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 (129,997 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:
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

Regarding with the 17m Spinosaurus, the latest estimates from scientists don't seem to support it

_ Andrea Cau (2008):
Andrea Cau
 
Some of my readers may have been disappointed by the previous post, perhaps expecting news of new remains of Spinosaurus, and instead found themselves yet another arrogant post dedicated to some obscure fragmentary theropod, probably much more speculative than real. In fact, wanting to be honest, even fragmentary theropod Spinosaurus is a dark, probably more speculative than real. In particular, Spinosaurus has gained notoriety because of a highly speculative, that unjustly eclipsed the few reliable data available to us: its precise dimensions. If one of my readers is both a psychologist and an avid theropod, probably interpret the obsession with the size of large theropods typical of us paleontologists and paleontofili males as a sublimated form of paranoia phallic ... but let's not digress into arguments painful (sorry for the non-Italians, but the last line will be impossible to make with google translator ...).

I also want aggregarmi the bandwagon of admirers of plus size, and I will propose my own reconstruction of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.

As is my practice, I will explain how I came to this estimate, so that any critical data may have to argue their objections.

I have reconstructed the series of vertebral basing sull'olotipo Spinosaurus (Stromer, 1915). In doing so, I made some changes to the identifications of these vertebrae. As mentioned in previous post, the caudal vertebrae attributed by Stromer (1915) are probably of ornithopod: therefore, were not included in the reconstruction.

If you exclude a cranial ridge, the remaining dorsal vertebrae have not explained merger between neural arch and the center: this, in addition to indicating the status of the subadult holotype (yes, if you did not know already, of the Spinosaurus Stromer, as great, is not a mature adult), raises doubts about some of the associations neural arch - center proposed by Stromer (1915). Henceforth, the numbers that will mention will refer to the numbering of the figures illustrated in Stromer (1915). In particular, the arc with the plug highest (n ° 6) probably did not articulate with the center n ° 6. The latter is markedly opistocelico, implying that it was a dorsal intermediate or front. However, the plug neural n ° 6 is too high compared to the other backbones front (those n ° 17,18,19) to be next to them. Furthermore, the plugs n ° 17,18,19 are inclined cranially, while the plug n ° 6 is inclined slightly caudally. Conclusion, the plug No. 6 can not be a dorsal anterior. The most plausible hypothesis to put it, is "aesthetically" that biomechanically, it is considered that the neural spines were inclined along the lines of discharge of muscle forces and gravity, which in a biped, converge on the limb back. Consequently, the inclination of the neural spines had to be in the cranial dorsal cranial and tend to vertical in the direction of the sacral vertebrae. Following this trend, we would expect to see a tilted caudal neural spines in a vertebra. Therefore, the plug n ° 6 is interpretable as a plug neural proximal caudal. It follows that the higher neural spines had to belong to the sacred (note: unlike the front dorsal and caudal, dorsal neural spines intermediate shown are fragmented and lack the apex).

This interpretation differs from that proposed by Clear et al. (1998), who argue that Suchomimus is indistinguishable from Spinosaurus (among other features), even for the point of maximum height of the neural spines at the level of the sacred, while Spinosaurus, according to them (and Stromer) should have a level area back. The new interpretation for Spinosaurus is, in my view, the most sensible from the point of view of phylogenetic biomechanically because it responds to the mechanical requirements of a biped and follows the trend typical of all theropods neural spines elongated.

The series of Stromer comprises two cervical. Although Rauhut (2003, see the first post of the giants of the Sahara), based on the marked difference in the height of the neural spines, places of doubt that these are the same cervical species they belong to the backbone, his objection is falsified by 'existence of taxa with low cervical spine together with elongate dorsal spines (Ouranosaurus some Lambeosaurinae, Hindricotherium, Bison). Therefore, as long as it will not be discovered an exemplary articulated Spinosaurus that dispelling this interpretation, there are no serious objections to the association of cervical with the ridges illustrated by Stromer (1915). One of the two cervical is clearly the axis (the second cervical), while the other seems un'intermedia, perhaps the sixth cervical.

Based on the reconstruction of the skull of Spinosaurus proposed by Dal Sasso et al. (2005), I articulated a skull having a size suitable for the size of the cervical vertebrae. The skull is not directed horizontally, but is tilted rostroventralmente: As I mentioned in a previous post, on the basis of the peculiar morphology of cranio-dental Spinosaurus, I think this is the posture "default" and foraging. This hypothesis can be falsified / verified by future specimens, analyzing the inner ear (in particular by determining the slope of the semicircular canals), similarly to what has been done with other dinosaurs (Sanders & Smith, 2006; Clear et al., 2007). Subsequently, I have superimposed this series skull-vertebrae to a silhouette of Suchomimus, modifying it for understanding inside the neural spines. Using the height of the neural spines highest (1.65 m) as a reference, I get that the holotype of Spinosaurus was about 12m long. However, as mentioned before, this specimen is a subadult. On the basis of differences in the maxillary teeth and dental, Dal Sasso et al. (2005) point out that the copy of Milan probably has a skull length of about 6/5 of the holotype, and could be an adult *. Using the size of the rostrum preserved in Milan to estimate the size of my reconstruction, an animal is 14.4 m long.

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/43c62fan5/Spinosaurus_Theropod_Blogspot_Version2.jpg

_ Dave Hone (2008-2011):
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/kfm7s5oyp/David_Hone_Spino_size.png

_ Greg Paul (2010):
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/ho2y1jqg1/Spinosaurus_Greg_Paul.png

_ Tom Holtz (2012):
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/d0wvzs335/Spinosaurus_Holtz.png

Spinosaurus holotype is said to be 14m which is larger than other Theropod, including T rex. But it is likely to be over-exaggerated

Let see Andrea Cau compare Spinosaurus holotype with Sue
Andrea Cau
 
Are spassosissime because, often, those who participate in these discussions firmly believes in what he writes, or at least show an emphasis that opinion firmly convinced in his arguments. I admit that in the past I did not take too from these discussions, though not so exalted. The "size" seems to haunt us, especially for animals very fragmentary, for which we sense a scale of magnitude, but we are not able to establish it with the precision we would like to argue decent reconstructions. Discourses on mass and size affect adults across researchers and enthusiasts, because they have significant implications on other aspects of paleobiology.
However, perhaps we tend to get carried away by the obsession of us rebuild at all costs, disregarding the data at our disposal. In the end, the unknown fascinates because it allows leeway to the imagination.
In this post I will only show some direct comparisons (and therefore, presumably, more objective than many other circulated) between the most complete specimen of Spinosaurus (Stromer, 1915) and the most complete Tyrannosaurus (Brochu, 2003).
My question is: it makes sense to compare the size of these animals? Or, you can determine the actual size differences, which are significant on some aspect of their biologies?
To do this, I compared the two animals for four parameters measurable by the remains known and comparable in the two animals: the length of the tooth, the maximum amplitude of the tooth, the length of a center spinal dorsal and the height of the same vertebra obtained by excluding the neural spines (which in Spinosaurus is evidently super-apomorfica and can not be used as a parameter of size).
Some clarifications:
It is said that the two units in question are representative of the "average" of their species. In particular, it is likely that the holotype of Spinosaurus was at a different level of maturity compared to the exemplar of Tyrannosaurus compared (which is a fully mature adult): this can be deduced from incomplete ossification of the dorsal vertebrae (in fact I used the ' only fully ossified suture at the level of the center-arc). This is indirectly confirmed by producing the Spinosaurus exhibited in Milan, which, when compared with the remains of the holotype counterparts, it is about 20% larger (Maganuco, pers. Comm.).
Posted Image
The dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurus are slightly longer than those of Tyrannosaurus, but are significantly lower in the size of the center and neural arch. The dental holotype of Spinosaurus is shorter than that of Tyrannosaurus, but probably comparable in length if estimated on the item of Milan. In any case, the dental Spinosaurus is often less in amplitude than that of Tyrannosaurus.
Posted Image
You will notice that I did not want to extrapolate the size of the vertebrae of the specimen Milan: this is because we have no data to estimate how a change of 20% in the cranial bones between specimens of Spinosaurus is translated into dimensional difference in their vertebrae (the usual good old allometry!).
In conclusion, I find no significant difference in the overall dimensions of the two theropodi: Spinosaurus would seem more slender and elongated, and in the proportions of the vertebrae of the tooth, but what I do not think that gives direct indication of the mass of the two animals.
So, to me, arguing over who is more "great" (whatever is meant, in addition to the mass, which is in no way predictable for Spinosaurus) is unfounded: the only certainty, we knew before we make predictions, is that they are both theropodi giants.
Point.

http://s6.postimage.org/c16l42nxd/dorsals.jpg
http://s6.postimage.org/otzahqowx/mandibles.jpg

So it seems Spinosaurus holotype isn't that big like people said. How can Spinosaurus paratype come out to be that big ?, Spinosaurus paratype is only 20% bigger than the holotype.
Quote:
 
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.

Have you read it ?. Read it again carefully man, if you lazy reading it, then i have an overall summary for you
Jaime A. Headden
 
“Cannonization” of the metatarsus involves dealing with compressive forces, and thus increased running performance, while the “loose” third metatarsal involves the snap ligaments that seem to enable better control during turning and keeping the pes in form. This seems to be suited for, in tyrannosaurs and ornithomimosaurs, better stability during running and turns at larger sizes

Understand now ??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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...

T rex neck muscles would be very massive, probably much more than those of Carnosaur
Thomas Holtz
 
Tyrannosaurids are, once again, weird, and Tyrannosaurus the most extreme of the clade. The snout itself has a more rounded cross-section (which is also present in abelisaurids, for instance), and is particularly broader across than in a comparable-sized allosauroid. And the posterior portion of the skull flares out mediolaterally, more so in T. rex than in the rest of the clade. Among other things, this increases the volume of the jaw-closing muscles; increases the size of the neck muscles (as shown by Snively and Russell); and provides for greater possibility of binocular vision than in other large-bodied theropods (as discussed by Kent Stevens).


T rex neck muscles would be much thicker if you look at it from above

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/62xd7kuch/Theropod_neck_muscles.png

Posted Image
Posted Image
^ Giga and Carchar would likely to have slightly thicker neck than Allosaurus, but definitely nowhere near as massive as T rex

Posted Image
^ If you does notice, even the T rex in the scale is a meter shorter, it still have significantly thicker cerval vertebrate. At size parity, T rex neck would be much more massive than those of Carnosaur
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^I do totally understand your points, but that isn´t the same as agreeing with them. More on the spinosaurus issue later, lets first take the neck muscles:

Did you ever see me doubting that T. rex had huge neck muscles and a robust neck? NO, I never did, but I doubt that relative to the skull weight Tyrannosaurs have much stronger necks,a dn that´s the functional strenght it will in the end be able to use. The neck is undeniably thicker than that of a carnosaur, but it isn´t double the thickness or something like that, and it appears visually even more impressive than it is, due to the different posture it is shown in.
Edited by theropod, Dec 10 2012, 12:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
about Spinosaurus:
http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Megalosauroidea.htm#Spinosaurusaegyptiacus
Quote:
 
(MSNM V4047) (~17 m, ~8 tons) (skull ~1.75 m) premaxillae, partial maxillae, partial nasals (Dal Sasso et al., 2005)


http://www.reocities.com/Athens/bridge/4602/spinoskull.pdf
Quote:
 
The estimated length for MSNM V4047 is about 16–18 m

Quote:
 
Our tentative reconstruction of the skull (Fig. 5B), based on MSNM
V4047, UCPC-2 and other spinosaurid specimens (Fig. 5A),
gives a total skull length of about 175 cm.


Compare that to other theropods proportions and you might ultimately understand what I mean, in order for Spinosaurus to be as small as you state and as some assume because they want to be cautious it has to differ a lot from its relatives. So do not claim a size estimate that is supported by the proportions of related animals to be debunked, jsut because some choose to reconstruct it shorter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Theropod you must also realize this is only the lateral view, you have to measure it cubically. T rex neck is also thicker from top and front view too hence the fact it's whole neck volume is much thicker. Gregory S Paul mentioned in his book that t rex has the most reinforced and bulldog like S curved neck of any theropod dinosaurs, you can even see how much bigger its cervical vertebrae are in comparison. Your analogy of heavier skull means extra strength needed to support it is somewhat flawed. Yes, you do need that extra strength to carry the extra weight but the total power which it exerts is still vastly superior to a weaker and slender set of neck. Just compare a lion's neck to a leopard's neck, sure the lion has to carry the much heavier head but we all know which cat can pull a buffalo carcass by itself using its neck power.

About speed, even Hartman gave his nod to T Rex for its speed over any similar sized Allosaurid. He specifically mentioned the extra large ilium of t rex gives it the extra muscle needed to move faster compared to the smaller legs of Giga.

All in all Sue is heavier then giga end of story, the comparison shows giga has longer skull, femur and bigger arms but most of the other bones are bigger cubically in Sue. My personal belief is that T Rex should weigh more on average if only due to being proportionally much bulkier and robust, thus more chance to gain tonnage at same length.

The only way I see Giga wins this fight is by outweighing rexy significantly. On average T Rex takes this 70/30.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^Too much for me, you are just repeating the same exagerated and oversimplyfied things. sure, T. rex has a far stronger neck, as I wrote to carry a heavier head. No doubt that it was a bit stronger in that regard, as it used its skull to control its opponents. But you are totally exagerating how much stronger it was. The difference between T. rex and carch and a lion and a leopard is obvious, the lion is 2-3 times as large as the leopard, which means it is simply overall larger and stronger. What would be at parity, or if the leopard was larger?

If you would happen to read my posts you knew I acknowledge T. rex was faster than Carcharodontosaurus, but that isn´t the same as being more agile. An allosaur is a different story, it is far more slender and most likely faster and actually the highly reduced ilium in Giganotosaurus is just Hartmans reconstruction, Greg Paul shows a much larger one in his skeletal.

What puzzles me is how you can believe that T. rex was far more speedy AND far more bulky, powerful and heavier.

if you want to use average, Giganotosaurus easily outweights Rex, what you mean is lenght parity.

T. rex average was likely somewhere between 11,5 and 12m, that of Giganotosaurus most likely above 13m...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
First of all Greg's drawing is outdated so we're using Hartman's for now agreed?
I can believe T Rex being faster, bulkier and more powerful simply because its design. Rexy is not a scaled up carnosaur. Hartman, Paul and many others have come to this consensus, why can't you?
Ok, maybe we shouldn't use average for now since we only have a handful of fully grown adult specimen of robust form for either species. But giga holotype is definitely lighter than Sue at this point do you accept?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 9 2012, 11:31 PM
T rex neck muscles would be much thicker if you look at it from above

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/62xd7kuch/Theropod_neck_muscles.png

Posted Image
Posted Image
Just to complete it:
Posted Image
Fig. 8. A–C: Lateral flesh reconstruction of neck and jaw musculature
of Tyrannosaurus rex (A), Allosaurus fragilis (B), and Ceratosaurus
nasicornis (C). Tendinous attachments are rendered as white. Neck
muscle abbreviations are as in Figure 4. B: In Allosaurus fragilis, the
novel course of m. longissimus capitis superficialis is evident. In Ceratosaurus
m. longissimus capitis profundus and m. rectus capitis ventralis
are restored as robust, based on the large size of their insertions.
M. transversospinalis capitis has a relatively small insertion on the
parietals in Ceratosarus, and this muscle is restored here as slender
compared with that in Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus. Jaw muscle contractions
are: m. a.m.e. med. 5 m. adductor mandibulae externus
medialis. m. a.e.s., m. adductor mandibulae externus superficialis; m.
a.e. post., m. adductor mandibulae posterior; m. dep. mand., m. depressor
mandibulae; m. pt. ant., pterygoideus anterior/dorsalis; m. pt.
post., m. pterygoideus posterior/ventralis.

BTW, here is your source:
http://www.ohio.edu/people/es180210/Snively%20pdfs/snively_russell_theropod_necks.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
7Alx
Dec 9 2012, 06:09 PM
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.
Looks more like allosaurus skull
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 9 2012, 09:25 PM
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
You call broly a kid because he disagrees with you, not because he said T.rex is inferior to another theropod. There's nothing wrong with saying that as it's an opinion. However you seem to thunk it's a fact that T.rex is the ultimate theropod. In all seriousness before all the intelligent discussion here is overuled by fanboyism and insult I think it's better if you and others try to avoid personal insults and such when someone disagrees with your claims.
Edited by Black Ice, Dec 10 2012, 02:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 10 2012, 12:49 AM
First of all Greg's drawing is outdated so we're using Hartman's for now agreed?
I can believe T Rex being faster, bulkier and more powerful simply because its design. Rexy is not a scaled up carnosaur. Hartman, Paul and many others have come to this consensus, why can't you?
Ok, maybe we shouldn't use average for now since we only have a handful of fully grown adult specimen of robust form for either species. But giga holotype is definitely lighter than Sue at this point do you accept?

This isn´t a matter of being outdated or not, it is a matter of how you choose to reconstruct it, and hartmans drawing as a matter of facts reconstructed a smaller ilium. You don´t see me using Pauls skeleton elsewhere, do you? Both are not exactly what I think this animal looked like, Pauls seems to elongated, with an exagerated head, Hartmans is imo rather a bit too short, with an artificially shortened skull. For now, I´m using Hartmans, and it is absolutely sufficient to show my points.

I just think it is a rather biased opinion. Of course it isn´t an upscaled carnosaur, but as simple as that, people are all the time ignoring that while T. rex legs are proportionally longer, at compared to lenght, and the hip region more expanded, it is also overally heavier than a carnosaur of the same lenght, even more so if said carnosaur is an allosaurid. You are turning things as if T. rex was superior in everything, while everything has a downside in biology. You think it is heavier, bulkier, stronger, faster, more agile-hell, why should any theropod differ from T. rex? It is somewhat bulkier, making it less vulnerable and heavier at lenght parity. It was likely a bit faster due to its proportionally longer legs with longer tibiae. An allosaurid with its even more slender built would outrun and outmaneuver it tough, its advantages are not sufficient to allow it to be far bulkier and yet more mobile. That isn´t the same as being more agile, far faster, far bulkier, far heavier etc. as you state, is it?

I do NOT accept your opinion of a 13m giganotosaurus necessarily being notably liughter than sue, no. Overall, they are similar in bulk. Your top view images don´t even show Giganotosaurus or charcharodontosaurus, and I already mentioned they lack gastralia and cannot be compared so well.
Edited by theropod, Dec 10 2012, 04:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrazyFish
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Hey guiz, y u so mad.

No seriously, all I see is fanboys being anal about Spinosaurus' length when it isn't even relevant to the topic.
Though I will say - as Scott Hartman pointed out, anything from 13 meters to 17 meters is reasonable for Spinosaurus. Only difference between a 13 meter and 17 meter one is tail length. A tail based near directly on Baryonyx gives a ~16 meter Spinosaurus. Hartman's 'standard' Spinosaurus is just over 15 meters, his short tail one just over 13 meters and long tailed one about 17 meters.
None of them are wrong as it stands. We just don't know.

RE: Carcharodontosaurus vs Tyrannosaurus... Yeah, two theropods equal length and height, one has much stronger skull neck and body not to mention is bulkier (=more mass = larger). It's a no brainer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 10 2012, 03:59 AM
bone crusher
Dec 10 2012, 12:49 AM
First of all Greg's drawing is outdated so we're using Hartman's for now agreed?
I can believe T Rex being faster, bulkier and more powerful simply because its design. Rexy is not a scaled up carnosaur. Hartman, Paul and many others have come to this consensus, why can't you?
Ok, maybe we shouldn't use average for now since we only have a handful of fully grown adult specimen of robust form for either species. But giga holotype is definitely lighter than Sue at this point do you accept?

This isn´t a matter of being outdated or not, it is a matter of how you choose to reconstruct it, and hartmans drawing as a matter of facts reconstructed a smaller ilium. You don´t see me using Pauls skeleton elsewhere, do you? Both are not exactly what I think this animal looked like, Pauls seems to elongated, with an exagerated head, Hartmans is imo rather a bit too short, with an artificially shortened skull. For now, I´m using Hartmans, and it is absolutely sufficient to show my points.

I just think it is a rather biased opinion. Of course it isn´t an upscaled carnosaur, but as simple as that, people are all the time ignoring that while T. rex legs are proportionally longer, at compared to lenght, and the hip region more expanded, it is also overally heavier than a carnosaur of the same lenght, even more so if said carnosaur is an allosaurid. You are turning things as if T. rex was superior in everything, while everything has a downside in biology. You think it is heavier, bulkier, stronger, faster, more agile-hell, why should any theropod differ from T. rex? It is somewhat bulkier, making it less vulnerable and heavier at lenght parity. It was likely a bit faster due to its proportionally longer legs with longer tibiae. An allosaurid with its even more slender built would outrun and outmaneuver it tough, its advantages are not sufficient to allow it to be far bulkier and yet more mobile. That isn´t the same as being more agile, far faster, far bulkier, far heavier etc. as you state, is it?

I do NOT accept your opinion of a 13m giganotosaurus necessarily being notably liughter than sue, no. Overall, they are similar in bulk. Your top view images don´t even show Giganotosaurus or charcharodontosaurus, and I already mentioned they lack gastralia and cannot be compared so well.
I believe there's no reason why Hartman should choose an inaccurate way to reconstruct his latest drawing is there? But I'm happy we're sticking to his drawing for now so we can have consistency.

Not every theropod has to be like t rex and I never said it's superior in everything such as hunting or chasing etc, after all we see the same thing in mammals, they all evolve differently to suit their environment, hunting style etc. But, for a virtual fight scenario T Rex does excel more so than your carnosaurs. Again, speed and agility is very likely on T Rex side compared to a giga, an advantage is an advantage.

Hartman's drawing shows gastralia in giga so at least you can compare it from the lateral view. Again is there any reason why you still can't accept Sue being heavier? Sue is not a slightly shorter version of giga, it's bulkier in most parts and the half meter length advantage in giga (if there is one at all) is not nearly enough to tip the scale over no pun.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Posted Image
This should be accurate for you theropod, 143cm femur for giga and 138cm femur for Sue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 10 2012, 12:38 AM
^Too much for me, you are just repeating the same exagerated and oversimplyfied things. sure, T. rex has a far stronger neck, as I wrote to carry a heavier head. No doubt that it was a bit stronger in that regard, as it used its skull to control its opponents. But you are totally exagerating how much stronger it was. The difference between T. rex and carch and a lion and a leopard is obvious, the lion is 2-3 times as large as the leopard, which means it is simply overall larger and stronger. What would be at parity, or if the leopard was larger?

If you would happen to read my posts you knew I acknowledge T. rex was faster than Carcharodontosaurus, but that isn´t the same as being more agile. An allosaur is a different story, it is far more slender and most likely faster and actually the highly reduced ilium in Giganotosaurus is just Hartmans reconstruction, Greg Paul shows a much larger one in his skeletal.

What puzzles me is how you can believe that T. rex was far more speedy AND far more bulky, powerful and heavier.

if you want to use average, Giganotosaurus easily outweights Rex, what you mean is lenght parity.

T. rex average was likely somewhere between 11,5 and 12m, that of Giganotosaurus most likely above 13m...
We have one good Giga specimen that weighs about the same as an average rex, and you are talking "average" already?
Also if you consider both giga specimens, probably from an area the size of a US county. While rex average is based on many specimens from entire western north America.

Spino is a different story, i think even a 14.4 meter spino would out way a 12.5 meter rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.