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 (130,001 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is irrelevant whether I prove one taxon to be generally more heavily pneumatised btw. In animals with varying degrees of pneumatisation, femur circumference is simply not a valid factor to determine body weight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 4 2012, 05:41 PM
Yeah let's just use the smallest T Rex available while we at it and exaggerate carch's size to its absolute limit. Does the fact Sue is the most studied t rex with the most up to ate data bother some of you? Or you simply refuse to accept science?
Sue is a fairly large Tyrannosaurus. The only specimen that is definitively larger is MOR 008, the two UCMPs are far more fragmentary even than Carcharodontosaurus and could well have been disproportionate. This is why a lot of us still regard Sue as a large tyrannosaur; until there are published and widely accepted estimates on the two UCMP specimens then we should not count them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And people thought I was crazy when I regarded sue as a freak specimen. Also just a side Q, how big was jack the T.rex again? I'm arguing with my friend at school over sizes of large theropods. I swear he's a genius!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lord of the Allosaurs
Dec 5 2012, 12:52 AM
bone crusher
Dec 4 2012, 05:41 PM
Yeah let's just use the smallest T Rex available while we at it and exaggerate carch's size to its absolute limit. Does the fact Sue is the most studied t rex with the most up to ate data bother some of you? Or you simply refuse to accept science?
Sue is a fairly large Tyrannosaurus. The only specimen that is definitively larger is MOR 008, the two UCMPs are far more fragmentary even than Carcharodontosaurus and could well have been disproportionate. This is why a lot of us still regard Sue as a large tyrannosaur; until there are published and widely accepted estimates on the two UCMP specimens then we should not count them.
I´m not so shure about MOR 008

I used the measurements For the maxilla and dentary from The theropod database, and the photograph we know of MOR 008. With the given measurements (which I´m inclined to trust much more than a single surprisingly round and sensationalistic lenght figure for the whole skull, for which there are many ways to measure it) it is impossible to be larger than sue, as that would mean the parts would be significantly smaller compared to the complete lenght, while they are not smaller at all. I think MOR´s 1,5m figure is to be compared to 1,53m Sue, measured differently, not 1,39-1,41m one.

The large UCMP specimen does actually convince me more, even tough I think a single toebone is too hard to actually identify. The other one is just an isolated maxilla somewhat smaller than sue´s.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 4 2012, 11:40 PM
bone crusher
Dec 4 2012, 04:55 PM
Are you seriously saying T REx can't bite a hole in carch's neck? You're unbelievable.

Most authorities have the outdated infos, they would eventually revise their data just like they did with so many dinosaurs. And what are all those dimensions exactly? Femur, tibia etc? Please show me links. Unless Carch is substantially bigger than giga holotype and we know Sue is bigger than giga, then there's no way carch's dimension is bigger than Sue at least.
I´m seriously saying that T. rex biting a hole into Carchs neck is nothign else but crushing its neck, while carcharodontosaurus would slice it. We know that Sue is probably around the size of the giga holotype weightwise, imo most likely shorter tough. "those exact dimensions" were those you yourself are referring to "the new revised sizes" or how you called them. Carchy and giga still exceeded T. rex linear dimensions in all their body parts, even tough pushed to the absolute minimum and thus not very notable. Basing something entirely on femur circumference is pointless as long as you don´t study the internal bone structure, as coelurosaurs are more pneumatic.


BTW an average for T. rex seems to be ~12m+-some cm, when basing on sue and the femur mean figure from PalaeoDB.

Just look at the comparison, tell me which part of giga's skeleton is bigger in dimension? I know it's got bigger arms I give you that, maybe a slightly longer skull but the holotype is overall smaller alright unless Hartman's drawing is off.
Posted Image
Edited by bone crusher, Dec 5 2012, 07:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I used the measurements For the maxilla and dentary from The theropod database, and the photograph we know of MOR 008. With the given measurements (which I´m inclined to trust much more than a single surprisingly round and sensationalistic lenght figure for the whole skull, for which there are many ways to measure it) it is impossible to be larger than sue, as that would mean the parts would be significantly smaller compared to the complete lenght, while they are not smaller at all.

Different T rex specimens have PROPORTIONALLY DIFFERENT bones size. For example, Stan has proportionally bigger head than Sue, Sue has proportionally shorter legs than many other T rex. It's true that Sue maxilla, premaxilla are bigger than those of MOR 008, but this doesn't mean that Sue would have bigger skull or larger body size than MOR 008. UNTIL NOW, MOR 008 skull is still considered to be larger than those of Sue by 6%, if you want to prove that MOR 008 skull mount is wrong, then you MUST have PROOFS to prove it, not just your mere speculation
Quote:
 
I think MOR´s 1,5m figure is to be compared to 1,53m Sue, measured differently, not 1,39-1,41m one.

That's just what you think, right ?

Regarding with T rex agility and arctometatarsal, if you don't trust Jamie Headden, Andrea Cau and Dave Hone, what's about Tom Holtz rolleyes
Thomas Holtz
 
Tyrannosaurid feet are awesome: The other end of the hind limb is also very derived in tyrannosaurids. Tyrants differ from typical large-bodied theropods in the possession of an arctometatarsus (“compressed metatarsus”), where the middle long bone of the foot is compressed between the other two main weight-bearing bones. As described by me some time ago, and subsequently explored in greater detail by Eric Snively and colleagues, this adaptation seems to represent a functional adaptation towards enhanced cursorial (running) ability. While this does not mean that a fully grown 8 ton (or more) Tyrannosaurus rex was as fast as a racehorse, it does suggest that it was faster and more agile than other similar-sized animals (such as hadrosaurids and ceratopsids) that lack comparable speed adaptations. Furthermore, a juvenile T. rex might have been a very swift animal indeed.
Edited by Verdugo, Dec 5 2012, 07:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Different T rex specimens have PROPORTIONALLY DIFFERENT bones size. For example, Stan has proportionally bigger head than Sue, Sue has proportionally shorter legs than many other T rex. It's true that Sue maxilla, premaxilla are bigger than those of MOR 008, but this doesn't mean that Sue would have bigger skull or larger body size than MOR 008. UNTIL NOW, MOR 008 skull is still considered to be larger than those of Sue by 6%, if you want to prove that MOR 008 skull mount is wrong, then you MUST have PROOFS to prove it, not just your mere speculation

Read my post again. I did compare it to the photo and measured things in an image manipulation program. MORs dentary is proportionally not noticeably shorter than sues, so how should it be bigger? What I think is that MOR was probably accurately reconstructed, but not measured the same way as 1,4m sue.
Quote:
 
That's just what you think, right ?

Thats a deduction you can only prove wrong by using my metod.

Quote:
 
Regarding with T rex agility and arctometatarsal, if you don't trust Jamie Headden, Andrea Cau and Dave Hone, what's about Tom Holtz rolleyes
Thomas Holtz
 
Tyrannosaurid feet are awesome: The other end of the hind limb is also very derived in tyrannosaurids. Tyrants differ from typical large-bodied theropods in the possession of an arctometatarsus (“compressed metatarsus”), where the middle long bone of the foot is compressed between the other two main weight-bearing bones. As described by me some time ago, and subsequently explored in greater detail by Eric Snively and colleagues, this adaptation seems to represent a functional adaptation towards enhanced cursorial (running) ability. While this does not mean that a fully grown 8 ton (or more) Tyrannosaurus rex was as fast as a racehorse, it does suggest that it was faster and more agile than other similar-sized animals (such as hadrosaurids and ceratopsids) that lack comparable speed adaptations. Furthermore, a juvenile T. rex might have been a very swift animal indeed.

Surprisingly he only lists Hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, not other theropods. He is first talking about the arctometatarsus, but then he appearantly doesn´t deduce it to be faster than other theropods if you notice, otherwise, if there was sufficient evidence, he would have certainly listed them as well. Theropods in general have longer legs with longer metatarsals than similarly sized ornithopods, maybe that´s what he referred to on a more general basis.


Bone Crusher: the femur, the skull both seem slightlyx bigger, if you don´t want to do it I could measure them to check it, but that´s irrelevant...
I´m not talking about a scale, I´m talking about the figures from the exact paper your referred to, which if I´m not mistaken estimated gigas skull at 141cm (sues was 139cm there) and the femur at 137cm (sues femur is 132).
Edited by theropod, Dec 5 2012, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 5 2012, 10:08 PM
Quote:
 
Different T rex specimens have PROPORTIONALLY DIFFERENT bones size. For example, Stan has proportionally bigger head than Sue, Sue has proportionally shorter legs than many other T rex. It's true that Sue maxilla, premaxilla are bigger than those of MOR 008, but this doesn't mean that Sue would have bigger skull or larger body size than MOR 008. UNTIL NOW, MOR 008 skull is still considered to be larger than those of Sue by 6%, if you want to prove that MOR 008 skull mount is wrong, then you MUST have PROOFS to prove it, not just your mere speculation

Read my post again. I did compare it to the photo and measured things in an image manipulation program. MORs dentary is proportionally not noticeably shorter than sues, so how should it be bigger? What I think is that MOR was probably accurately reconstructed, but not measured the same way as 1,4m sue.
Quote:
 
That's just what you think, right ?

Thats a deduction you can only prove wrong by using my metod.

Quote:
 
Regarding with T rex agility and arctometatarsal, if you don't trust Jamie Headden, Andrea Cau and Dave Hone, what's about Tom Holtz rolleyes
Thomas Holtz
 
Tyrannosaurid feet are awesome: The other end of the hind limb is also very derived in tyrannosaurids. Tyrants differ from typical large-bodied theropods in the possession of an arctometatarsus (“compressed metatarsus”), where the middle long bone of the foot is compressed between the other two main weight-bearing bones. As described by me some time ago, and subsequently explored in greater detail by Eric Snively and colleagues, this adaptation seems to represent a functional adaptation towards enhanced cursorial (running) ability. While this does not mean that a fully grown 8 ton (or more) Tyrannosaurus rex was as fast as a racehorse, it does suggest that it was faster and more agile than other similar-sized animals (such as hadrosaurids and ceratopsids) that lack comparable speed adaptations. Furthermore, a juvenile T. rex might have been a very swift animal indeed.

Surprisingly he only lists Hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, not other theropods. He is first talking about the arctometatarsus, but then he appearantly doesn´t deduce it to be faster than other theropods if you notice, otherwise, if there was sufficient evidence, he would have certainly listed them as well. Theropods in general have longer legs with longer metatarsals than similarly sized ornithopods, maybe that´s what he referred to on a more general basis.


Bone Crusher: the femur, the skull both seem slightlyx bigger, if you don´t want to do it I could measure them to check it, but that´s irrelevant...
I´m not talking about a scale, I´m talking about the figures from the exact paper your referred to, which if I´m not mistaken estimated gigas skull at 141cm (sues was 139cm there) and the femur at 137cm (sues femur is 132).
Theropod, I agree giga's skull is slightly longer by 2cm as you have put it, but Sue's skull is much wider and heavier, the overall volume and robustness is way above giga's and that's what really matters here if we wanna compare the overall size. As for the femur, yes giga's is longer but the circumference is smaller so that means volumetric dimension is smaller. In another word a Diplodocus is longer than Apatasuarus but definitely lighter, it's not such a drastic case here but you do understand the point I'm conveying right?
So in truth you're right about certain bones in giga being longer dimensionally but not bigger, you can not use the word bigger till volumetric dimension is bigger.
The comparison also clearly illustrates majority of Sue's bones are bigger, there' no question about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
All I actually claimed was that even when downsized to a significant extent giganotosauurs still has dimensianally longer bones, I didn´t talk about robustness. A tyrannosaur skull is naturally far more massive than a carnosaur skull, but that doesn´t imply the whole animal was larger (bulkier-yes, but bulk doesn´t equal weight). For the femur, I already stated it is not easy to compare femur circunferences of animals with varying degrees of pneumatisation. Of course I understand you point of T. rex being bulkier, it undeniably is, but I disagree about it beng heavier because of that, because being longer does make up for that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZealRaegus
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 12 2012, 12:02 AM
Godzillaman
Jun 11 2012, 08:37 AM
While carcharodontosaurus was 5 feet longer than t-rex, the tyrannosaurus was stronger and more heavily-built. The tyrannosaurus had a thicker body build and a much stronger bite. If the tyrannosaurus could land a good, bone-crushing bite on the carcharodontosaurus's neck, it would be all over. It is basically rail-road spikes (t-rex teeth) against steak knives (carcharodontosaurus teeth). The rail-road spikes are more for direct force and creating deep puncture wounds, while the steak knives are better for slicing open skin and creating blood loss.
It's accurate, but you forgot that Carcharodontosaurus had stronger arms as extra weapon.
Really? You're going to say that arms are weapons towards two predators that have excessively large heads and say that Carcharo's arms would be able to use? That's like making the arms over ten feet long. NO. It's arms wouldn't effective in a fight. It's all about the bite when it comes to predatory super-theropods baby! B-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZealRaegus
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jun 12 2012, 12:02 AM
Godzillaman
Jun 11 2012, 08:37 AM
While carcharodontosaurus was 5 feet longer than t-rex, the tyrannosaurus was stronger and more heavily-built. The tyrannosaurus had a thicker body build and a much stronger bite. If the tyrannosaurus could land a good, bone-crushing bite on the carcharodontosaurus's neck, it would be all over. It is basically rail-road spikes (t-rex teeth) against steak knives (carcharodontosaurus teeth). The rail-road spikes are more for direct force and creating deep puncture wounds, while the steak knives are better for slicing open skin and creating blood loss.
It's accurate, but you forgot that Carcharodontosaurus had stronger arms as extra weapon.
Really? You're going to say that arms are weapons towards two predators that have excessively large heads and say that Carcharo's arms would be able to use? That's like making the arms over ten feet long. NO. It's arms wouldn't effective in a fight. It's all about the bite when it comes to predatory super-theropods baby! B-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 5 2012, 07:00 PM
theropod
Dec 4 2012, 11:40 PM
bone crusher
Dec 4 2012, 04:55 PM
Are you seriously saying T REx can't bite a hole in carch's neck? You're unbelievable.

Most authorities have the outdated infos, they would eventually revise their data just like they did with so many dinosaurs. And what are all those dimensions exactly? Femur, tibia etc? Please show me links. Unless Carch is substantially bigger than giga holotype and we know Sue is bigger than giga, then there's no way carch's dimension is bigger than Sue at least.
I´m seriously saying that T. rex biting a hole into Carchs neck is nothign else but crushing its neck, while carcharodontosaurus would slice it. We know that Sue is probably around the size of the giga holotype weightwise, imo most likely shorter tough. "those exact dimensions" were those you yourself are referring to "the new revised sizes" or how you called them. Carchy and giga still exceeded T. rex linear dimensions in all their body parts, even tough pushed to the absolute minimum and thus not very notable. Basing something entirely on femur circumference is pointless as long as you don´t study the internal bone structure, as coelurosaurs are more pneumatic.


BTW an average for T. rex seems to be ~12m+-some cm, when basing on sue and the femur mean figure from PalaeoDB.

Just look at the comparison, tell me which part of giga's skeleton is bigger in dimension? I know it's got bigger arms I give you that, maybe a slightly longer skull but the holotype is overall smaller alright unless Hartman's drawing is off.
Posted Image
I'm highly skeptikal to the Hartman's giga.



Posted Image
This one looks more accurate.

And, here's how did Giga really look.
Posted Image
Edited by Temnospondyl, Dec 6 2012, 07:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 6 2012, 07:23 PM
All I actually claimed was that even when downsized to a significant extent giganotosauurs still has dimensianally longer bones, I didn´t talk about robustness. A tyrannosaur skull is naturally far more massive than a carnosaur skull, but that doesn´t imply the whole animal was larger (bulkier-yes, but bulk doesn´t equal weight). For the femur, I already stated it is not easy to compare femur circunferences of animals with varying degrees of pneumatisation. Of course I understand you point of T. rex being bulkier, it undeniably is, but I disagree about it beng heavier because of that, because being longer does make up for that.
Are we seeing the same graph here? Coz giga is clearly shorter lol. And even if we give giga another meter in length it would still be lighter simply due to being much slender in built, you have to be longer by a significant amount like Spino in order to be heavier. Allosaurus stretched out to 12m would not come any where near a 11m t rex in weight for example.
Theropod why is it so hard for you to admit Sue is heavier than giga? I have even shown you the graph made by Hartman whom we all base comparison on in this forum yet you still keep finding excuses and turn turn corners. The graph is made with 99.9% accuracy and if you still deny that then there's no point for me to continue on, I would be wasting my time with your personal preference if that's the case.
Edited by bone crusher, Dec 6 2012, 08:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
LophoFan14
Dec 6 2012, 07:34 PM
bone crusher
Dec 5 2012, 07:00 PM
theropod
Dec 4 2012, 11:40 PM
bone crusher
Dec 4 2012, 04:55 PM
Are you seriously saying T REx can't bite a hole in carch's neck? You're unbelievable.

Most authorities have the outdated infos, they would eventually revise their data just like they did with so many dinosaurs. And what are all those dimensions exactly? Femur, tibia etc? Please show me links. Unless Carch is substantially bigger than giga holotype and we know Sue is bigger than giga, then there's no way carch's dimension is bigger than Sue at least.
I´m seriously saying that T. rex biting a hole into Carchs neck is nothign else but crushing its neck, while carcharodontosaurus would slice it. We know that Sue is probably around the size of the giga holotype weightwise, imo most likely shorter tough. "those exact dimensions" were those you yourself are referring to "the new revised sizes" or how you called them. Carchy and giga still exceeded T. rex linear dimensions in all their body parts, even tough pushed to the absolute minimum and thus not very notable. Basing something entirely on femur circumference is pointless as long as you don´t study the internal bone structure, as coelurosaurs are more pneumatic.


BTW an average for T. rex seems to be ~12m+-some cm, when basing on sue and the femur mean figure from PalaeoDB.

Just look at the comparison, tell me which part of giga's skeleton is bigger in dimension? I know it's got bigger arms I give you that, maybe a slightly longer skull but the holotype is overall smaller alright unless Hartman's drawing is off.
Posted Image
I'm highly skeptikal to the Hartman's giga.



Posted Image
This one looks more accurate.

And, here's how did Giga really look.
Posted Image
You have some very outdated info. Notice year 1997 in Greg S Paul's drawing compared to Hartman's 2012 version?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 6 2012, 08:23 PM
theropod
Dec 6 2012, 07:23 PM
All I actually claimed was that even when downsized to a significant extent giganotosauurs still has dimensianally longer bones, I didn´t talk about robustness. A tyrannosaur skull is naturally far more massive than a carnosaur skull, but that doesn´t imply the whole animal was larger (bulkier-yes, but bulk doesn´t equal weight). For the femur, I already stated it is not easy to compare femur circunferences of animals with varying degrees of pneumatisation. Of course I understand you point of T. rex being bulkier, it undeniably is, but I disagree about it beng heavier because of that, because being longer does make up for that.
Are we seeing the same graph here? Coz giga is clearly shorter lol. And even if we give giga another meter in length it would still be lighter simply due to being much slender in built.
The difference btween us two is that you assume the comparison is correct, I don´t. I think the holotype was likely ~13m long and roughly similar in weight to sue (6,4t). The paratype would thus approach 14m and 8t
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.