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 (130,010 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Its not the laser scan, it only scans the skeleton (and there is not even a carcharodontosaurus skeleton, so...), but the amount of tissue you add is still the same. if you add more tissue to T. rex, you have to do the same to carcharodontosaurus. The laser scan will not increase or decrease anything as it is only the metod to get a precise model of the skeleton, nothing more.

Now if you make a laser scan of sues skeleton, and add an amount of tissue that makes it significatly heavier, why do you think you could just leave carcharodontosaurus as it is, without adding this tissue?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 17 2012, 10:42 PM
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.
I agree man

Theropod: you still misunderstood bone crusher.

You cannot just scale up base on the percentage, like if Sue increase her weight by 30% after the estimate then ALL Theropod should increase 30% after the estimate, but that is not TRUE. SUE IS THE ONLY T REX that has weight increase significantly after the estimate, not ALL T rex weight increase, for example: Stan from the older laser imaging estimate weighs up to 8 tonnes, but in the later 2011 estimate, he weighs only 5,9 tonnes. The newer estimate is FAR more accurate than any other estimates and just because Sue weight increase, it doesn't mean that ALL T rex or ALL Theropod should be increase too. And you just CANNOT use the older, less accurate multi equations method as a base to scale up by 30%. The REASON why SUE WEIGHT increase so much is because the older multi equation method CANNOT CALCULATE the bulk of an animal so it made SUE LIGHTER than her should be, in short THE OLDER multi equation method has UNDERESTIMATED SUE BULK A LOT !!!!

I believe what bone crusher said is not that difficult to understand, why you just keep misunderstanding us ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
stan does only weigh 4,9t in hartmans estimate, it is not sue alone that gets heavier. They all got bulked up and so you have to do the same with Carcharodontosaurus if you do it at all. I think you and bone crusher are misunderstanding yourselves, or maybe you don´t want to understand it.

Whether Stan is lighter in this estimate than in another one is irrelevant, the fact is that it is still much heavier than in traditional estimates, corresponding to what most scientists believe sue to be (and yes, that´s 6-7t)

The metod used to yield a 9,5t sue increased the weights of ALL T. rex specimens, and when being fair it would logically increase the weight of any other animal. Why is THAT so difficult to understand?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
concerning the issue I remember posting this for several times now:

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


I find it a bit sad that it is necessary to explain such simple rules of non-biasedness that often, but appearantly it is always possible to come up with some excuse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I find it sad that you still not understand that the method has !nothing! to do with scaling up from old estimations, or adding bulk to all theropods.
It helps to get better estimates as it takes into account all dimensions in a highly precise manner, thus it is possible to calculate a proper volume.
As you see, the percentual "weight increase" in comparision with other models is already different in different specimens of T. rex, so it totally absurd to think that one can somehow use a percentage and apply it for increasing weight estimates.
LAsers are not "fair"(in the sense of satisfying everyones opinions, or being "politically correct" to all kind of dinosaurs, no dinosaur let behind...), but they are accurate.
I do not think that this opinion has anything to do with being biased in favor of T. rex (I actually said that whoever gets the first proper bite wins...),
but I think that some people are either missinformed or idiosyncratic towards certain Ideas(T. rex CANNOT be larger than animal XY...).
If you want to say that other dinosaurs also get heavier, you have to scan them, and than you will see if it will be the case or not.
@ Theropod, I think it is funny how use eye-catching demonstrations of your opinion. I think (or hope) that most educated people have learned not to fall for such simplistic devices of argumentation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 18 2012, 01:47 AM
I find it sad that you still not understand that the method has !nothing! to do with scaling up from old estimations, or adding bulk to all theropods.
It helps to get better estimates as it takes into account all dimensions in a highly precise manner, thus it is possible to calculate a proper volume.
As you see, the percentual "weight increase" in comparision with other models is already different in different specimens of T. rex, so it totally absurd to think that one can somehow use a percentage and apply it for increasing weight estimates.
LAsers are not "fair"(in the sense of satisfying everyones opinions, or being "politically correct" to all kind of dinosaurs, no dinosaur let behind...), but they are accurate.
I do not think that this opinion has anything to do with being biased in favor of T. rex (I actually said that whoever gets the first proper bite wins...),
but I think that some people are either missinformed or idiosyncratic towards certain Ideas(T. rex CANNOT be larger than animal XY...).
If you want to say that other dinosaurs also get heavier, you have to scan them, and than you will see if it will be the case or not.
@ Theropod, I think it is funny how use eye-catching demonstrations of your opinion. I think (or hope) that most educated people have learned not to fall for such simplistic devices of argumentation.
I´m not doing so, I´m not believing in overexagerated bulk like they show it, you are misunderstanding my point. My point it, that you have to use liberal or conservative weight estimates for all and not just one animal. The point is that adding bulk has nothign to do with laserscanning, and that if giving T. rex a certain amount of additional tissue you can jsut as well use that for other theropods. The point is, that if T. rex is now suddenly 1/3 heavier because of a more liberal metodology you can not use that and compare it to the old estimates for other animals.

@mantis: I think (or hope) that most educated people will understand the logic in my points, that´s all that matters. And those "simplistic devices of argumentation" are properly showing you my points, whether you would like to believe them or not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 18 2012, 03:08 AM
MantisShrimp
Nov 18 2012, 01:47 AM
I find it sad that you still not understand that the method has !nothing! to do with scaling up from old estimations, or adding bulk to all theropods.
It helps to get better estimates as it takes into account all dimensions in a highly precise manner, thus it is possible to calculate a proper volume.
As you see, the percentual "weight increase" in comparision with other models is already different in different specimens of T. rex, so it totally absurd to think that one can somehow use a percentage and apply it for increasing weight estimates.
LAsers are not "fair"(in the sense of satisfying everyones opinions, or being "politically correct" to all kind of dinosaurs, no dinosaur let behind...), but they are accurate.
I do not think that this opinion has anything to do with being biased in favor of T. rex (I actually said that whoever gets the first proper bite wins...),
but I think that some people are either missinformed or idiosyncratic towards certain Ideas(T. rex CANNOT be larger than animal XY...).
If you want to say that other dinosaurs also get heavier, you have to scan them, and than you will see if it will be the case or not.
@ Theropod, I think it is funny how use eye-catching demonstrations of your opinion. I think (or hope) that most educated people have learned not to fall for such simplistic devices of argumentation.
I´m not doing so, I´m not believing in overexagerated bulk like they show it, you are misunderstanding my point. My point it, that you have to use liberal or conservative weight estimates for all and not just one animal. The point is that adding bulk has nothign to do with laserscanning, and that if giving T. rex a certain amount of additional tissue you can jsut as well use that for other theropods. The point is, that if T. rex is now suddenly 1/3 heavier because of a more liberal metodology you can not use that and compare it to the old estimates for other animals.

@mantis: I think (or hope) that most educated people will understand the logic in my points, that´s all that matters. And those "simplistic devices of argumentation" are properly showing you my points, whether you would like to believe them or not.
Theropod,
The researchers who made the laser scan model put muscles there were they should be, at the proper attachement points.
At the Minimum estimate of Sue, where did they exactly add excessive muscle?
Nowhere.
It also has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal, but using the right method.
If Sue had less volume than in the reconstruction, that it would be either starving or it had an (partly) exoskeleton.
We do no know how this method would work on Carcharodontosaurus(There are few Carcharodontosaurids this would actually work on, like Acrocanthosaurus, Concavenator, and maybe Giganotosaurus).
The results are entirely open, except for Acrocanthosaurus, which did not increase its weight by 50 %, but by a more moderate amount.
Concerning my critic on your ongoing visualisation of your opinion(Or should I say Tibetan Prayer Wheel?), I think you opinion on this topic is obvious and does not need to be shown constantly.
You simply you it as a dubious proof of your own opinion, and not for the sake of an constructive argument.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And if at that volume sue was heavier than thought before, why shouldn´t Carcharodontosaurus also be? Looking at previous estimates for acrocanthosaurus it did also get much heavier, also it is from a different study.

If as you say they put muscles where they should be (which seems quite unlikely to me because their sue even at the minimum estimate looks like a sausage with tiny sticklike legs-and going by the titles of the comments on PLOS there are others thinking so as well), you have to assume doing so on Carcharodontosaurus would also produce higher estimates.

As I suspect you last point was an accusation of being biased somehow, why don´t you stop showing your obvious opinion? I do try to make constructive arguments, but unfortunately some people, like you find it hard to accept constructive arguments when they are against their own opinion, instead they try to ridicule them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Here is one weight estimates for Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus from the same study.
Seebacher, 2001
AMNH 5027 - 6,650 kg
SGM-Din 1 - 6,173.2 kg
Weird that this Carcha is nearly 0.5 tonnes lighter than average-sized Tyrannosaurus. Although i think he used 12 m Carcha in study.
If he did.
13 m Carcharodontosaurus would be almost ~7.85 tonnes.
12.8 m Carcharodontosaurus would be almost ~7.50 tonnes.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
With a 12m carch that comparison sounds pretty reasonable (as AMNH 5027 is nearly 12m going by its skull size), while in general I think they are too heavy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Theropod, the likelihood of Carchy adding up weight after the laser scan is high since it's no longer based on the Allosaurus scaling equation. But the key factor is it wont necessarily be as much as 30% like Sue. Maybe it would get a 10-20% increase, the reason is that Carchy is a much slender built animal than Sue and logic says a bulkier built animal at roughly the same length WILL be heavier in weight, simple concept man. Please stop feel we are being unfair to the Carchy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Nov 13 2012, 02:34 PM
Lord of the Allosaurs
Nov 13 2012, 04:23 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 13 2012, 04:18 AM
Why's Carcharodontosaurus more agile?
Shape of knee joint, slender build etc.

Again, T rex is more agile than a same size Carnosaur, i have cited like thousand times, though Carnosaur is slightly more stable, not by much

But i agree with Jinfeng the shape of knee joint sounds very interesting, i would be happy if you had a paper for that, hope you don't make up facts
It was in a magazine article from the Royal Tyrrell Museum, I'm going to ask them for permission to scan it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Here's a very recent 2012 article on How to weigh a dinosaur.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/lost-worlds/2012/aug/24/weigh-dinosaur
And surprise surprise, the Laser scan is described as the most detailed method of all. So a 9.5tons Sue is the most accurate at this point.
Quote:
 
More recently, things have started to get increasingly technical. The computer age (and not a little bit of help from software originally used by engineers) has allowed superlative models to be created that can easily be manipulated and modified to take into account variations in reconstructions or nuances of shape and skeletons. The animal need not be taken as a uniform block anymore with all the density averaged out, but horns of solid bone can be treated as such for example, or a space levied in the chest to account for the lungs. Laser scans of entire skeletons can be taken and used as the basis for the models adding further levels of detail impossible as little as 10 years ago.

Dave Hone also seems confident to suggest T.Rex is in excess of 10 tons these days.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/lost-worlds/2012/oct/17/dinosaurs-fossils
Quote:
 
Being insulated would potentially be a poor adaptation in an animal of rexy's size (likely considered in excess of 10 tons these days, or more than twice that of most elephants
Edited by bone crusher, Nov 18 2012, 09:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus size comparison

Posted Image
click image for a larger view
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Since when did T.Rex only stopped at 12m?
Posted Image
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.