull and enormous jaws with 8" long serrated teeth. It walked on two legs, had a massive tail, bulky body and short arms ending in three-fingered hands with sharp claws. Carcharodontosaurus is one of the longest and heaviest known carnivorous dinosaurs, with various scientists proposing length estimates ranging between 12 and 13 m (39-43.5 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons. Its long, muscular legs, and fossilized trackways indicate that it could run about 20 miles per hour, though there is some controversy as to whether it actually did, a forward fall would have been deadly to Carcharodontosaurus, due to the inability of its small arms to brace the animal when it landed. Carcharodontosaurus was a carnivore, with enormous jaws and long, serrated teeth up to eight inches long. ![]() 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.[1] 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. ![]() _________________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 10:14 PM Post #136 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Then what about all the 13-14 meter estimates I keep hearing about Carcharodontosaurus? Are you suggesting that those were actually for Carcharodontosaurus saharicus? |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 27 2012, 10:17 PM Post #137 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Man, how can you expect to be taken seriously with such poor arguments ? And what qualification have you for criticize Darren Naish or any specialist who don't argue your likings ? None. You can debate but stop acting like an ridiculous 11 years old kid. Your obstination to absolutely undermine Tyrannosaurus is frankly more and more incomprehensible. The giant carcharodontosaurids and Tyrannosaurus are just similar in size, and if one or the other outclasses the other, this by an almost insignificant margin. Ony Spinosaurus is quite a bigger guy. That's the actual facts. Edited by Grey, Oct 27 2012, 10:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 10:20 PM Post #138 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
those are guesstimates based on the logic of people like me and you that where never published at all. and they definitely base on the exact same things as the ones you are criticising about T. rex |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 10:23 PM Post #139 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, okay...but one of my points still stands, that if we use maximum sizes, Carcharodontosaurus would win easily... |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 27 2012, 10:23 PM Post #140 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Theropod, I don't know if you improved your analysis or if I am in a good day, but I have to compliment you there. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 27 2012, 10:28 PM Post #141 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The maximum size of both are based on different methodolgies. And to state that a 14 m Carcharodontosaurus would win easily against a maximum sized Tyrannosaurus is, once again, almost ridiculous. Both can win, depending the context and especially who strikes first, T.rex by crushing a vital part of the opponent, or Carcharodontosaurus through massive exsanguination, which would take a bit more time than the fast killing syle of T.rex. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 10:32 PM Post #142 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
nice to hear that Broly, the point is, from an autority-viewpoint none of these estimates are better, all are just upscaled by amateurs. I think those of carcharodontosaurus are logical, yes, but that does not mean any of the arguments you brought up had any weight. imo there are good reasons why MOR 008 is likely NOT bigger than sue at all, but those are the proportions of the skull, the size of dentary and maxilla and the fact that the lenght is not always measured the same way (not to mention the whole thing is basically basing on a single newsreport). When I am giving a(n) (gu)e(s)stimate, I am arguing that what I find logical, and I think I can do so as long as I´m not making up biased stuff. There are enough points why MOR 008 might not be larger than sue, but the ones you mentioned would affect most other animals as well, and thus they are biased. C. iguidensis being in the 13-14m range on the other hand has NEVER been published (I don´t have the paper but reportedly all it sais is SIMILAR in size), they are just basing on skull figures you can find on the internet and on simple math. so are MOR 008s estimates as well, but in this case there are good reasons to doubt the measurements it bases on. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 10:35 PM Post #143 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay, you guys win, it's a close fight, but a slicing bite is not to be underestimated...if you have seen the damage shark bites can do, you would see the true power of a slicing bite... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 10:38 PM Post #144 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
all fights among the contenders for the "largest theropod" title are pretty damn close. this one is more or less the same as T. rex vs giganotosaurus or T. rex vs mapusaurus, and they are all close fights. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 27 2012, 10:41 PM Post #145 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've never underestimated that. Carcharodontosaurids were the worst flesh scissors that ever existed on the planete. Their teeth are in fact more sophisticated than some sharks, especially carchariniforms... I'm simply just a bit more impressed by the lethal bananas, and quick killing style of Mr Rex. Edited by Grey, Oct 27 2012, 10:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 10:43 PM Post #146 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now this fight is decided by which has the more better weapons and the more gape...the extra gape can help Carcharodontosaurus gain an advantage, when the go to bite each other, and of course, Tyrannosaurus' smaller gape would make it much harder for it to get a hold of Carcharadontosaurus' skull when the carnosaur's mouth is open, but the carnosaur can fit a significant part of the snout of Tyrannosaurus in it's mouth...and what happens next, it won't be pretty... I now say that it is 58/42 in favor of Carcharodontosaurus... |
![]() |
|
| Archer250 | Oct 27 2012, 10:46 PM Post #147 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A 14 ton 14m theropod would be the absolute fatass saurischain dinosaur. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 27 2012, 10:51 PM Post #148 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This seems really a close fight, but I think the gape can be the deciding advantage. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 10:51 PM Post #149 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So is the 9.5-tonne, 12.29 meter Tyrannosaurus...let's not use absolute maximum here, okay? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 10:52 PM Post #150 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
55-60/45-40 in favour of charch imo, especially considering wide gape, lots of incredibly sharp teeth and the ability of sharks to cut bones with sheer slicing power. This would arguably be sufficient to make a pretty quick kill, and especially, once charcharodontosaurus gets a bite out of T. rex, the latter will hardly be able to fight back. Also, the teeth are not that fragile, they could certainly resist bone at least as good as sharksteeth do. They have long roots, they are sharp enough to slice with far less force than the large bananas (good term btw) and they are thicker compared to their crown lenght than you would think. In a lateral direction they could snap, but they would be able to resist bone in an anteroposterior direction and probably saw through like sharks do. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:22 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)









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


2:22 AM Jul 14