| 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 (130,011 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: | |
|---|---|
| Verdugo | Nov 16 2012, 10:58 PM Post #226 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Less bulky doesn't equal more agile, i wound't say a cheetah is more agile than a leopard because it less bulky, or a brown bear is less agile than a polar bear because it is more bulky. As far as i know, for bipedal, animal with shorter femur + longer tibia + longer metatarsal (of course i'm talking about digitigrade animal) would both run faster and accelerate quicker than animal with longer femur + shorter tibia + shorter metatarsal |
![]() |
|
| cidermaster | Nov 16 2012, 11:37 PM Post #227 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think Carch wins this more times than looses,epic fight though!!! |
![]() |
|
| Fragillimus335 | Nov 17 2012, 12:50 AM Post #228 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That laser method was horrible, they didn't just wrap the skeleton, they added disgusting amounts of fat around it. This resulted in a far too heavy model. I am currently being taught by the lead researcher on Sue, Dr. Brochu, and his estimates fall in the 6-6.5 ton range. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 17 2012, 01:13 AM Post #229 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't you know that the 2011 laser method was done by John R. Hutchinson, Karl T. Bate, Julia Molnar, Vivian Allen and Peter J. Makovicky. Most scientific studies were only done by one or two scientists, this study was done by a WHOLE team of scientists and experts. Even Mike Taylor has stated that this was an outstanding team. ![]() Unless you think you are better than John R. Hutchinson + Karl T. Bate + Julia Molnar + Vivian Allen + Peter J. Makovicky, you don't have the right to judge them |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 17 2012, 01:16 AM Post #230 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It doesn't matter who does it, it doesn't matter what the method is, as long as the model is made too fat with no basis at all! |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 17 2012, 01:23 AM Post #231 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The model wrap around the skeleton quite well, i really think you have problem with your eyes man |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 17 2012, 01:38 AM Post #232 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The team was good, no question, that doesn´t change that their metod was far more liberal than other estimates. several other experts did INDEPENDENTLY come to estimates in the 6-7t range, and that´s even better than a team publishing a figure. The laser scan metod is not what made the animals that heavy, its the mere amount of bulk they gave them. If you increase the mass of sue from 6 to 9t, you have to increase that of Carcharodontosaurus as well. Verdugo, if you seriously believe an animal that you think is far less bulky wouldn´t be at the advantage in agility, I cannot see how yopu can seriously believe a slight difference in Femur-tibia-metatarsal proportions would matter, especially as that is most likely rather important for the efficiency in running, not the acceleration and agility. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 17 2012, 01:56 AM Post #233 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
5,9 tonnes for Stan and 7,3 tonnes for Carneige are quite good, i don't see why people always consider it liberal ??. Most T rex would likely to weigh 7-8 tonnes, EXCEPT SUE, Sue is very bulky, even by T rex standard, why can't people accept that Sue is bulky ?. It is not a slight difference man, arctometatarsal is only evolved in some clades, and Tyrannosaurids is the only clades that consist of carnivores. Arctometatarsal seperate Tyrannosaurid to any other carnivorous Theropod, it must been the selective pressure that force Tyrannosaurid to evolve this anatomical adaptation and it must have some very important functions as well Edited by Verdugo, Nov 17 2012, 01:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 17 2012, 02:09 AM Post #234 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
not everything that evolves does always mean an animal is a better fighter. who wins, a human or a chimp? chimps are pretty simialr to what humans evolved from, and they obviously gave up muscularity. All I wrote was an arcotometatarsal had no direct relation to lenght, it is not defined by being long but by a pinched 3rd metatarsal, that´s all. you cannot assume "this is an adaption that appeared in tyrannosaurs so it must have been a great advantage". it is actually a typical coelurosaur trait that Tyrannosaurs logically didn´t loose. That does not mean it would be an advantage and I see no evidence to assume that. metatarsal elnght affects runnign efficiency and top speed, but not agility. An arctometatarsal remains a metatarsal and nothing indicates it would be a great advantage. I do accept sue is bulky, but its appearantly only you who thinks those are "good". They are obviously liberal when compared to other estimates, and you know that. Whether you think they are more likely is your problem, but then do not Deceive yourself to think bulking up was something that could be applied to only one animal. give sue a more liberal estimate, and give a more liberal estimate to carcharodontosaurus as well. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 17 2012, 03:41 PM Post #235 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would post about arctometatarsal later
Not only me but Gecko, bone crusher, David Hone and i remember Grey said that Holtz also quite interested in the new estimate I admit that 9,5 tonnes for Sue does sound liberal, i just don't have a reason to deny it. David Hone gives Sue at 8 tonnes, Mazzetta also gives Sue at 8 tonnes and IMO, 8 tonnes also sounds more reasonable. But until now, 9,5 tonnes is still a valid and also the most accurate method, accept it or not is your choice And BTW, Greg Paul T rex (robust morph) reconstruction in 2010 is also quite bulky ![]()
Edited by Verdugo, Nov 17 2012, 03:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 17 2012, 06:30 PM Post #236 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You have to realize the actual animal in flesh and bones does not have the same silhouette as Greg Paul's reconstruction drawings. There's literally no fat layers in the drawings, only skin outlines which wraps tightly around the skeleton. So for a 3d model to be accurate you obviously have to add fat layers muscle and cartilage. Even their skinniest model yields a 9.5tons weight, so the data is not unreasonable at all. As for Carchy's weight, you can tell the 3d laser scan should return a lighter weight data if they reconstruct the skeleton based on the drawing. Point is not every theropod gets a free pass for weight gain, it all depends on the body proportion. ![]() |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 17 2012, 08:38 PM Post #237 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But T. rex is not the only one that would get bulkier, regardless of the accuracy of the metod it is biased to give T. rex more additional weight than Carcharodotnosaurus. If you bulk up this T. rex you have to do the same to Carcharodontosaurus, the built doesn´t change the fact that when reconstructiong one with a greater amoutn of tissue you have to do the same with the other one. Obviously you cannot just start making estimates about T. rex using a far bulkier model, and just keep the estimates for the normal Carcharodontosaurus. Verdugo, I´d be interested in hearing where Holtz stated so, because I haven´t sean it anywhere. Jingoferx only once said to me he had read somewhere about Holtz estimate being 6,1t. I also remember that Holtz stated Carcharodontosaurus was larger than T. rex in his communication with Grey (this seems a bit contradictory tough as his Carcharodontosaurus does only measure 12m which is the absolute lower limit given as its size). Lets do it this way, Mickey Mortimer, Greg Paul, Scott Hartman, Christopher Brochu and possibly Tomas Holtz are all consistendly and independently giving far lower estimates (6-6,5t to be exact), and this is not including posters like me or bone crusher who believe or disbelieve the higher estimates. Now no one forces you to favour any of these estimates, but be at least fair and do not only use the liberal estimates for T. rex then. I think regardless of which estimates we favour we should all be able to agree with my last point, shouldn´t we? |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 17 2012, 09:29 PM Post #238 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think you understood me. The slimmer built of Carcharodontosaurus doesn't give more room for bulking up as the Rex does. It's a simple concept and it's not biased. Look at how thin its neck, skull and leg bones are compared to Rex's, the frontal view would even show a much bigger difference as the T.rex sport a barrel chest like body compared to the shark toothed killer. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 17 2012, 09:36 PM Post #239 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can wrap around tissue in both, how bulky they are doesn´t change that fact! T. rex is bulkier, yes (at least going by this reconstruction as it is so fragmentary), but that doesn´t mean that when introducing a generally bulkier built for theropods Carcharodontosaurus wouldn´t get bulkier as well, just like T. rex. It is biased to assume you could jsut add tissue to T.rex to increase its weight by 1/3 and leave other theropods as they are. if you bulk up T. rex from 6,5 to 9,5t, you also have to bulk up carcharodontosaurus from 7-8t to 10,2-11,7t. as I wrote I don´t belive in this kind of reconstruction anyway, but if it is applied, apply it to all, not just T. rex! |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 17 2012, 10:42 PM Post #240 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You're still missing the point, the laser scan does not automatically increase the previously estimated weight, it could go either way depends on the proportion. In fact the base weight for Carchy shouldn't be higher than t.rex, it is perhaps longer in total length but definitely not heavier if the drawing is anything to go by. So you can't just bluntly apply the same percentage of weight increase to Carchy by taking for granted, after all, the whole point of this laser scan is to eliminate this vague notion of one size scaling for all.
Edited by bone crusher, Nov 17 2012, 10:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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