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 (130,007 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:
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's not as specialized as carchys tho. Anyway carchy could tear up bone then. Sharks manage to do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes, but the motion sharks use to do that is anatomically not possible in Carcharodontosaurids.
And yes, they are clearly more adapted for slicing, and were probably much more economic at that, but regarding T. rex biteforce and its enomous neck I think the results would probably bee the same, just that the latter needs much more force to do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Nov 19 2012, 06:38 AM
^the t.rex's BITE would let it come on top? not really, bite force don't really matter.....

Carcharo basically a shark like bite, which slices, and it is more painful due to blood loss
No, slicing is actually less painful than crushing, you can ask shark or piranha victims for that.

If you have ever gone to the kitchen, do some cooking stuff and have your finger cut by the knife, you wouldn't feel painful, yes it has a lot of blood coming out, but it isn't very painful

Now try having your finger crushed by the hammer, then you know which one is more painful
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 19 2012, 10:13 AM
Yes, but the motion sharks use to do that is anatomically not possible in Carcharodontosaurids.
And yes, they are clearly more adapted for slicing, and were probably much more economic at that, but regarding T. rex biteforce and its enomous neck I think the results would probably bee the same, just that the latter needs much more force to do that.
It wouldn´t be anywhere near that effective in slicing, that simply not possible. an animal is either a good crusher and a bad slicer, a good slicer and a bad crusher or something of both. T, rex has ziphodont teeth and it can tear flesh sufficiently well, but its killing metod is crushing bones. Carcharodontosaur bones could withstand bone (look at a shark for comparison) and slice very well, but they couldn´t crush.

btw I always thought there was likely a reason why theropod neck muscles are so complicated ans why carcharodontosaur jaws are so long. it would have used a push and pull metod (instead of impact and lateral shaking like in sharks), that would achieve simialr results.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Nov 19 2012, 06:38 AM
^the t.rex's BITE would let it come on top? not really, bite force don't really matter.....
Bite force actually matters, it is not everything, but I won't call it unimportant, because T-rex too has serrated teeth and Carcharodontosaurus' teeth may be sharper at the edges, but I don't think it overcomes the advantages of tooth lengh and bite force, bite damage is a factor in favour of T-rex, tough I thing the gape advantage will overcome that. The one who gets the first bite wins. I'm not sure who it is going to be, but I give T-rex an ege, because of the binuclear vision and it can attack the face, so I'm leaning towards it, but this is a close fight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carchy has 8inch teeth. And B vision is about as good as an advantage as intelligence so stop using this crap.
Edited by Black Ice, Nov 20 2012, 09:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcha Iguidensis was 16 m. long. T-rex is beaten here
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Deinonychus
Nov 20 2012, 09:47 PM
Carchy has 8inch teeth. And B vision is about as good as an advantage as intelligence so stop using this crap.
T rex teeth would be just as impressive

Binocular vision is still a good advantage, you cannot deny it, if you think it is unimportant, so can you explain why most predators evolved binocular vision ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
To help them hunt. Evolution is meant for survival, not to determine eho would win in an brawl.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Raptor
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
i think carchar because t-rex could not run.carchar should be faster hence the first strike would be his.
watch valley of the t-rex and you will know t-rex could not run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Archer250
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Raptor
Nov 20 2012, 10:01 PM
i think carchar because t-rex could not run.carchar should be faster hence the first strike would be his.
watch valley of the t-rex and you will know t-rex could not run.
Troll detected.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
lol ^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Deinonychus
Nov 20 2012, 10:00 PM
To help them hunt. Evolution is meant for survival, not to determine eho would win in an brawl.
Binocular vision help T rex to calculate the distance between it and its prey, probably to land a good strike or to avoid attack, i don't see why binocular vision doesn't count as an advantage
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Nov 20 2012, 10:40 PM
Deinonychus
Nov 20 2012, 10:00 PM
To help them hunt. Evolution is meant for survival, not to determine eho would win in an brawl.
Binocular vision help T rex to calculate the distance between it and its prey, probably to land a good strike or to avoid attack, i don't see why binocular vision doesn't count as an advantage
Since when does t.rex do that good at math? Even then, animals without binocular vision could do that. You have no argument.
Edited by Black Ice, Nov 20 2012, 10:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 20 2012, 09:40 PM
Dark allosaurus
Nov 19 2012, 06:38 AM
^the t.rex's BITE would let it come on top? not really, bite force don't really matter.....
Bite force actually matters, it is not everything, but I won't call it unimportant, because T-rex too has serrated teeth and Carcharodontosaurus' teeth may be sharper at the edges, but I don't think it overcomes the advantages of tooth lengh and bite force, bite damage is a factor in favour of T-rex, tough I thing the gape advantage will overcome that. The one who gets the first bite wins. I'm not sure who it is going to be, but I give T-rex an ege, because of the binuclear vision and it can attack the face, so I'm leaning towards it, but this is a close fight.
tooth lenght is not much of an advantage, and what one accomplishes by slicing, the other one does by crushing.
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.