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 (130,006 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:
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 20 2012, 07:17 AM
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.
Firstly, were does the notion come from that an animal only can be good at one part? We have clear evidence that T. rex could cut through bone, so I do not see that point at all.
Sharks often loose teeth while cutting through bone, but its does not matter to them. As you wrote in the other thread, the theropod are ankered more deeply, but they still would not cut a bone in half, but cut on the surface.
The pushing motion you envision seems to very strange, a repaeated pulling motion seem to me more viable and less dangerous.
Edited by Fist of the North Shrimp, Nov 21 2012, 05:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 21 2012, 05:33 AM
theropod
Nov 20 2012, 07:17 AM
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.
Firstly, were does the notion come from that an animal only can be good at one part? We have clear evidence that T. rex could cut through bone, so I do not see that point at all.
You still ignore my point about the teeth being expandable or not, though I axpected that. Sharks often loose teeth while cuttint through bone, but its does not matter to them.
The pushing motion you envision seems to very strange, a repaeated pulling motion seem to me more viable and less dangerous.
Varanids have no problem killing with that method.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
They bob back and forth with their heads to saw through bone?!
Marvelous especially that the serrations are on the posterior sides of the teeth...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 21 2012, 05:42 AM
They bob back and forth with their heads to saw through bone?!
Marvelous especially that the serrations are on the posterior sides of the teeth...
I was talking about their killing method, not damage genius rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Either you are dumb(which I doubt) or did not read my post properly(which is sad):
I was arguing against the point that they sawed throught the bones of their prey like sharks.
And Komodo Dragons still bob back and forth with their teeth at the same place instead of making several gashes?
I have never seen that, care to post a vid?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
mantis, you did probably misunderstand me. I´m not talking about moving the skull back and forth repeatedly (that would be pretty pointless). I mean it would first push its skull into the opponents body (as repeatedly theorized in slightly different forms for allosaurus, but probably with a lower force as allosaur skulls seem specifically designed for that purpose) and then pull it back, using the full lenght of the skull to maximize the damage done.

Animals are not great at both. Once you are crushing, you give up cutting and vice versa. you arem either a slicer, a crusher or something of both, and in that case not eccelling at both. understand what I mean? if T. rex was a great slicer anywhere near as good as the animals that are known for their sharp sharklike dentition, it wouldn´t be a much better crusher any more.

I still think if it is possibly for tiger sharks to saw turtles in half an carnosaur could accomplish a quick killing bite in an unarmoured relatively gracile animal near its own size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sharks loose teeth because shark teeth have very small roots. Carnosaur teeth have pretty long roots for comparison, and thus they would certainly not loose too many teeth (some would break, but not too many to be replaced)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 21 2012, 05:50 AM
Either you are dumb(which I doubt) or did not read my post properly(which is sad):
I was arguing against the point that they sawed throught the bones of their prey like sharks.
And Komodo Dragons still bob back and forth with their teeth at the same place instead of making several gashes?
I have never seen that, care to post a vid?
Either you don't understand what sarcasm is, or you just can't take a joke when it comes to smart remarks. I don't know, you pick.
Read theropods post.
Edited by Black Ice, Nov 21 2012, 05:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Deinonychus
Nov 20 2012, 09:47 PM
Carchy has 8inch teeth.
And T-rex had up to 12 inch long teeth:
http://www.fossil-treasures-of-florida.com/tyrannosaurus-rex.html
Deinonychus
Nov 20 2012, 09:47 PM
And B vision is about as good as an advantage as intelligence so stop using this crap.
I don't want to say it is much of an advantage, but the eyes at the sides of their skull would make them see what's directly in front of them a bit blurred (it would have to see with the canthus and there it has less photoreceptors)making it harder to aim exactly. Not much of a disadvantage, but in such a fight, it would have to aim quickly and like that it's harder.
theropod
Nov 21 2012, 01:54 AM
tooth lenght is not much of an advantage
I know, but it isn't unimportant:
http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9560831/1/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 21 2012, 05:50 AM
mantis, you did probably misunderstand me. I´m not talking about moving the skull back and forth repeatedly (that would be pretty pointless). I mean it would first push its skull into the opponents body (as repeatedly theorized in slightly different forms for allosaurus, but probably with a lower force as allosaur skulls seem specifically designed for that purpose) and then pull it back, using the full lenght of the skull to maximize the damage done.

Animals are not great at both. Once you are crushing, you give up cutting and vice versa. you arem either a slicer, a crusher or something of both, and in that case not eccelling at both. understand what I mean? if T. rex was a great slicer anywhere near as good as the animals that are known for their sharp sharklike dentition, it wouldn´t be a much better crusher any more.

I still think if it is possibly for tiger sharks to saw turtles in half an carnosaur could accomplish a quick killing bite in an unarmoured relatively gracile animal near its own size.
Well, then it seems that the semantics of you post were irritating to me.
The feeding style of sharks is a wholly different topic, but of course Carcharodontoaurids were able to kill efficiently. I always argued that such battles would come down to who gets the first bite.

Concerning the cutting vs. crushing bite in T.rex, I ealier wrote that Allosauroids were more efficient at that, but du to they stronger biteforce and more massive nek musculature, the damage done by cutting would be the same, a fine knife need much less energy than an axe/falx/whatever to cut, but due to the force behind the latter, the wound would be the same, due to an unporportional expense of energy.
I think that in the documentation about the science behind planet dinosaur, they had a similar experiment with different theropod teeth, I think it came down to that Dromaosaurids had the fewest effort to cut, I gonna look it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And T-rex had up to 12 inch long teeth:

Unlike carchy, less than half of the 12 inches actually protruded from the jaw.
Quote:
 
I don't want to say it is much of an advantage, but the eyes at the sides of their skull would make them see what's directly in front of them a bit blurred (it would have to see with the canthus and there it has less photoreceptors)making it harder to aim exactly. Not much of a disadvantage, but in such a fight, it would have to aim quickly and like that it's harder.

Whether you like it or not, B vision isn't an advantage, as plenty animals without it still lived for millions of years, evolution is survival, not brawling
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Deinonychus
Nov 21 2012, 06:06 AM
Whether you like it or not, B vision isn't an advantage, as plenty animals without it still lived for millions of years, evolution is survival, not brawling
Crocodiles don't need it, because they hunt underwater, picking up vibrations from the water, so they don't need it and I know how evolution works (I didn't use the "later" argument), but as said, it is not a major advantage, it simply makes the fight easier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Deinonychus
Nov 21 2012, 05:52 AM
MantisShrimp
Nov 21 2012, 05:50 AM
Either you are dumb(which I doubt) or did not read my post properly(which is sad):
I was arguing against the point that they sawed throught the bones of their prey like sharks.
And Komodo Dragons still bob back and forth with their teeth at the same place instead of making several gashes?
I have never seen that, care to post a vid?
Either you don't understand what sarcasm is, or you just can't take a joke when it comes to smart remarks. I don't know, you pick.
Read theropods post.
Sorry, but sarcasm on the internet on the web is not a good thing, unless it is hyperbolic(otherwise it is hard to understand).
And hat "smart" remark? Where was that smart? It would have been smart when I would have argued against something entirely different.
Now it really seems that you do not care to read post properly (or are to lazy to do it).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MantisShrimp
Nov 21 2012, 06:04 AM
theropod
Nov 21 2012, 05:50 AM
mantis, you did probably misunderstand me. I´m not talking about moving the skull back and forth repeatedly (that would be pretty pointless). I mean it would first push its skull into the opponents body (as repeatedly theorized in slightly different forms for allosaurus, but probably with a lower force as allosaur skulls seem specifically designed for that purpose) and then pull it back, using the full lenght of the skull to maximize the damage done.

Animals are not great at both. Once you are crushing, you give up cutting and vice versa. you arem either a slicer, a crusher or something of both, and in that case not eccelling at both. understand what I mean? if T. rex was a great slicer anywhere near as good as the animals that are known for their sharp sharklike dentition, it wouldn´t be a much better crusher any more.

I still think if it is possibly for tiger sharks to saw turtles in half an carnosaur could accomplish a quick killing bite in an unarmoured relatively gracile animal near its own size.
Well, then it seems that the semantics of you post were irritating to me.
The feeding style of sharks is a wholly different topic, but of course Carcharodontoaurids were able to kill efficiently. I always argued that such battles would come down to who gets the first bite.

Concerning the cutting vs. crushing bite in T.rex, I ealier wrote that Allosauroids were more efficient at that, but du to they stronger biteforce and more massive nek musculature, the damage done by cutting would be the same, a fine knife need much less energy than an axe/falx/whatever to cut, but due to the force behind the latter, the wound would be the same, due to an unporportional expense of energy.
I think that in the documentation about the science behind planet dinosaur, they had a similar experiment with different theropod teeth, I think it came down to that Dromaosaurids had the fewest effort to cut, I gonna look it up.
Exactly, we understand each other now. Cutting teeth and crushing teeth can potentially do comparable damage, but using different metods. slicing teeth have little surface at the edges and thus require less force, crushign teeth require more force.

I remember that experiment, they used Shark teeth as a substitute for dromaeosaur teeth, and they built those of mapusaurus themselves. I´m a bit sceptical tough, as they appearantly forgot the serrations on them while the shark teeth did have them of course, so I doubt Mapusaurus teeth did really require that much force (which is still not much, but they should ahve been more similar to the shark teeth in structure).

I totally agree on the bite issue, the first bite would be deciding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Nov 20 2012, 09:40 PM
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.
bite force does NOT matter at ALL.

Well then by your logic, a komodo dragon's bite is useless without venom? It is not.

Some animals have relatively weak bites in terms of crushing but some are still capable of delivering nasty bites. That is the reason why bite force dont really matter
Edited by Carcharadon, Nov 21 2012, 07:05 AM.
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.