| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM (129,998 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus This huge meat eater was 45 feet long (5 feet longer than T-rex) and weighed 8 tons, making it one of the largest carnivores that ever walked the earth. This African carnosaur had a gigantic 5’4" long skull and enormous jaws with 8" long serrated teeth. It walked on two legs, had a massive tail, bulky body and short arms ending in three-fingered hands with sharp claws. Carcharodontosaurus is one of the longest and heaviest known carnivorous dinosaurs, with various scientists proposing length estimates ranging between 12 and 13 m (39-43.5 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons. Its long, muscular legs, and fossilized trackways indicate that it could run about 20 miles per hour, though there is some controversy as to whether it actually did, a forward fall would have been deadly to Carcharodontosaurus, due to the inability of its small arms to brace the animal when it landed. Carcharodontosaurus was a carnivore, with enormous jaws and long, serrated teeth up to eight inches long. ![]() Tyrannosaurus rex Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes. ![]() _________________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| bone crusher | Dec 8 2012, 11:22 PM Post #421 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 8 2012, 11:28 PM Post #422 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 8 2012, 11:41 PM Post #423 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Dec 9 2012, 04:15 AM Post #424 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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??? ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 9 2012, 07:17 AM Post #425 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 9 2012, 07:24 AM Post #426 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Dec 9 2012, 09:12 AM Post #427 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. ![]() 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. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Dec 9 2012, 06:09 PM Post #428 |
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Dec 9 2012, 06:59 PM Post #429 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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 ?
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
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 ![]() http://s6.postimage.org/l1oia478h/Acrocanthosaurus.png Allosaurus ![]() http://s6.postimage.org/91329dztt/Allosaurus_Greg_Paul.png Stan ![]() http://s6.postimage.org/ahekrj2qp/stan.png T rex robust morph ![]() http://s6.postimage.org/g6utbu8wx/T_rex_Greg_Paul.png
Don't pretend to be smart kid, i'm almost laugh my ass off whenever i read your BS comments . Spinosaurus would be destroy by Carcharodontosaurus, leave alone T rex
Edited by Verdugo, Dec 9 2012, 07:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 9 2012, 07:44 PM Post #430 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Verdugo: Your definition of "kid" is when someone states that another theropod challenges and/or surpasses your precious Tyrannosaurus...![]() 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% |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Dec 9 2012, 07:54 PM Post #431 |
|
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... |
![]() |
|
| EmperorTyrannosaur | Dec 9 2012, 07:59 PM Post #432 |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
| EmperorTyrannosaur | Dec 9 2012, 08:02 PM Post #433 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wow... that's an interesting scale
|
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Dec 9 2012, 09:25 PM Post #434 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 9 2012, 10:09 PM Post #435 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:22 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)









![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)












. Spinosaurus would be destroy by Carcharodontosaurus, leave alone T rex

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

2:22 AM Jul 14