| 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 (130,009 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 | Nov 18 2012, 02:33 PM Post #256 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your scale is inaccurate, Sue was only 12.29 meters long, not 12.8, and Sue is not your typical Tyrannosaurus, can people stop using Sue as the average Tyrannosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 18 2012, 02:52 PM Post #257 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to who? Also show me verification of a 13.5m Carchorodontosaurus. How do you even know Sue is at the lower or upper end of T.rex anyway? We're comparing the largest found specimen here so I don't see the problem unless you're afraid of Sue lol. In any case even a 12m Rex still looks bulkier. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 18 2012, 02:56 PM Post #258 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The laser-scanned skeleton = 12.29 meters long The mass estimates of the laser scan are very liberal, but they don't affect length, because length is not decided by how fat you make an animal... And out of all the adult Tyrannosaurus specimens we have, Sue was the largest of them...so don't use the largest as average... |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 18 2012, 03:19 PM Post #259 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The skeleton didn't have cartilage and if you add that it should reach 12.8m. Also still waiting on your 13.5m Carchy. The weight data from laser scan is the best we go,t whether it sounds liberal to you or not is irrelevant so you really need to get over it. I'm not using any of them as an average, our finds are far from meaningful enough to remotely conclude an average weight for the species. But for the sake of this debate we're using the largest verified specimens, how is that a problem? I'm not even using C.Rex , UCMP 118742 or UCMP137538 (theoretically they could be much larger than Sue) so it's more than fair. Edited by bone crusher, Nov 18 2012, 03:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 18 2012, 03:33 PM Post #260 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis was probably 13-14 metres long I took the median estimate, 13.5 meters... |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 18 2012, 04:02 PM Post #261 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The original paper states otherwise, there were three specimens of carcharodontosaurus iguidensis found. The largest is 90% of C.saharicus in size while the 2nd largest is 83% of C.saharicus. The skull of C.iguidensis is just proportionally longer and the body would have been smaller. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 18 2012, 08:47 PM Post #262 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We don't even know how long the band disks were and this is never done in prehistoric animals. @brolyeuphyfusion That's a newspaper, I won't really trust them, when sticking to newspapers, T-rex had the strongest bite force ever. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 18 2012, 09:06 PM Post #263 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Newspapers about Tyrannosaurus are always biased, but those about other dinosaurs can be trusted, since there is no mainstream bias towards them... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 18 2012, 09:07 PM Post #264 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What about the 16m Giganotosaurus hype? There was even a time where people claimed, Carcharodontosaurus was longer than 20m. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 18 2012, 09:09 PM Post #265 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't say that they can always be trusted...there are still the cases where the newspapers lose credibility, like the 20+ meter Carcharodontosaurus that you said... |
![]() |
|
| Archer250 | Nov 18 2012, 09:14 PM Post #266 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now you're acting stupid. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 18 2012, 09:17 PM Post #267 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope, there is a lot of mainstream bias towards Tyrannosaurus, but not for the other dinosaurs... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 18 2012, 09:45 PM Post #268 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Firstly, adding banddisks to T. rex and not other animals is BS. Secondly, does anyone here have acess to the paper on C. iguidensis? Thirdly, I´m not dopubting the credibility of laser scans, I´m doubting the credibility of the deduction that when it does obviosly increses the weights we could just compare its results to the lower ones, and until all are studied with the same metods do use the weight ratios as they are please, do not just assume that Carcharodontosaurus might not get as much bulkeir as T. rex. They ARE NOT the same lenght, thats why they are not the same weight. and btw I remember a comparison based on skull lenght that did comfortably put C. saharicus at 13-13,5m. |
![]() |
|
| Kunfuzzled | Nov 18 2012, 09:45 PM Post #269 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I simply don't know how you could possibly come up with such a blatantly inaccurate suggestion. The mainstream public is mostly aware of the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex, the name is almost synonymous with the word "Dinosaur" (along with Triceratops, Brontosaurus ect.) As you've (somewhat) correctly posted in the past, this presents the image of an indestructible monster, the ultimate theropod King "Tyrannosaurus rex." While this is probably not true in reality, the public's perception of the creature is such. So whenever another theropod approaching or surpassing the size of Tyrannosaurus rex pops up, newspapers and tabloids tend to exaggerate the description of such theropods inorder to increase the popularity of the story. Since most people know about T.rex, a monster proposed to be "larger" will likely catch the attention, and exaggerating or bending the truth will increase public interest by a substantial amount. So if anything newspaper articles (particularly those that are published online,) tend to be rather inaccurate and are highly speculative |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 18 2012, 09:47 PM Post #270 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
newspaper articles alone are never to be trusted, you have to have background information to check whether they are accurate |
![]() |
|
| 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