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
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM (130,016 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
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.

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.[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.

Posted Image

_________________________________________________________________________________

Blue orca
 
Tyrannosaurs Rex vs Carcharodontosaurus
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The fact that Tyrannosaurus had a smaller gape does not mean it couldn't take a firm grip on the foe. T.rex stalked bulky, stocky animals, sometimes larger than Carcharodontosaurus, it had no problem to take some bites.

Therrien deduced in 2005 that Giganotosaurus had a bite force 3 times lower than Tyrannosaurus, which means that by actual data, Giganotosaurus packed at max 1 900 kilogramms in its jaws. Given the slightly shorter jaws of Carcharodontosaurus, I suspect the african relative bitten a bit weaker.

That's in the range of a very large white shark, though the carcharodontosaurids of course own a much larger bite.

But this bite force disparity is also important in this match. Carcharodontosaurids, depending where they bite, could inflict gruesome wounds and lethal exsanguination, the way white sharks kill marine mammals. But as forrex, once it firmly chomped the other guy, it would be finished.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Are the jaws actually shorter? Because the Giganotosaurus skull was rezised (but I think because Carcharodontosaurus' skull was reconstructed after Carcharodontosaurus' skull, it would also shrink.) and yeah, I know about that study, but 2t are still impressive
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Oct 27 2012, 10:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 27 2012, 10:52 PM
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.
That's the part where I am not agreed with you; all the documentation I've seen about it insist that carcharodontosaurids avoided bones, and couldn't puncture or slice it.

Don't be confused by the sharks analogy. Yes, Carcharodon can slice through a prey item, but a small one ! They don't target bones, actually avoid them, for larger game.

Sharks have here one specificity, their famous lateral shaking. Given their teeth disposition, no wonder some sharks can slice through hard objects. But they are not specifically bone-crusher or slicers, the only lineage known to do that was the megatoothed lineage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
about the fatassness, I just did some image-manipulations:

if you think T. rex looks like this:
Posted Image
rather than this:
Posted Image

you also have to assume allosaurus looked like this:
Posted Image
rather than this:
Posted Image

and torvosaurus like this:
Posted Image
rather than this:
Posted Image

if you assume this T. rex would be heavier than we all thought:
Posted Image
the same applies for this allosaurus:Posted Image
..................................and this Torvosaurus: Posted Image

And of course it is the same with every other animal.

I personally don´t feel comfortable with those fat dinosaurs, what do you think? Anyway, making one theropod heavier in relation to others would only work if you had clear evidence that it was more massive than thought and others wheren´t.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Oct 27 2012, 10:54 PM
Are the jaws actually shorter? Because the Giganotosaurus skull was rezised (but I think because Carcharodontosaurus' skull was reconstructed after Carcharodontosaurus' skull, it would also shrink.) and yeah, I know about that study, but 2t are still impressive
This revision from Hartman has his arguments, but the older, longer figure has been valided by Coria, Currie and Odano after Tyrannotitan and Mapusaurus discoveries.

Actually I'm not sure, Hartman is very interesting but it would be good to look further there. Anyway, there bite force was certainly between 1 400 and 1 900 kilogramms, simply following Therrien analysis and the latest works on T.rex kiss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Oct 27 2012, 10:54 PM
Are the jaws actually shorter? Because the Giganotosaurus skull was rezised (but I think because Carcharodontosaurus' skull was reconstructed after Carcharodontosaurus' skull, it would also shrink.) and yeah, I know about that study, but 2t are still impressive
With those teeth it doens´t rely on bite force, neither do modern sharks, but I´m not sure whether the bite force of gws was considered in that deduction. Shorter jaws don´t mean the bite force was lower. T. rex has shorter jaws than both of them, yet it bit harder.

Carcharodontosaurus skull has been exagerated in lenght earlier, it already has been downsized to the ~1,6m figure (actually more like 1,56m which is the exact same as the lower Giganotosaurus figure). I´d say Giganotosaurus skull was most likely a little bit longer at maximum, because of the quadratojugal and quadrate being oriented backwards in Giganotosaurines, but that would hardly affect the size of the bite or the bite force at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Archer250
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Oct 27 2012, 11:02 PM
about the fatassness, I just did some image-manipulations:

if you think T. rex looks like this:
Posted Image
rather than this:
Posted Image

you also have to assume allosaurus looked like this:
Posted Image
rather than this:
Posted Image

and torvosaurus like this:
Posted Image
rather than this:
Posted Image

if you assume this T. rex would be heavier than we all thought:
Posted Image
the same applies for this allosaurus:Posted Image
..................................and this Torvosaurus: Posted Image

And of course it is the same with every other animal.

I personally don´t feel comfortable with those fat dinosaurs, what do you think? Anyway, making one theropod heavier in relation to others would only work if you had clear evidence that it was more massive than thought and others wheren´t.
I find those fat dinosaurs VERY disturbing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, the great white shark bite force estimation by Wroe (2008) has nothing to do, I just remarked and mentionned that it's comparable to the bite of the giants carcharodontosaurids, only they had much larger jaws, which were actually SCISSORS. That's totally different than white sharks here, despite both kind of predators use exsanguination.
Edited by Grey, Oct 27 2012, 11:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The point was rather how much of the bite force estimate was guess and whether the ones that made it knew about the bite force of a GWS for comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 27 2012, 11:29 PM
The point was rather how much of the bite force estimate was guess and whether the ones that made it knew about the bite force of a GWS for comparison.
No because :

2005 : Therrien deduces Giganotosaurus packed a bite force 3 times weaker than Tyrannosaurus.
2008 : Wroe estimates the maximum bite force of Carcharodon at 1,8 tons.
2012 : Tyrannosaurus bite force is estimated at 3,5 to 5,7 tons.

Which gives to Giganotosaurus a bite force of about 1,2 to 1,9 tons as Therrien works are still valid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Which is the paper from 2005? and which metod did it use? why wasn´t there an absolute estimate?

And how can it be a third of the bite force estimated 7 years later?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Oct 27 2012, 11:59 PM
Which is the paper from 2005? and which metod did it use? why wasn´t there an absolute estimate?

And how can it be a third of the bite force estimated 7 years later?
Because it is based on the jaws muscles size and mechanism.

The paper focused about it, not about values.

The paper is available in the book of Kenneth Carpenter (The Carnivorous Dinosaurs)

Therrien, François; Henderson, Donald M.; Ruff, Christopher B., 2005, "Bite Me: Biomechanical models of theropod mandibles and implications for feeding". In: Carpenter, Kenneth. The Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Life of the Past. Indiana University Press. pp. 179–237
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thanks
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dinosaur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
T Rex wins! My favorite dino! T rex outweighs carcharodontosaurus by 1 ton. The 9 ton tyrannosaurus has the strongest leg muscles of any theropod and the sharpest foot claws of any theropod. One kick can kill the carcharodontosaurus. Also, t rex had the biggest teeth of any dinosaur (12-15 inch). And like a komodo dragon, T rex was the only dinosaur with a bite full of infectious bacteria, killing carcharodontosaurus. T rex wins!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
dinosaur
Nov 11 2012, 03:19 PM
T Rex wins! My favorite dino! T rex outweighs carcharodontosaurus by 1 ton. The 9 ton tyrannosaurus has the strongest leg muscles of any theropod and the sharpest foot claws of any theropod. One kick can kill the carcharodontosaurus. Also, t rex had the biggest teeth of any dinosaur (12-15 inch). And like a komodo dragon, T rex was the only dinosaur with a bite full of infectious bacteria, killing carcharodontosaurus. T rex wins!
Gulp... I'll let someone else talk some sense into you...

Seriously? the Komodo thing....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.