| 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 (130,004 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: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Nov 22 2012, 02:05 AM Post #331 |
|
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) |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 22 2012, 04:06 PM Post #332 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 22 2012, 07:28 PM Post #333 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Nov 22 2012, 09:34 PM Post #334 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 23 2012, 12:52 AM Post #335 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 23 2012, 11:38 PM Post #336 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suggest you should use scientific proof next time rather than making over-simplifying claims like that.
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
THREE FAR ???. Now you over-exaggerated Acro arm size ![]() 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
At length parity, yes it is, both taller and heavier
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
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
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 |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 24 2012, 01:56 AM Post #337 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was talking about the minimum 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.
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.
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.
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. |
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Nov 26 2012, 04:59 PM Post #338 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wat a vicious fanboy debate! |
![]() |
|
| dino-ken | Nov 27 2012, 01:19 PM Post #339 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 27 2012, 03:57 PM Post #340 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nope. Temporal range does NOT mean more advanced. Evolution is a tree, NOT a ladder, there are no evolutionary levels... |
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Nov 27 2012, 05:18 PM Post #341 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^Agreed |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 27 2012, 05:45 PM Post #342 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 27 2012, 08:14 PM Post #343 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 28 2012, 12:45 PM Post #344 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Greg Paul has never stated that Tyrannosaurus was more advanced |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 28 2012, 06:44 PM Post #345 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Go read Predatory dinosaurs of the world and I can find tons of other sources that would have made such a recognition. |
![]() |
|
| 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