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 (129,999 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And Carcharodontosaurus isn´t armoured...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EmperorTyrannosaur
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Dino Master
Dec 7 2012, 05:35 AM
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.
Why wouldn't it, evidence suggest Tyrannosaurus fought each other all the time sustaining massive injury... that healed - I think your not giving enough credit as to how tough dinosaurs were :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kunfuzzled
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Black Ice
Dec 7 2012, 06:02 AM
Quote:
 
and it's natural instincts to deal with large, armored dinosaurs.

Carcharo dealt with larger and stronger sauropods.
I doubt on it's own though, maybe a mob of 2 or 3. But surely a single Carcharodonotosaurus wouldn't hunt an adult Sauropod by itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EmperorTyrannosaur
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Kunfuzzled
Dec 7 2012, 09:57 AM
Black Ice
Dec 7 2012, 06:02 AM
Quote:
 
and it's natural instincts to deal with large, armored dinosaurs.

Carcharo dealt with larger and stronger sauropods.
I doubt on it's own though, maybe a mob of 2 or 3. But surely a single Carcharodonotosaurus wouldn't hunt an adult Sauropod by itself.
I don't think any theropod is capable of that :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 7 2012, 12:07 AM
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.
You keep ignoring the fact that most of bones in t rex's skeleton are bigger than the corresponding ones in giga's. The width of Sue's skull, neck, chest, ribcage and its vertebra are wider as well in a frontal view. You can easily tell which animal is the heavier one really.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 7 2012, 05:27 PM
theropod
Dec 7 2012, 12:07 AM
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.
You keep ignoring the fact that most of bones in t rex's skeleton are bigger than the corresponding ones in giga's. The width of Sue's skull, neck, chest, ribcage and its vertebra are wider as well in a frontal view. You can easily tell which animal is the heavier one really.
No you cannot. T. rex is wider, yes, giga is longer in exchange. And you don´t know to what reconstruction the top view scan you posted belongs to, and it lacks gastralia, so you might be giving too much credit to it
The difference in bone robusticity isn´t anywhere near as notable as you claim, just look at rhe scale you just posted. T. rexe mainly LOOKS more massive, because of the blunter skull, and the bulkier neck to carry this head. The skull is the part in which T. rex is most notably more bulky, but this has not as much of an impact on the total weight as it has on visual appearance.

Emperor T: I think people seem to believe A cut jugular artery and musculature or a giant hole in the torso wouldn´t kill instantly, and instead think they would kill it later. Animals as durable as tyrannosaurs would likely endure most other injuries they could have after a fight (those that wouldn´t cause near instant death).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EmperorTyrannosaur
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Dec 7 2012, 06:35 PM
bone crusher
Dec 7 2012, 05:27 PM
theropod
Dec 7 2012, 12:07 AM
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.
You keep ignoring the fact that most of bones in t rex's skeleton are bigger than the corresponding ones in giga's. The width of Sue's skull, neck, chest, ribcage and its vertebra are wider as well in a frontal view. You can easily tell which animal is the heavier one really.
No you cannot. T. rex is wider, yes, giga is longer in exchange. And you don´t know to what reconstruction the top view scan you posted belongs to, and it lacks gastralia, so you might be giving too much credit to it
The difference in bone robusticity isn´t anywhere near as notable as you claim, just look at rhe scale you just posted. T. rexe mainly LOOKS more massive, because of the blunter skull, and the bulkier neck to carry this head. The skull is the part in which T. rex is most notably more bulky, but this has not as much of an impact on the total weight as it has on visual appearance.

Emperor T: I think people seem to believe A cut jugular artery and musculature or a giant hole in the torso wouldn´t kill instantly, and instead think they would kill it later. Animals as durable as tyrannosaurs would likely endure most other injuries they could have after a fight (those that wouldn´t cause near instant death).
True, apart from what people may think of Tyrannosaurus, you can't deny these huge theropods had a really rough life and would have to be straight out tough. When you think about, the herbivores evolved to develop defensive weapons and huge bodyweight (excluding the sauropods) eg Triceratops etc. In turn, theropods evolved to deal with such tough prey and the culmination of this evolution at the time of dinosaurs extinction was Tyrannosaurus - very broad, highly muscled, crushing bite to deal with said herbivore defenses and of coarse higher intelligence/senses. These predators developed sheer strength to match the herbivores strength (a 8-12 tonne Triceratops would be extremely powerful) It's very unwise to continue arguments about which was better, Carnosaurs & Tyrannosaurs were completely different creatures evolved for different purposes and speciality - PERSONALLY, I favor Tyrannosaurus in a straight up, 1 on 1 fight given what it was evolved for and their builds. Tyrannosaurus was a fighter in all aspects - whether it be against other Tyrannosaurus's, which there is ample evidence of, of against their tough as nails prey. Not knocking Carnosaurs at all, they were certainly fighters but of a different era. Given how few old, massive Tyrannosaurus's have been found thus far, it is safe to say not many made it into their elder years, meaning the ones that did would have been tough, having survived other Tyrannosaurus's and hunting their prey. The reason I see Tyrannosaurus coming out on top can be split into two reasons - one, Tyrannosaurus was made to tackle tough prey head one (or so some believe) whereas Carcharodontosaurids were most likely made to tackle even larger prey but in a different way, probably by attacking in groups, wearing the animal down and taking bites out of it, killing it slowly whereas Tyrannosaurus was built for a quick kill - if these two theoretically fought, I believe the Tyrannosaurus's instinctual habit of going for a quick, highly powerful and very vicious kill as opposed to a drawn out one - I don't think Carcharodontosaurus would know how to deal with a creature with that kind of explosive power. The second is, we currently simply don't know enough about the Carcharodontosaurids as apposed to Tyrannosaurus so our knowledge favors T.Rex as it is. Of coarse I could be totally wrong but this is my personal view, I hope I've highlighted my points clearly. I would just like to point out, however, that we should stop debating over who was bigger/longer/heavier etc as we all have our personal views on this and it obviously isn't going to change, simply state your personal view and move on otherwise we run circles and get away from the topic. Peace out guys :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^agreed in nearly every point!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Imo Carcharodontosaurus, having lived on a continent full of competitors approaching or exceeding its own size and formidability (Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, "Bahariasaurus", Deltadromaeus and the newly discovered Sauroniops) (does that word exist? If not, now it does!) it would too have decent fighting expierience when dealing with other theropods, even tough its hunting strategy did rather focus on "flesh grazing", and I think its weaponery, while of course not instantly killing its prey, which was large enough to endure most attacks easily, would still have devastating effects on other theropods, these animals even in bulky reconstructions still being relatively nimble animals, with long proportions and so large that toppling over could be deadly-vulnerable to attack. As I already noted a slicing bite is not inferior to a crushing bite, except when dealing with armour (or head biting, but I don´t think theropods did it in intraspecific fights, neither would Carcharodontosaurus try to use it and just keep standing in front of its opponent, it would attempt to reach the neck or flanks-were it has an advantage due to its gape).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZealRaegus
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
theropod
Dec 8 2012, 04:10 AM
Imo Carcharodontosaurus, having lived on a continent full of competitors approaching or exceeding its own size and formidability (Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, "Bahariasaurus", Deltadromaeus and the newly discovered Sauroniops) (does that word exist? If not, now it does!) it would too have decent fighting expierience when dealing with other theropods, even tough its hunting strategy did rather focus on "flesh grazing", and I think its weaponery, while of course not instantly killing its prey, which was large enough to endure most attacks easily, would still have devastating effects on other theropods, these animals even in bulky reconstructions still being relatively nimble animals, with long proportions and so large that toppling over could be deadly-vulnerable to attack. As I already noted a slicing bite is not inferior to a crushing bite, except when dealing with armour (or head biting, but I don´t think theropods did it in intraspecific fights, neither would Carcharodontosaurus try to use it and just keep standing in front of its opponent, it would attempt to reach the neck or flanks-were it has an advantage due to its gape).
While this is true for Carcharodontosaurus, its a very different story for T.Rex. Honestly, Carcharodontosaurus is facing a bigger threat than just facing its own related "cousins" (like Sauroniops) or fighting against smaller adversaries like Deltadromeus, or facing large Spinosaurids. He's facing against a "bigger" (as in meaning of threatening) and much more worthy adversary. If the fight was to occur, I would put all of my money on T.Rex. Not just because of his bite force! But because he has many other advantages over the more primitive competitor.
T.Rex has an absolute amount of resiliency for a predator! There have been puncture wounds from Rex's disputing fights against one another and have had fractures, broken healed vertebraes, even tendon avulsions on the humerus which suggests that their musculature is more complex. It also suggests that Rex's arms were used quite often when against struggling prey!
Then, there is intelligence. By far, there has been studies between the brain cases of Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and T.Rex and they found that T.Rex had a larger brain the other two and also found out that Carcharo's brain capacity was only 1/3 of T.Rex's! T.Rex has brain power on his side!
But there is one more crucial advantage that can make a fight into just a one hit knockout! Eye positioning! For the eyes of Carcharodontosaurids, their eyes are positioned to the side a bit more so, for me, this suggests of the "flesh grazing" as you had said before, Carcharodontosaurus coming at the flanks at a running sauropod and taking some flesh off of it. These eyes were a distinct advantage to its corresponding niche in its environment. But when facing against a daunting predator like Rex, its a different ballgame! Rex has forward facing eyes, the eye sockets faced forward and gave T.Rex good depth perception- hence, binocular vision! This is a VERY crucial advantage. Why? Because, its like fighting someone with two eyes and another guy with a shiner. The guy with the shiner is probably not going to perform well since he cannot judge the distance from his arms to his enemy. This goes the same for Carcharodontosaurus facing against T.Rex.

And I don't think Rex would dare to let Carcharo get anywhere close to his flanks since, after all, his eyes face forward, so he must face his opponent head on!
If Carcharo does try to attack, I can see Rex doing its fashionable face biting, but completely breaking the skull of Carcharodontosaurus since its own skull is not as strongly built as Rex's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^
Spinosaurus is more threatening, more powerful, and a more worthy adversary than Tyrannosaurus...

and saying that Carcharodontosaurus is more primitive than Tyrannosaurus is sensationalistic bs, you cannot compare them like that because they evolved differently...

and just because Tyrannosaurus is resilient doesn't make Carcharodontosaurus flimsy, mind you...Carcharodontosaurus is likely similar in resilience and durability...

Intelligence is a non-factor, generally animals fight with instincts, not intelligence, it doesn't matter even if Tyrannosaurus has 10x the brainpower of Carcharodontosaurus, intelligence is not a factor since they won't be fighting with it, they'll rely on their instincts instead
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ZealRaegus
Dec 8 2012, 07:35 PM
theropod
Dec 8 2012, 04:10 AM
Imo Carcharodontosaurus, having lived on a continent full of competitors approaching or exceeding its own size and formidability (Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, "Bahariasaurus", Deltadromaeus and the newly discovered Sauroniops) (does that word exist? If not, now it does!) it would too have decent fighting expierience when dealing with other theropods, even tough its hunting strategy did rather focus on "flesh grazing", and I think its weaponery, while of course not instantly killing its prey, which was large enough to endure most attacks easily, would still have devastating effects on other theropods, these animals even in bulky reconstructions still being relatively nimble animals, with long proportions and so large that toppling over could be deadly-vulnerable to attack. As I already noted a slicing bite is not inferior to a crushing bite, except when dealing with armour (or head biting, but I don´t think theropods did it in intraspecific fights, neither would Carcharodontosaurus try to use it and just keep standing in front of its opponent, it would attempt to reach the neck or flanks-were it has an advantage due to its gape).
While this is true for Carcharodontosaurus, its a very different story for T.Rex. Honestly, Carcharodontosaurus is facing a bigger threat than just facing its own related "cousins" (like Sauroniops) or fighting against smaller adversaries like Deltadromeus, or facing large Spinosaurids. He's facing against a "bigger" (as in meaning of threatening) and much more worthy adversary. If the fight was to occur, I would put all of my money on T.Rex. Not just because of his bite force! But because he has many other advantages over the more primitive competitor.
T.Rex has an absolute amount of resiliency for a predator! There have been puncture wounds from Rex's disputing fights against one another and have had fractures, broken healed vertebraes, even tendon avulsions on the humerus which suggests that their musculature is more complex. It also suggests that Rex's arms were used quite often when against struggling prey!
Then, there is intelligence. By far, there has been studies between the brain cases of Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and T.Rex and they found that T.Rex had a larger brain the other two and also found out that Carcharo's brain capacity was only 1/3 of T.Rex's! T.Rex has brain power on his side!
But there is one more crucial advantage that can make a fight into just a one hit knockout! Eye positioning! For the eyes of Carcharodontosaurids, their eyes are positioned to the side a bit more so, for me, this suggests of the "flesh grazing" as you had said before, Carcharodontosaurus coming at the flanks at a running sauropod and taking some flesh off of it. These eyes were a distinct advantage to its corresponding niche in its environment. But when facing against a daunting predator like Rex, its a different ballgame! Rex has forward facing eyes, the eye sockets faced forward and gave T.Rex good depth perception- hence, binocular vision! This is a VERY crucial advantage. Why? Because, its like fighting someone with two eyes and another guy with a shiner. The guy with the shiner is probably not going to perform well since he cannot judge the distance from his arms to his enemy. This goes the same for Carcharodontosaurus facing against T.Rex.

And I don't think Rex would dare to let Carcharo get anywhere close to his flanks since, after all, his eyes face forward, so he must face his opponent head on!
If Carcharo does try to attack, I can see Rex doing its fashionable face biting, but completely breaking the skull of Carcharodontosaurus since its own skull is not as strongly built as Rex's.
Quote:
 
While this is true for Carcharodontosaurus, its a very different story for T.Rex. Honestly, Carcharodontosaurus is facing a bigger threat than just facing its own related "cousins" (like Sauroniops) or fighting against smaller adversaries like Deltadromeus, or facing large Spinosaurids.

I dot see why T. rex should automatically be a bigger thread than other carcharodontosaurs. Deltadromaeus at more than 13m was anything but small, and large spinosaurs did likely outmatch every other theropod in terms of raw power and size, making them the most formidable of them all.

Quote:
 
T.Rex has an absolute amount of resiliency for a predator! There have been puncture wounds from Rex's disputing fights against one another and have had fractures, broken healed vertebraes, even tendon avulsions on the humerus which suggests that their musculature is more complex. It also suggests that Rex's arms were used quite often when against struggling prey!

Most theropods show many injuries, T. rex isn´t the only one. And those arms were simply far too short to even reach its prey, it would topple over when trying to use it. The most likely explanation for the relatively strong arms is that they were used to help erect its body from a resting position.

Quote:
 
Then, there is intelligence. By far, there has been studies between the brain cases of Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and T.Rex and they found that T.Rex had a larger brain the other two and also found out that Carcharo's brain capacity was only 1/3 of T.Rex's! T.Rex has brain power on his side!

if Intelligence only was:
A: well studied enough to give clear statements about an extinct animals cognitive abilities7
B: important in a fight

unfortunately for you it is neither

Quote:
 
But there is one more crucial advantage that can make a fight into just a one hit knockout! Eye positioning! For the eyes of Carcharodontosaurids, their eyes are positioned to the side a bit more so, for me, this suggests of the "flesh grazing" as you had said before, Carcharodontosaurus coming at the flanks at a running sauropod and taking some flesh off of it. These eyes were a distinct advantage to its corresponding niche in its environment. But when facing against a daunting predator like Rex, its a different ballgame! Rex has forward facing eyes, the eye sockets faced forward and gave T.Rex good depth perception- hence, binocular vision! This is a VERY crucial advantage. Why? Because, its like fighting someone with two eyes and another guy with a shiner. The guy with the shiner is probably not going to perform well since he cannot judge the distance from his arms to his enemy. This goes the same for Carcharodontosaurus facing against T.Rex.

It is an advantage, but an overrated one. Crocodiles appearantly still manage to time their attacks very precisely, and the wide majority of theropods didn´t have such stereoscopic vision-yet they were the most successful land based vertebrate predators ever.

Quote:
 
And I don't think Rex would dare to let Carcharo get anywhere close to his flanks since, after all, his eyes face forward, so he must face his opponent head on!
If Carcharo does try to attack, I can see Rex doing its fashionable face biting, but completely breaking the skull of Carcharodontosaurus since its own skull is not as strongly built as Rex's.

This is not a question of whether it would dare that, of course it wouldn´t, but it doesn´t have the choice. In nearly every fight animals outmaneuver each other, and if anything it is carcharodontosaurus that will hardly let T. rex bite its face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
The only worthy adversary to a T Rex is a Spino, in a fight between those two it's really 50/50 more or less. But that's for the spino thread. Carch and giga just don't have enough advantages to bring on to the table against a t rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kunfuzzled
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
I'm just wondering, but if crocodiles (which has immensely powerful bites) have weak muscles opening the jaws, which is evident as even a large 18ft croc can be subdued by tape, could the same apply to large theropods? If either of the theropods bit onto the other's head (similar to the fight between the two Carcharodontosaurus' in Planet Dinosaur), would the one being bitten be able to shake the other off? I.e is there any information about the strength of the opening jaw muscles of large theropods?
Edited by Kunfuzzled, Dec 8 2012, 10:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kunfuzzled
Dec 8 2012, 10:25 PM
I'm just wondering, but if crocodiles (which has immensely powerful bites) have weak muscles opening the jaws, which is evident as even a large 18ft croc can be subdued by tape, could the same apply to large theropods? If either of the theropods bit onto the other's head (similar to the fight between the two Carcharodontosaurus' in Planet Dinosaur), would the one being bitten be able to shake the other off? I.e is there any information about the strength of the opening jaw muscles of large theropods?
I could imagine this factor to be totally ignored actually, all will just see T. rex and praise its immensely powerful bite, ignoring the other features fo this creature. Generally, I think the stronger the temporalis/adductor/masseter muscles are in closing the jaw, the less developed are the opening muscles (and also the smaller the gape is because a better leverage is needed, limiting the range of movement), to leave enough space. The better an animal is at closing the jaw with force, the smaller become its capabilities in opening it
Edited by theropod, Dec 8 2012, 10:45 PM.
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.