| 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 (130,012 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: | |
|---|---|
| Black Ice | Nov 15 2012, 12:45 AM Post #211 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually more muscular legs exerting more force doesn't mean you are more agile/faster either. A rhino has more muscular legs than a wolf, yet the wolf is more agile/faster. Or a ceratopsin to a rhino.. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 15 2012, 12:47 AM Post #212 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
it all depends on the weight you have to carry. that T. rex has more muscular legs is only logical as it is also bulkier. and also the muscles of other theropods are totally understudied... |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Nov 15 2012, 12:49 AM Post #213 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the largest estimate for t.rex is 9 tonnes..... Carchys is at 15 tonnes???? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 15 2012, 12:58 AM Post #214 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Both are ridiculous imo, I´d say it´s probably 6-7 for Rex and 7-8 for Carch |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Nov 15 2012, 01:20 AM Post #215 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good, for a sec it would mean carchy ties with spino.for largest theropod. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 15 2012, 01:24 AM Post #216 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
sorry? spino is most likely far larger than that... |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Nov 15 2012, 01:25 AM Post #217 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
11 to 18 tonnes? I was refering to carchys 15 tonnes estimate.
Edited by Black Ice, Nov 15 2012, 01:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 15 2012, 01:35 AM Post #218 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
oh, that´s what you meant. well, it is certainly exagerated as I said, and so is spinos max figure which is from the same study, but spinos figure is less exagerated as it refers to a strongly downsized animal |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Nov 15 2012, 01:37 AM Post #219 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So what was carchys 15 tonnes est. Scaled from? A smaller carcharadontosaurid? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 15 2012, 01:38 AM Post #220 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was from Therriens study if I remember right, and they used allometric metods basing on completely different animals to determine weights (and it did also base on obese estimates) |
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Nov 15 2012, 01:39 AM Post #221 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sounds like they wasted their time. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 15 2012, 01:46 AM Post #222 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
With their obviously unreasonable 20.7-tonne Spinosaurus, I would agree with you... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 16 2012, 06:53 AM Post #223 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They wasted their time because they created a graph showing the allometric relationship WITH SKULL SIZE for animals including compsognathus and T. rex, used an obese T. rex and then used that to calculate weight figures. An obviously flawed, useless and rather strange metodology for scientists I must say, just as bad as using ununiform weight estimates. Did they seriously assume there was a relationship between skull lenght, total lenght and body mass that could be applied to ALL THEROPODS? obviously pretty damn strange. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 16 2012, 06:48 PM Post #224 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's why the new 3d laser scan method is by far the more accurate one. This puts Sue at 9.5tons, so if they scan a Carchy it should be lighter simply due to the less stocky and robust built. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 16 2012, 09:38 PM Post #225 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have to add that we have no complete Skeleton of Carcharodontosaurus, so how do you know it was less robust? |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register Now |
|
| 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