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 (129,996 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:
CrazyFish
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
If an 11 meter Cristatusaurus was 3 tonnes as is belived to be the case, then direct scaling up to that 14.4 meter length is over 6 tonnes, so larger than a 6 tonne Tyrannosaurus.
A Spinosaurus that length would not be a direct scaling of Cristatusaurus though, it would have a shorter tail and larger body than it (as a Cristatusaurus proportioned Spinosaurus is about 16 meter) and would therefore be heavier, probably close to 7 tonnes as both Mickey Mortimer and Andrea Cau have estimated in the past (for the holotype, when it was thought to be over 14 meters, probably closer to 13 meters)

But I repeat, why is this relevant?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

Both are from Dal Sasso paper, do you have something better ?.

If you want to go for Dal Sasso Spino, then you should go for the 7-9 tonnes weight.

Base on what i posted, 14-16m Spinosaurus would be reasonable for me
Quote:
 
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,
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.

T rex can strike quite rapidly (as i has posted before), the massive heavy head doesn't seem to be a handicap for T rex since its neck muscles are far more powerful than the weight of its head. If you seriously think T rex head was too heavy for its neck muscles to carry, how the hell can T rex hunt prey effectively ?
Quote:
 
But you are totally exagerating how much stronger it was.

Different hunting styles would probably result different neck muscles strength, T rex seems to rely on brute force to overpower its prey so it should have much more powerful neck muscles than Carnosaur, Carnosaur don't go for a struggling battle with its prey like T rex. I think it makes sense for you that even with a heavier head, T rex neck muscles are still proportionally far more powerful than those of Carnosaur
Quote:
 
and it appears visually even more impressive than it is, due to the different posture it is shown in.

I don't think the posture could make the neck much thicker than it really was, probably slightly thicker but not by much.
Quote:
 
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.

Greg Paul Allosaurus doesn't have much larger ilium than those of Hartman Allosaurus. They are actually roundly the same.

Hartman:
Posted Image
http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b490/Verdugo_Boss/Allosaurus_fragilis_Skeletal_xgaplus.jpg

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

I don't see great difference with the ilium size
Quote:
 
What puzzles me is how you can believe that T. rex was far more speedy AND far more bulky, powerful and heavier.

A leopard would both faster, more agile, more powerful than a same sized human. Is that so hard to believe ?
Quote:
 
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...

I won't take this seriously...
bone crusher
 
First of all Greg's drawing is outdated so we're using Hartman's for now agreed?

Greg Paul Allosaurus i posted is in 2010, while Hartman Allosaurus is in 2011, just one year difference, i don't think one year difference is enough to call Greg Paul outdated.
Quote:
 
You think it is heavier, bulkier, stronger, faster, more agile-hell,

I post multiple proof from scientists and you still can't believe that. If SCIENTISTS cannot convince you then i've done here, i won't waste my time trying to convince you anymore, even a scientist can't do that.
Quote:
 
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.

Slender built isn't equal being more agile or faster, i woundn't say a wolf is more agile than a leopard because of that.

If you want to prove that slender animal is ALWAYS faster and more agile than similar sized bulkier animal, then you need some PROOFS for that my friend.
Black Ice
 
You call broly a kid because he disagrees with you, not because he said T.rex is inferior to another theropod.

Broly has never given any good reasons for his claims. He always said that "T rex is weaker, smaller than Saurophaganax, Carcharodontosaurus, Spinosaurus,..." but he clearly doesn't have any proof for his claims. His BS, baseless claims always piss me off

And if you think Broly don't think T rex was inferior to other Theropod, then you should read his blog, you can see in his blog that T rex would lose against Zuchengtyrannus.
Quote:
 
However you seem to thunk it's a fact that T.rex is the ultimate theropod

I have NEVER said that T rex is the ultimate Theropod, NEVER before. You can read all of my posts from the beginning.

I said that T rex is only superior in term of fighting, but all Theropod are equal in term of hunting.

Edited by Verdugo, Dec 10 2012, 11:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrazyFish
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Verdugo
Dec 10 2012, 11:44 PM
Both are from Dal Sasso paper, do you have something better ?.

If you want to go for Dal Sasso Spino, then you should go for the 7-9 tonnes weight.
Not quite. Dal Sasso et al. used Seebacher (2001) to estimate the weight of Spinosaurus. I don't know what that method is exactly, but estimates from that method should only be dircetly compared with other estimates from that method.
So no Seebacher Spinosaurus vs Therrien and Henderson Tyrannosaurus.

18 meters is a push, but 17 meters is realistic still. Albeit so is 14 meters. And everything in between.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 10 2012, 10:32 AM
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.
There is no "anaccurate way", it is al depending on the personal reconstruction.

You are equating speed with agility, which are two different things, and you are ignoring the bulk, which matters for both the percentage of muscle mass used for locomotion, and the inertia, not to mention you think T. rex was even heavier than giganotosaurus and yet faster AND more agile, you just somehow WANT to make it superior in all these points. You are basically claimign "no, I never said it is superior in everything"-and then you lsit all the things you think it is superior in, which is more or less any relevant factor iyo

Hartmans skeletalhas them, yes, but the scan of acrocanthosaurus that you used to compare them doesn´t. it is pretty clear that we can compare them from a lateral perspective.

If sue was a slightly shorter giga, she would be far lighter, to be exact a whole 17%. Like that, they are pretty similar in weight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Both are from Dal Sasso paper, do you have something better ?.

Those are two different sources, you are all the time posting comments of the same palaeontologist that itself bases on the same study...

Quote:
 

If you want to go for Dal Sasso Spino, then you should go for the 7-9 tonnes weight.

Why should I, just because the lenght seems more reasonable that doesn´t mean the weight is. You yourself are using the "small" spino from the henderson & Therrien paper without using their weight figure, aren´t you?

Quote:
 
Base on what i posted, 14-16m Spinosaurus would be reasonable for me

and for me 16-18m spinosauru, based on the info on Spinosaurus that I have seen so far and the info on it´s relatives

Quote:
 
T rex can strike quite rapidly (as i has posted before), the massive heavy head doesn't seem to be a handicap for T rex since its neck muscles are far more powerful than the weight of its head. If you seriously think T rex head was too heavy for its neck muscles to carry, how the hell can T rex hunt prey effectively ?

stop twisting my words, I never claimed that BS

I know very well T. rex has a powerful neck and is still a pretty fast striker, just not as fast as animals with slender, light skulls that do not serve the purpose of crushing and restraining prey. An anatomical feature NEVER is that excellent at everything, evolutionary adaptions are always tradeoffs (e.g. skull gets stronger for named purposes->it gets heavier->neck muscles HAVE to get bigger->strike is not as fast as that of an animal with a presumably far lighter skull).

Quote:
 
Different hunting styles would probably result different neck muscles strength, T rex seems to rely on brute force to overpower its prey so it should have much more powerful neck muscles than Carnosaur, Carnosaur don't go for a struggling battle with its prey like T rex. I think it makes sense for you that even with a heavier head, T rex neck muscles are still proportionally far more powerful than those of Carnosaur

Not far, a bit

Quote:
 
I don't think the posture could make the neck much thicker than it really was, probably slightly thicker but not by much.

Great, as I never claimed so, but overally the impression is even incresed by it, making it a bit thinker than it really was.

Quote:
 
Greg Paul Allosaurus doesn't have much larger ilium than those of Hartman Allosaurus. They are actually roundly the same....I don't see great difference with the ilium size

And that´s because I wasn´t talking about Allosaurus, which is not what we are talking about here.

Quote:
 
I post multiple proof from scientists and you still can't believe that. If SCIENTISTS cannot convince you then i've done here, i won't waste my time trying to convince you anymore, even a scientist can't do that.

I also posted enough scientists indicating otherwise, for example T. rex being only 6-7t, or studies following which Allosaurus was (as has to be presumed when thinking LOGICALLY) significantly faster, studies stating the presumed benefits of an arctometatarsam were mere speculation.4

Quote:
 
I won't take this seriously...

your problem...

Quote:
 

If you want to prove that slender animal is ALWAYS faster and more agile than similar sized bulkier animal, then you need some PROOFS for that my friend.

It´s logic, whether you want to believe it or not, and in any case your claims of tyrannsoaurs being far heavier, far bulkier, far more msucular everywhere, far faster, more agile are pretty damn illogical
I don´t claim that´s always the case, but in roughly similar animals a more slender built nearly always corresponds to an adaption for swifter movement.
Edited by theropod, Dec 11 2012, 03:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrazyFish
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Except Allosaurus has none of the speed adaptions Tyrannosaurus does. 1.4 tonne Allosaurus barely any faster than 6 tonne Tyrannosurus. Large Allosaurus would be slower, no doubt at all. (Sellers and Manning (2007))
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 11 2012, 02:47 AM
bone crusher
Dec 10 2012, 10:32 AM
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.
There is no "anaccurate way", it is al depending on the personal reconstruction.

You are equating speed with agility, which are two different things, and you are ignoring the bulk, which matters for both the percentage of muscle mass used for locomotion, and the inertia, not to mention you think T. rex was even heavier than giganotosaurus and yet faster AND more agile, you just somehow WANT to make it superior in all these points. You are basically claimign "no, I never said it is superior in everything"-and then you lsit all the things you think it is superior in, which is more or less any relevant factor iyo

Hartmans skeletalhas them, yes, but the scan of acrocanthosaurus that you used to compare them doesn´t. it is pretty clear that we can compare them from a lateral perspective.

If sue was a slightly shorter giga, she would be far lighter, to be exact a whole 17%. Like that, they are pretty similar in weight.
So unless you show me a better drawing than Hartman's then I'm gonna go with his, someone who has far more experience and knowledge in dinosaur anatomy than you do, I'm not even gonna bother with your own preferences.

You keep ignoring the fact T Rex's legs are better designed for speed and agility taking into account of the bulk, didn't you read the paper people here have provided to you? So Sue being heavier is still quicker and more agile than a lighter giga all thanks to her more evolved legs. Like Verdugo said, a leopard is superior than a human of similar or lighter weight in speed and agility, though the difference isn't as great here.

I now think you're just denying common sense and every logical evidence we are shown here, Sue was slightly shorter in the comparison yet it appeared much bulkier and more robust in almost every way. You must be crazy to think a half meter length difference could yield a 17% weight gain when an animal (T Rex) is obviously much more heavily built. I'm truly done with you mate, you obviously want to believe what you wanted to believe so I'll leave it for now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bandog
Member Avatar
Everything else is just a dog.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@theropod
May I ask who you feel would win in these scenarios?
Trex vs giga at length parity?
Trex vs giga at weight parity?
I'm sure you've stated it earlier but its a long thread lol.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
So unless you show me a better drawing than Hartman's then I'm gonna go with his, someone who has far more experience and knowledge in dinosaur anatomy than you do, I'm not even gonna bother with your own preferences.


I hope that wasn´t meant to refer to yourself...

Quote:
 
You keep ignoring the fact T Rex's legs are better designed for speed and agility taking into account of the bulk, didn't you read the paper people here have provided to you? So Sue being heavier is still quicker and more agile than a lighter giga all thanks to her more evolved legs. Like Verdugo said, a leopard is superior than a human of similar or lighter weight in speed and agility, though the difference isn't as great here.


A leopard is far more msucular and of a completely different built, The rex does just have logner legs in comparison to the body lenght.


Quote:
 
I now think you're just denying common sense and every logical evidence we are shown here, Sue was slightly shorter in the comparison yet it appeared much bulkier and more robust in almost every way. You must be crazy to think a half meter length difference could yield a 17% weight gain when an animal (T Rex) is obviously much more heavily built. I'm truly done with you mate, you obviously want to believe what you wanted to believe so I'll leave it for now.

and you don´t read my posts, If Sue had the same proportioons as giga, she swould be 17% LIGHTER. She hasn´t, so I think they are likely about equal

Quote:
 
May I ask who you feel would win in these scenarios?
Trex vs giga at length parity?
Trex vs giga at weight parity?

Clearly T. rex at lenght parity as it would have a good weight advantage, and virtually 50/50 at weight parity, maybe a slight edge to rexy

imo anyway claiming either to be as absolutely superior as bony claims T.rex to be is pretty biased, this is a close fight regardless of whom you favour, as any adaption reflects a benefit and a sacrifice
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm done with you here Theropod, your arguments are just getting more and more pathetic, you clearly don't have a single proof to prove your point, everything you do from the beginning is stating BS like "T rex cannot be both faster, more agile and more powerful than Carnosaur, that is illogical", you can only debate base on your superficial, baseless logic. I have given you anatomical studies from scientists to prove that T rex is more agile, and you just keep stating the same things "It's illogical, illogical, blah blah blah". Why don't you look deeper inside T rex anatomy before stating " T rex being more agile + faster + more powerful than Carnosaur is illogical "

Edited by Verdugo, Dec 12 2012, 12:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If you think so, you clearly are too superficial yourself. What is better, making exagerated and unobjective claims about an animals physiology based on some studies that are not unchallenged or taking into account all aspects, or disagreeing with such claims with the reason of other studies suggesting them to be overenthusiastic in their conclusions, and mere physical principles?

You are denying simple rules of both physics and evolution, and call me superficial because you could find some scientists quotes that do not agree with me and the ones I posted?

Take as an example your ongoing claims like: "arctometatarsal makes it far faster and far more agile despite being far bulkier and stronger at the same time".
This means the presumed advantage in the leg design is so great that it counteracts other factors (factors tought by you to be notable enough to give it a decisive advantage in a fight scenario) that would usually make it slower and less agile. This means you are presuming a far superior functional leg anatomy seemingly without any disadvantage resulting from it-which is evolutionary and anatomically more or less impossible. All this does mainly base on PRESUMED or better SPECULATED benefits-mainly simply basing on phylogeny and evolution, not actual anatomy-as also stated by a pretty inclusive paper I already cited. People, even scientists, often get a bit overenthusiastic in certain animals, e.g. Tyrannosaurs, because many think they were the crown of theropod evolution while such a crown doesn´t even exist (and if it existed it would be birds, not Tyrannosaurs). You think I´m superficial when preferring not to EXAGERATE some rather vague, challengeable notions about possible evolutionary based benefits of a structure that is more like a morphological similarity than a unique trait? I know very well bulk/leg strenght isn´t all that matters for agility and speed, but it does matter a lot nevertheless, and it is appearant that you do not bring up convincing reasons for T. rex legs to be mechanically superior in both while still supporting a significantly more bulky body. I´m not eve arguing against T. rex being faster, but I´m arguing against it having totally unrealistic advantages in more or less everything!

I honestly don´t see a reason to post any further in this thread, unless there are some new arguments and data here, not just your and bone crushers constantly repeated exagerations on T. rex superiority in all aspects.
Edited by theropod, Dec 12 2012, 02:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 10 2012, 11:44 PM
If you want to go for Dal Sasso Spino, then you should go for the 7-9 tonnes weight.
The reason why they took the Seebacher method is because the higher estimates won't be realistic:
http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/My_theropod_is_.pdf
Seebacher himself had no estimate for Spinosaurus, however, the lower end of the weight range seems possible:
Posted Image
~12t shouldn't be too heavy, it may have to come sometimes on land, but it isn't as fatal as it's legs would crush in that time, as long as it is on land, because it likely spent a ot of time in the water, it's legs would have more of a break to recover.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Haven't Carcharodontosaurus (and Giganotosaurus) been shrunk recently ?

Quote:
 
CARCHARODONTOSAURUS SAHARICUS
The syntype teeth are now considered lost and Brusatte & Sereno (2007) designated a partial skull (SGM Din-1) from the upper Kem Kem beds, penecontemporaneous with the Baharˆıje Beds in Egypt, as the neotype of C. saharicus; it was claimed that “these Egyptian fossils
were never cast” (Brusatte & Sereno 2007, p. 904) but in fact an endocast from BSP 1922 X46 was made and currently resides in Berlin as MB.R.2056. The neotype includes much of the skull and indicates an individual of giant size. Using a reconstructed premaxilla based on those of Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus, we estimate the skull length of this specimen as close to 142 cm, equivalent to large specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex (e.g. FMNH
PR 2081, at 139 cm). The femoral cross sectional proportions of BSP 1922 X46 suggests an animal of lower total mass than a Tyrannosaurus of approximately equal femoral length.


If true, I favor the more robust T.rex.
Edited by Grey, Dec 12 2012, 04:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^didn´t you favour it anyway?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thanks to Grey I just reread the whole thing, and we all appearantly overlooked this:

Quote:
 
The femoral cross sectional proportions of BSP 1922 X46 suggests an animal of lower total mass than a Tyrannosaurus of approximately equal femoral length.


Notice the difference between "of lower total mass than t. rex" and "of lower total mass than a t. rex with the same femur size"? The downsized femur of Giganotosaurus is 137cm, that of Sue as cited in brochus osteology, the theropod database and the palaeobiology database (seemingly measured independently btw) 132cm. The ratio >Giga femur downsized/sue femur< is actually even higher than the ratio >old giga femur/ outdated sue femur< (143cm/138cm). Not suggesting the giganotosaurus to be lighter than sue at all appearantly, even ignoring the pneumaticity.

Sorry, I confused the specimens once again, because I know the specimen referred to there as IPHG 1922 X46, not BSP. This ought to be more like a general rule applying for Carcharodontosaurs and Tyrannosaurs tough, as there are no noted differences in proportions, so the neotype msot likely has a longer femur than Sue, maybe even longer then the giga holotype, who knows...
Edited by theropod, Dec 12 2012, 04:37 AM.
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.