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 (129,998 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
[ *  *  * ]
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?
You do realize the one being bitten is dealing with a closing down bite force right? How does it have anything to do with jaws opening muscle at this instant? The victim's head is inside the jaws not above or beneath it so unless you have the strength to lift 6 tons you're never going to shake it off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 8 2012, 10:34 PM
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
How would jaws opening muscle matter in a fight unless you're trying to suppress the opponent from opening their mouth? That's absurd. Also even if t rex has a slightly smaller gape it's more than enough to clamp down onto the much slimmer carch's neck and break it in one bite. You should stop downplaying t rex's bite in such a unrealistic fashion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^You are exagerating it in a far more unrealistic fashion actually. It doesnt have "slightly lower gape", the difference would be at least that between a shark and a croc if not larger. And when talking about skull bites, suppressing the opponent from opening its jaws is the exact thing we are talking about.

You have to get over it, a stronger bite is not always an advantage, it can actually hold quite some disadvantages, like the skull being heavier and thus slower, the gape being inferior, and the jaw opening muscles being most likely also weaker. The advantages on the other hand are against bony regions (I don´t mean ribcages but skulls) and to some extent against armour.

would you please give me some exidence for carcharodontosaurus neck being "much slimmer"? That´s totally unrealistic, it is mainly PROPORTIONALLY slimmer and a bit more slender in absulute terms, but not that much. No doubt about T. rex being able to bite and break it, but Carcharodontosaurus has a far wider range of body parts it could attack.
Edited by theropod, Dec 8 2012, 11:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 6 2012, 08:26 PM
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?
Outdated? Being made later doesn't make the skeletal more accurate. Compare these skeletals to the REAL bones!
Hartman's Giga has a very inaccurate SKULL! Do you think that the REAL FOSSILS are OUTDATED??? realmad
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^sorry, that´s frankly absolutely laughable. While being newer doesn´t automatically mean being better is true, you should really do better reserach. The skeleton mount is not the real fossil, and it is widely inaccurate. The skull is incomplete and can be reconstructed in various ways, the longest of which is 1,95m as seen in the mount, and the shortest around 1,5m(the estimate that was recently published was 1,4m, *1,08 that´s 1,5m)-with both extremes likely being totally exagerated in their respective way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
did you even notice that going by the background and posture you posted pictures of two different skeletons, claiming them to be the real fossils? how can an original be mounted in two places at a time? Those are merely reconstructions, not different from Hartmans skeletal.

Before you keep ridiculing yourself, do some research before posting.
You know you are calling completely unrelated animals coelophysids, claiming verious skeleton mounts of the same animal specimen to be originals when neither is, making the claim that being a coelophysid is an argument in a fight, making up an 11m monster out of nowhere and calling it Lophostropheus, and keeping to state you thought coelophysids were ancestral to tetanurans, despite all beign disproven and explained for multiple times? I don´t want to offend you, and I whished I wouldn´t have to use such harsh words, but frankly you are all the time claiming made up BS.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 8 2012, 11:41 PM
^You are exagerating it in a far more unrealistic fashion actually. It doesnt have "slightly lower gape", the difference would be at least that between a shark and a croc if not larger. And when talking about skull bites, suppressing the opponent from opening its jaws is the exact thing we are talking about.

You have to get over it, a stronger bite is not always an advantage, it can actually hold quite some disadvantages, like the skull being heavier and thus slower, the gape being inferior, and the jaw opening muscles being most likely also weaker. The advantages on the other hand are against bony regions (I don´t mean ribcages but skulls) and to some extent against armour.

would you please give me some exidence for carcharodontosaurus neck being "much slimmer"? That´s totally unrealistic, it is mainly PROPORTIONALLY slimmer and a bit more slender in absulute terms, but not that much. No doubt about T. rex being able to bite and break it, but Carcharodontosaurus has a far wider range of body parts it could attack.
So how exactly can a carchy suppress t rex from opening its jaws?
I do admit there are downsides for having a heavier skull but the benefit it gains vastly outweighs the compromise, especially in such a fight.
As for the slender neck of carch, the comparison says I'm right unless you find me a better restoration of carch.
Posted Image
Notice T rex's neck is almost double in thickness, this is very obvious since a much heavier and wider skull would require a much thick and muscular neck to support it. Carchy's neck is definitely NOT a bit more slender, it's much slender in absolute term.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Are Mounted skulls more accurate than Hartman's one? WTF?
I am not Hartman's worshipper, but saying his reconstructions are innacurate is bullshit. In fact at least some mounted skeletons (from museums) were/are innacurate for example this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

It is NOT speculation, it you seriously want an anatomical explanation in details than click here

Enough ?. So can we now just accept that T rex is more agile ?
Quote:
 
and we all know the mount is inaccurate)

Hartman's Giganotosaurus himself isn't 13m either, it is somewhat close to 12,2m.

And not only Currie but Holtz gives Giganotosaurus paratype estimate is 13,2m which would mean 12,2m for the holotype
Bone crusher
 
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

T rex is truly very massively built, despite being a meter shorter, Sue still has wider chest, more massive neck muscles, more massive (cerval, dorsal, caudal) vertebrate, wider hip region.

The difference in bulk can be seen better from above

Acrocanthosaurus
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/l1oia478h/Acrocanthosaurus.png

Allosaurus
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/91329dztt/Allosaurus_Greg_Paul.png

Stan
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/ahekrj2qp/stan.png

T rex robust morph
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/g6utbu8wx/T_rex_Greg_Paul.png
Brolywhatever
 
Spinosaurus is more threatening, more powerful, and a more worthy adversary than Tyrannosaurus...

Don't pretend to be smart kid, i'm almost laugh my ass off whenever i read your BS comments lol . Spinosaurus would be destroy by Carcharodontosaurus, leave alone T rex
Edited by Verdugo, Dec 9 2012, 07:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Verdugo: Your definition of "kid" is when someone states that another theropod challenges and/or surpasses your precious Tyrannosaurus...

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus = 17 meters
Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis = 13.5 meters
Tyrannosaurus rex = 12 meters

Spinosaurus would win more often than not against Carcharodontosaurus, and would demolish a Tyrannosaurus most of the time

Spinosaurus vs Carcharodontosaurus, Spinosaurus 70%
Spinosaurus vs Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus 80-85%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharodontosaurus has all the advantages except robusticity, bite force and intelligence, and even then, one of them is a non-factor(intelligence), and another one(bite force) only indicates a different method of dispatching prey...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EmperorTyrannosaur
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Saying Carcharodontosaurus doesn't have a much thinner neck goes against another point people try to use against Tyrannosaurus... its much heavier skull/head :) Hence why it would have a much stronger/thicker neck, I'd bet Tyrannosaurus could shake out of Carcharodontoaurus's bite... the other way around... not so much ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EmperorTyrannosaur
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 9 2012, 07:44 PM
@Verdugo: Your definition of "kid" is when someone states that another theropod challenges and/or surpasses your precious Tyrannosaurus...

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus = 17 meters
Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis = 13.5 meters
Tyrannosaurus rex = 12 meters

Spinosaurus would win more often than not against Carcharodontosaurus, and would demolish a Tyrannosaurus most of the time

Spinosaurus vs Carcharodontosaurus, Spinosaurus 70%
Spinosaurus vs Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus 80-85%
Wow... that's an interesting scale :X
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 9 2012, 07:44 PM
@Verdugo: Your definition of "kid" is when someone states that another theropod challenges and/or surpasses your precious Tyrannosaurus...

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus = 17 meters
Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis = 13.5 meters
Tyrannosaurus rex = 12 meters

Spinosaurus would win more often than not against Carcharodontosaurus, and would demolish a Tyrannosaurus most of the time

Spinosaurus vs Carcharodontosaurus, Spinosaurus 70%
Spinosaurus vs Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus 80-85%
Spinosaurus size has been criticized so i won't take it seriously. 17m Spinosaurus is nothing but unreasonable, over-exaggerated and outdated estimation. And if you want to use the 17m Spinosaurus, why don't you use the 15m UCMP to be fair ?

Where is your estimate for the 13,5m Carcharodontosaurus ??. Are you making up facts again ?

And my definition for "kid" is any fools that think T rex is inferior to other Theropod
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bone crusher: I rather emant in relation to giganotosaurus, as most differences in the postrcarnia of carch and giga are mere spceulation.
Assuming they bit each others skull, Carch could suppress it from opening its jaws, if it got the first bite. I don´t think it would do so anyway, so that´s irrelevant for me, but for someone like you who thinks the strong bite would be the decisive advantage head biting is obviously the most likely scenario, isn´t it?

Verdugo: Firstly, thanks, it is interesting to see where the comparison comes from, I had really tought it might have been from a paper using Giganotosaurus.
Secondly, your repeated claim of a 17m spinosaurus being ridiculous and exagerated are BS. You don´t have to favour them personally, but just as well could I claim the <16m estimates were ridiculous, as from my perspective and going by the proportions of related animals they don´t seem likely.
Thirdly, they Caus just writes artometatarsal animals had longer legs, and longer elgs do typically mean greater speed. That does neither imply greater agility, which isn´t necessarily linked to leg lenght, nor does it take into account the different builts these animals have. I agree T. rex was likely faster, unless somehow carch was far lighter which is unlikely. I do not however agree that jsut because usually an arcometatarsal coincides with having longer legs, that automatically makes the animal having it faster or more agile, when leg lenght does also have to be viewed together with body mass/bulk.

btw hartmans T. rex isn´t 12,3m either going by femur size, but correctly scaled by femur size in relation to each other Giga matches 13m, yes
Bonys also doesn´t seem to really be 13m when looking at it, but I currently don´t find the time to measure them, yet the two seem relatively similar in mass.


Emperor T: I think T. rex neck would just be as much thicker as necessary to carry the heavier skull, meaning there isn´t necessarily a big strenght difference when subtracting the amount of force needed to carry the head. Looking at giga and T. rex the neck of T. rex is thicker, yes, but not THAT much, it mainly seems far more bulky because it is S-shaped in the reconstructions and gigas isn´t...


Edited by theropod, Dec 9 2012, 10:10 PM.
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.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.