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 (130,000 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:
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Theropod why is it so hard for you to admit Sue is heavier than giga? The graph showing here was made by Hartman whom we all base comparison on in this forum yet you still keep finding excuses and turn turn corners. So after all these time you just wanted to believe what you want to believe and ignoring any evidence provided by the latest and most accurate study then I guess there's no point for me to continue with this. It's sad to see people don't wanna face the truth here and keep defending their favorite theropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How about making a comparison between an "average" Tyrannosaurus, and a Giganotosaurus that is midway in size between the holotype and the paratype?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 6 2012, 08:44 PM
Theropod why is it so hard for you to admit Sue is heavier than giga? The graph showing here was made by Hartman whom we all base comparison on in this forum yet you still keep finding excuses and turn turn corners. So after all these time you just wanted to believe what you want to believe and ignoring any evidence provided by the latest and most accurate study then I guess there's no point for me to continue with this. It's sad to see people don't wanna face the truth here and keep defending their favorite theropods.
Why is it so hard to accept for you that taking hatmans skeletals and the femur measurements Giganotosaurus holotype is 13m and sue 12,3? To me it rather seems like you are the one who has problems accepting the thruth. I prefer the actual body parts over scalebars, they are what has to be accurate in any case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
If both animal weighs the same I would still give the nod to T Rex due to it's more powerful and robust built, much more powerful bite, 3d vision for accurate biting and very likely being more agile on the feet. Just imagine a jaguar and a puma of same weight, you would of course back the jaguar due to more powerful built and bite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
T parity being bulkier has no major impact on strenght, both would ahve the same mass, but most estimates agree about giga/carch being a bit heavier. For a better figure, we should collect more data, for example what exactly did the C. iguidensis-paper state.

T. rex being more agile is totally speculative hypothetical and unevidenced, I already wrote why.

Carcharodpontosaurus bite requires far less force and it can be extremely devastating. It also has better chances to bite repeatedly and it can bite a wider range of body parts. I can use its arms to hook into its opponent while biting, and what T. rex used its laterally reinforced skull for the carnosaur has its arms for. With a slight weight advantage carcha takes this, at parity it is virtually 50/50.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 6 2012, 09:09 PM
bone crusher
Dec 6 2012, 08:44 PM
Theropod why is it so hard for you to admit Sue is heavier than giga? The graph showing here was made by Hartman whom we all base comparison on in this forum yet you still keep finding excuses and turn turn corners. So after all these time you just wanted to believe what you want to believe and ignoring any evidence provided by the latest and most accurate study then I guess there's no point for me to continue with this. It's sad to see people don't wanna face the truth here and keep defending their favorite theropods.
Why is it so hard to accept for you that taking hatmans skeletals and the femur measurements Giganotosaurus holotype is 13m and sue 12,3? To me it rather seems like you are the one who has problems accepting the thruth. I prefer the actual body parts over scalebars, they are what has to be accurate in any case.
Let's play it your way then, I've made a 13m giga just for you. As you can see Sue while shorter in length, is still bulkier in neck, bigger vertebra, bigger chest, much bigger hip bones which means much bigger thighs, bigger calves, foot and bigger tail. Sue is still bigger in overall dimension, not to mention this is only the lateral view, Sue would be wider still in frontal view too. Sue is heavier man.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 6 2012, 09:20 PM
T parity being bulkier has no major impact on strenght, both would ahve the same mass, but most estimates agree about giga/carch being a bit heavier. For a better figure, we should collect more data, for example what exactly did the C. iguidensis-paper state.

T. rex being more agile is totally speculative hypothetical and unevidenced, I already wrote why.

Carcharodpontosaurus bite requires far less force and it can be extremely devastating. It also has better chances to bite repeatedly and it can bite a wider range of body parts. I can use its arms to hook into its opponent while biting, and what T. rex used its laterally reinforced skull for the carnosaur has its arms for. With a slight weight advantage carcha takes this, at parity it is virtually 50/50.
That is total bogus. rugby players who's more muscular and wider in built like those Samoan islanders are definitely more powerful than your average dude from mainland of the same weight. Plus the difference in bulkiness is much more prominent between t rex and giga. As for estimates, it did mention giga holotype is only average t rex in size so it backs me up about Sue being heavier.
I think I believe Holtz study than yours in regards to agility. He didn't say it directly but it's strongly hinted.
As for the bite, I'm doing this with you again, you're just running in cycles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A well trained man vs a not well trained one doesn´t equal a bulkier animal vs a less bulky one. Concerning the weight I think you are decieving yourself, and if at all the femur and hip region in T. rex is marginally more massive (balanced out by possible differences in pneumatisation), the main difference is a larger ilium in T. rex and enlarged spinosus processes in Giganotosaurus (and here I repeat, not everything T. rex is different in is necessarily an advantage!).
About the agility: I posted a study that stated an agility benefit was mere speculation. Holtz didn´t deduce that either, he merely speculated on it, so I´m not believing it. About the bite: you´re the one running in circles. I gave you enough evidence for the fact that just a lower bite force and skull robusticity doesn´t mean tzhe btie is inferior in terms of damage.

About the 13m giga holotype, it is like this: In a correctly scaled version with a 13m Giganotosaurus, the femur ratio is nearly perfectly the same as 138/143. Most sources (Theropod database, palaeoDB, Brochus paper on sue...) cite the accurate femur lenght of Sue to be 132cm (+-some mm which shows the results were measured independently). When using this figure and the downsized giganotosaurus femur, The Giganotosaurus femur is proportionally even slightly larger.
Therefore 13m is imo far more likely to be correct than anything below.
Edited by theropod, Dec 7 2012, 12:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes, very likely it is 13 meters even when Corria and Currie say it is 12.2 meters rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
At least in relation to a 12,3m Tyrannosaurus, yes. I´m not talking about absolute dimensions, I´m talking about relative ones, and those suggests the femur ratio in the scales showing what is supposed to be the giga paratype is actually that of the giganotosaurus holotype and sue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fist of the North Shrimp
vá á orminum
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, the problem is that Currie measured the lenght of Giganotosaurus in person, and got a lenght of 12.2 meters. The only place where the extra 80 centimeters could come from are from the tail, and I think that the tail is not the pivotal point of this discussion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, but then either Hartman has a completely different reconstruction, something went wrong with the measure (it is pretty difficult to measure something as soon as it isn´t complete, and we all know the mount is inaccurate), measuring sue the same way would yield a 6% lower TL or the several times I measured Hartmans reconstructions I always was wrong.
Edited by theropod, Dec 7 2012, 01:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I want to remark we should be more cautious comparing the lateral bulk. Without the gastralia etc. known it is very difficult to have a consistent width figure (corresponding to a lateral-view reconstruction), so comparing top and sideview restorations that aren´t from the same source or autor is a bad Idea. I remember a comparison bony posted some time ago (it probably based on the giganotosaurus mout tough as it seemed lieke a laser scan). Is there a lateral view comparison corresponding to it?

Furthermore, I noticed we were half the time arguing about Giganotosaurus carolinii vs T. rex, which is actually not the topic, but I think it is not a bad idea. carcharodontosaurus is largely unknown, all we know was that its dimensions were similar to Giganotosaurus, and that it likely had a different skull shape. As there don´t seem to be factors relevant for a fight, these two animals seem like they are more or less the same and we can just as well argue about giganotosaurus size and assume Carch is similar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dino Master
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
I put T.rex, because In all reality, it would probably win. If the two met in a head on challenge to the death, I believe that T.rex would win with its crushing bite, and it's natural instincts to deal with large, armored dinosaurs. That's not saying that the carchardontosaurus wouldn't land some blows. It would be a clash of the titans. The t.rex afterwords wouldn't make it through the night.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
and it's natural instincts to deal with large, armored dinosaurs.

Carcharo dealt with larger and stronger sauropods.
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.