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 (130,004 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
reading the abstract, they do indicate it was strong (no surprise), good at excerting force in pulling or shaking, and they write it was able to strike rapidly. This doesn´t mean more rapidly than an animal with a far lighter skull, just rapidly as opposed to a slow, sluggish movement (there were certainly some freaks out there claiming it could only move very slowly)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Theropod, you keep comparing the so called "overly bulky" reconstruction of the rex to a skeletal restoration, you do realize there's literally no fat layers at all in the latter right? The live version of T/rex would look like the 2nd pic most likely and some zoo fed fatter one would look like the last pic.
Also the neck muscle of T.rex is so strong it could lift a hippo according to a Documentary. So at least I really don't see any chance of Carchy wining in a wrestling match, T.rex would just bite it down, drag it and pulling it around and have its own way really.
Edited by bone crusher, Nov 22 2012, 04:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 22 2012, 04:06 PM
Theropod, you keep comparing the so called "overly bulky" reconstruction of the rex to a skeletal restoration, you do realize there's literally no fat layers at all in the latter right? The live version of T/rex would look like the 2nd pic most likely and some zoo fed fatter one would look like the last pic.
Also the neck muscle of T.rex is so strong it could lift a hippo according to a Documentary. So at least I really don't see any chance of Carchy wining in a wrestling match, T.rex would just bite it down, drag it and pulling it around and have its own way really.
of course, a documentary claims it could lift a hippo (!) and you automatically assume it would be far superior to carcharodontosaurus (neither are the latters neck msucles sutudied nor exagerated as much, nor does it use its motuh for grabbling). I can see virtually no logical relation between these two points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
they are FAR FAR FAR.... larger


There might be, but there is not evidence that there must be far larger than in Tyrannosaurus. The Acrocanthosaurus humerus is only 10 mm larger than in CM 9380 (Tyrannosaurus holotype), and 15 mm smaller than in FMNH PR 2081. Acrocanthosaurus had proportionally larger arms compared to body without doubt thought. Also there are found Tyrannotitan arms and they are rather small compared to body size, but i think Tyrannotitan was more similar to Giganotosaurus/Mapusaurus than to Carcharodontosaurus. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Tyrannotitan_remains_01.png

I think that even if Carcharodontosaurus wasn't as powerful as Tyrannosaurus, it would be still brave enough to fighting against it. It would have ANY chance against Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
True I just checked and it is indeed slightly smaller than that of sue. I must have confused something earlier. Still the arms are much stronger and larger, that is pretty easy to see when looking at the proportions of the appendages and the whole animal, even more if the whole thing is at weight parity were Carcharodontosaurus is dimensionally larger, or even at a weight advantage...

Theropod database doesn´t list its humerus size, but the humerus does belong to the smaller specimen which is around 11,4m lo0ng while the larger one ought to be simialr to sue in total lenght, even tough not as large weightwise
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
but yes, Carcharodontosaurus would likely have the faster bite, as we are already talking about that. The skull is simply far lighter and narrower, once more needing less force to move, and the jaw muscle strenght doesn´t affect the result, its the neck which moves the skull, and obviously the inertia of a carcharodontosaurus skull is far lower than that of t. rex as it is NOT reinforced against lateral movements, simply because it doesn´t have to use its jaws to restrain the prey. being aroudn 20cm longer wouldn´t change that.

I suggest you should use scientific proof next time rather than making over-simplifying claims like that.
Andrea Cau
 
The condition in Majungasaurus (and in all known abelisauroidi) represents the evolution of the extreme mobility of the joint intramandibolare. Similarly as in snakes, the joint surfaces between the red and yellow are minimized, and the mandibular outer window (not visible in these images) is very wide. The result is a bite easily distensible, but relatively weak as power. Therefore, it is plausible that the mandible of abelisauri was very effective to grasp and adapt to relatively large prey whole, but on the whole was rather weak, and unable to generate and sustain forces. The reduction of the length of the skull, combined with the development of temporal muscles, therefore indicating a quick bite, but not particularly powerful. As I have discussed in other posts, it is the muscles of the neck, well developed to generate lateral forces, to be appointed to be shaken vigorously prey. In the absence of adaptations brontofagici allosauroidi at the base of the skull, but I do feel that abelisauridi were not specialized to tear large sections of tissue from prey of great size. However, this is by no means a deficit predatory: it is probable that any animal that fell into the mug these theropodi (and the list is long: the young sauropods crocodiles, ornithischi theropodi and medium-sized) was a potential prey for abelisauridi, which easily gripped the prey thanks to the great mobility of the body and shook vigorously before swallow almost whole.

Just to give you an example that shorter skull + stronger jaw muscles CAN equal quicker bite. But yes, this is about Majungasaurus not T rex so saying T rex would bite faster base on that is still just an over-simplifying claim. But saying Carcharodontosaurus would bite faster is immature and over-simplifying

And biting speed won't make much difference and since we are not sure who bite faster so i won't take this into account
Quote:
 
Very funny, they haven´t even been found! The forelimb size of Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus is entirely speculative, but basing on Acrocanthosaurus (NCSM 14345 does have a 37cm humerus, and it is only 11,5m long. the arms are a good deal larger than in T. rex and the manus is less reduced, even tough the animal is smaller) they are FAR FAR FAR.... larger than those of T. rex, even tough smaller than those of Allosaurus.

THREE FAR ???. Now you over-exaggerated Acro arm size

Posted Image

It isn't that much bigger than T rex and if you have read 7Alx post...

Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus closer relative likes Tyrannotitan has rather tiny arm
Quote:
 
And T. rex isn´t taller

At length parity, yes it is, both taller and heavier
Quote:
 
Posted Image

If you does notice, Hartman T rex has smaller chest circumference, slender ribs than the mounted SKELETON. As i said, I DON'T KNOW which one is more accurate, mounted skeleton or Hartman reconstruction, but if you base on the mounted skeleton, the model from 2011 estimate is very accurate, it doesn't have any liberal part (i'm talking about the MIN estimate)

And please don't take the MAX model, the scientists themselves have stated that they would use the MIN estimate since it is no need for a predator to get heavier

And the half a tonnes neck muscles is taken from the MIN estimate, i don't use the MAX estimate
Quote:
 
Strike fast is out of question, but faster than a carcharodontosaurid? Evidence? You are basically claiming it would both be tremendously strong and extremely fast, superior in both, basing merely on the assumption carcharodontosaurus would have far smaller neck muscles which isn´t studied but unlikely seeing giganotosaurus does even have enlarged spinous processes at the base of the neck for muscle attachment.

It remains like this; Carcharodontosaurus has a lighter skull on a probably thinner neck, built for greater speed in bite. T. rex has a thicker neck to carry a heavier skull with a greater crushing power, well designed for being used for restraining prey-something carcharodontosaurids use their arms for if necessary.

reading the abstract, they do indicate it was strong (no surprise), good at excerting force in pulling or shaking, and they write it was able to strike rapidly. This doesn´t mean more rapidly than an animal with a far lighter skull, just rapidly as opposed to a slow, sluggish movement (there were certainly some freaks out there claiming it could only move very slowly)

I have never said that T rex would strike faster but saying Carchar would strike faster is just immature assumption

If you have read the paper, you should know this stuff is quite complicated and require many studies not just superficial assumption like the one from yours

Base on the paper, T rex wouldn't strike very slow like many people image
Quote:
 
of course, a documentary claims it could lift a hippo (!)

Bull hippo average weight is 1,5-1,8 tonnes (1500-1800kg) while T rex head + neck mass has already weighed almost as much, i doubt T rex couldn't lift a hippo, in fact, i believe it could lift the hippo effortlessly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Nov 23 2012, 11:38 PM
Quote:
 
but yes, Carcharodontosaurus would likely have the faster bite, as we are already talking about that. The skull is simply far lighter and narrower, once more needing less force to move, and the jaw muscle strenght doesn´t affect the result, its the neck which moves the skull, and obviously the inertia of a carcharodontosaurus skull is far lower than that of t. rex as it is NOT reinforced against lateral movements, simply because it doesn´t have to use its jaws to restrain the prey. being aroudn 20cm longer wouldn´t change that.

I suggest you should use scientific proof next time rather than making over-simplifying claims like that.
Andrea Cau
 
The condition in Majungasaurus (and in all known abelisauroidi) represents the evolution of the extreme mobility of the joint intramandibolare. Similarly as in snakes, the joint surfaces between the red and yellow are minimized, and the mandibular outer window (not visible in these images) is very wide. The result is a bite easily distensible, but relatively weak as power. Therefore, it is plausible that the mandible of abelisauri was very effective to grasp and adapt to relatively large prey whole, but on the whole was rather weak, and unable to generate and sustain forces. The reduction of the length of the skull, combined with the development of temporal muscles, therefore indicating a quick bite, but not particularly powerful. As I have discussed in other posts, it is the muscles of the neck, well developed to generate lateral forces, to be appointed to be shaken vigorously prey. In the absence of adaptations brontofagici allosauroidi at the base of the skull, but I do feel that abelisauridi were not specialized to tear large sections of tissue from prey of great size. However, this is by no means a deficit predatory: it is probable that any animal that fell into the mug these theropodi (and the list is long: the young sauropods crocodiles, ornithischi theropodi and medium-sized) was a potential prey for abelisauridi, which easily gripped the prey thanks to the great mobility of the body and shook vigorously before swallow almost whole.

Just to give you an example that shorter skull + stronger jaw muscles CAN equal quicker bite. But yes, this is about Majungasaurus not T rex so saying T rex would bite faster base on that is still just an over-simplifying claim. But saying Carcharodontosaurus would bite faster is immature and over-simplifying

And biting speed won't make much difference and since we are not sure who bite faster so i won't take this into account
Quote:
 
Very funny, they haven´t even been found! The forelimb size of Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus is entirely speculative, but basing on Acrocanthosaurus (NCSM 14345 does have a 37cm humerus, and it is only 11,5m long. the arms are a good deal larger than in T. rex and the manus is less reduced, even tough the animal is smaller) they are FAR FAR FAR.... larger than those of T. rex, even tough smaller than those of Allosaurus.

THREE FAR ???. Now you over-exaggerated Acro arm size

Posted Image

It isn't that much bigger than T rex and if you have read 7Alx post...

Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus closer relative likes Tyrannotitan has rather tiny arm
Quote:
 
And T. rex isn´t taller

At length parity, yes it is, both taller and heavier
Quote:
 
Posted Image

If you does notice, Hartman T rex has smaller chest circumference, slender ribs than the mounted SKELETON. As i said, I DON'T KNOW which one is more accurate, mounted skeleton or Hartman reconstruction, but if you base on the mounted skeleton, the model from 2011 estimate is very accurate, it doesn't have any liberal part (i'm talking about the MIN estimate)

And please don't take the MAX model, the scientists themselves have stated that they would use the MIN estimate since it is no need for a predator to get heavier

And the half a tonnes neck muscles is taken from the MIN estimate, i don't use the MAX estimate
Quote:
 
Strike fast is out of question, but faster than a carcharodontosaurid? Evidence? You are basically claiming it would both be tremendously strong and extremely fast, superior in both, basing merely on the assumption carcharodontosaurus would have far smaller neck muscles which isn´t studied but unlikely seeing giganotosaurus does even have enlarged spinous processes at the base of the neck for muscle attachment.

It remains like this; Carcharodontosaurus has a lighter skull on a probably thinner neck, built for greater speed in bite. T. rex has a thicker neck to carry a heavier skull with a greater crushing power, well designed for being used for restraining prey-something carcharodontosaurids use their arms for if necessary.

reading the abstract, they do indicate it was strong (no surprise), good at excerting force in pulling or shaking, and they write it was able to strike rapidly. This doesn´t mean more rapidly than an animal with a far lighter skull, just rapidly as opposed to a slow, sluggish movement (there were certainly some freaks out there claiming it could only move very slowly)

I have never said that T rex would strike faster but saying Carchar would strike faster is just immature assumption

If you have read the paper, you should know this stuff is quite complicated and require many studies not just superficial assumption like the one from yours

Base on the paper, T rex wouldn't strike very slow like many people image
Quote:
 
of course, a documentary claims it could lift a hippo (!)

Bull hippo average weight is 1,5-1,8 tonnes (1500-1800kg) while T rex head + neck mass has already weighed almost as much, i doubt T rex couldn't lift a hippo, in fact, i believe it could lift the hippo effortlessly
Quote:
 
And biting speed won't make much difference and since we are not sure who bite faster so i won't take this into account

Cau doesn´t make mechanical analyses either, he is making educated guesses on what is PLAUSIBLE, as he writes himself. And also, he did write there was a reduction of the temporal muscles (which surprises me actually) in mahjungasaurus, which is obviously the opposite in T. rex. Abelisaurs do have proportionally far smaller skulls than tyrannosaurs, proportionally MUCH shorter than in most other theropods. That is a different thing from Carcharodontosaurus whose skull is a bit longer and still far lighter.

Quote:
 
THREE FAR ???. Now you over-exaggerated Acro arm size

Posted Image

Sorry, cannot see the image, but I think it is the comparison from mega beasts, isn´t it? Note that that´s the arm of a 11,5m acro and probably a maximum sized T. rex.

I deliberately exagerated the difference, but honestly, have a look as skeletals and you will see that there ARE indeed major size and strenght differences.

Quote:
 
Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus and Carcharodontosaurus closer relative likes Tyrannotitan has rather tiny arm

I suspect you mean tyrannotitan had tiny arms. Could you bring up some evidence for that? because honestly, they are still far larger than in T. rex and still a factor in a fight, unlike those of rexy.
Quote:
 


Quote:
 
If you does notice, Hartman T rex has smaller chest circumference, slender ribs than the mounted SKELETON. As i said, I DON'T KNOW which one is more accurate, mounted skeleton or Hartman reconstruction, but if you base on the mounted skeleton, the model from 2011 estimate is very accurate, it doesn't have any liberal part (i'm talking about the MIN estimate)

It is entirely liberal, just compare it to the skeletal below...
Can you see the tons of added fat or other tissue below the chest? you seriously favour this reconstruction over Hartmans?

There is no major difference actually, but hartmans skeletal has a more accurate rib POSTITION and ROTATION, it also includes the gastralia, while the mounted skeleton has awkwardly forward facing ribs.

Quote:
 
And please don't take the MAX model, the scientists themselves have stated that they would use the MIN estimate since it is no need for a predator to get heavier

I was talking about the minimum estimate.

Quote:
 
And the half a tonnes neck muscles is taken from the MIN estimate, i don't use the MAX estimate

I don´t have a problem with approximately half a ton of neck muscles, I jsut wanted to point out blindly believing such a study with overally far exagerated mass is unwise. The nck muscles don´t seem to be oversized tough, they do actually look smaller than in hatmans restoration (But I don´t know about the lateral width). You have to keep in mind that Carcharodontosaurus did also have huge neck muscles, 500kg might sound a lot, but in an animal there estimated to be 9,5t and following consensual estimates around 6-7t it isn´t that much. Maybe carcharodontosaurus neck muscles wouldn´t be that large, as the neck of carnosaurs is usually mroe slender, but they still serve their purpose and they are not weak.

Quote:
 
I have never said that T rex would strike faster but saying Carchar would strike faster is just immature assumption

it is not, a lighter skull has a lower inertia and T. rex needs its strong neck msucles to carry the skull weight, you have nothign suggesting they would be so overly powerful compared to those of Carcharodontosaurus that they could both carry the heavy skull, allow far greater force in restraining prey AND still match the speed of the Carcharodontosaur bite. <---that would be an immature assumption.

Quote:
 
f you have read the paper, you should know this stuff is quite complicated and require many studies not just superficial assumption like the one from yours

Base on the paper, T rex wouldn't strike very slow like many people image

I never said it would strike slow, but not as fast as a carnosaur could.
I know it is complicated, but basic laws of physics don´t change, and without having substantial evidence against it you should not assume I´m wrong in assuming the animal with the lighter skull would have the faster bite.

Quote:
 
Bull hippo average weight is 1,5-1,8 tonnes (1500-1800kg) while T rex head + neck mass has already weighed almost as much, i doubt T rex couldn't lift a hippo, in fact, i believe it could lift the hippo effortlessly

a Bull hippo weights in excess of 3t, I doubt it could lift such a large animal, it would topple over. how do you see it being able to balance if it has an additional 46% of its body weight in its mouth? 1,5-1,8t could still be possible tough.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Wat a vicious fanboy debate!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dino-ken
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Okay first off - a large T.rex was nearly the same length as Carcharodontosaurus. Second, the two would have weighed about the same.

The differences - T.rex would have been slightly taller (longer legs), been more intelligent, had sharper senses (including well developed depth perception), and a bone crushing bite of up to 6.5 tons/sq inch. As has been pointed out T.rex is the most advanced giant theropod. He literally has 25-30 million years of additional development on Carcharodontosaurus.

Also just because - something is bigger doesn't mean it automatically better.

The only way Carcharodontosaurus wins - is if it can cause enough damage to T.rex that rex dies of blood loss. And if it can avoid being injuried by the T.rex itself. However if the Rex is able to cripple the Carcharodontosaurus or lands a massive bite to a major spot (like the neck) then it Game Over for the Shark toothed Lizard.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dino-ken
Nov 27 2012, 01:19 PM
As has been pointed out T.rex is the most advanced giant theropod. He literally has 25-30 million years of additional development on Carcharodontosaurus
Nope. Temporal range does NOT mean more advanced. Evolution is a tree, NOT a ladder, there are no evolutionary levels...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
^Agreed
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Nov 27 2012, 03:57 PM
dino-ken
Nov 27 2012, 01:19 PM
As has been pointed out T.rex is the most advanced giant theropod. He literally has 25-30 million years of additional development on Carcharodontosaurus
Nope. Temporal range does NOT mean more advanced. Evolution is a tree, NOT a ladder, there are no evolutionary levels...
But it is most of the time. In the case of T Rex it is more than obvious, even Gregory S. Paul who's got far more credibility than you, has acknowledged that fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
that suggestion is frankly ridiculous. Advanced or primitive remain totally subjective terms not correlated with any biological factors that one could measure. Claiming T. rex to be at an advantage because of being more derived is thus a totally invalid point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 27 2012, 05:45 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Nov 27 2012, 03:57 PM
dino-ken
Nov 27 2012, 01:19 PM
As has been pointed out T.rex is the most advanced giant theropod. He literally has 25-30 million years of additional development on Carcharodontosaurus
Nope. Temporal range does NOT mean more advanced. Evolution is a tree, NOT a ladder, there are no evolutionary levels...
But it is most of the time. In the case of T Rex it is more than obvious, even Gregory S. Paul who's got far more credibility than you, has acknowledged that fact.
Greg Paul has never stated that Tyrannosaurus was more advanced
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Go read Predatory dinosaurs of the world and I can find tons of other sources that would have made such a recognition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.