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 (129,991 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:
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 25 2013, 04:14 PM
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 04:06 PM
That being said, in terms of sheer direct, brute strenght, Tyrannosaurus prevails.
Have you even seen or heard about Sereno's Carcharodontosaurus specimen? That one is huge...about 20% larger than the Acrocanthosaurus-sized holotype of C. saharicus, which would make it about ~14 meters long...and about ~9.5 tonnes(scaling from a 5.5-tonne Acrocanthosaurus)...

I would like to see how Tyrannosaurus can overpower that...oh wait, it won't!
The neotype has a skull that is perhaps 20% longer than the holotype, not the largest Acrocanthosaurus.
The largest Acro specimen has a femur slightly longer, 2cm, and a skull comparable in size to Carcharodontosaurus holotype. More derived carcharodontosaurids seem to have relatively larger head and longer legs than acro. Carcha holotype is probably shorter in body length; neotype though, has unknown body proportions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I feel grey is somehow repeating himself, he has posted the exact same statement for several times.

Please check out my skull reconstruction or the neotypes description. the skull wasn't downsized, the figure was condylobasal lenght while the maximum skull lenght is still the original 1.56m. That being said, there is no reason to automatically believe every downsize.

And to me it seems carcharodontosaurus didn't have a particularly elongated skull, it might have simply been similar to acrocanthosaurus in terms of proportions. In any case it probably has a decent size advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 PM
Check this :


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.

GIGANOTOSAURUS CAROLINII
The reconstructed skull (Coria&Salgado 1995) includes a posteriorly oriented quadrate that outlines a trapezoidal lower temporal fenestra. This unusual configuration is genuine but several other skull contacts are not preserved, leading to ambiguity regarding its total length. We believe
the original skull reconstruction is likely too long (153 cm), and as with Carcharodontosaurus (see above) we consider Giganotosaurus to have had a skull almost exactly comparable in length to that of Tyrannosaurus. Likewise, our measurements of femur length in the holotype (136.5 cm,
left) record a smaller size than originally reported (143 cm; Coria & Salgado 1995) and therefore an animal of lower overall body mass.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14772019.2012.713753


No wonder, all the giants appear to be just rivaling with Mr Rex, but nobody dwarfs nobody at this point. Only, the North American giant coelurosaurian displays a more robust body structure (jaws, neck, chest, legs), which explains why I favor it. This is a more direct, brutal predator.

Which does not mean the giats carcharodontosaurids wouldn't win sometimes.
That's what Verdugo (and 7Alx, but Verdugo showed that text part) once has shown once. Here you have the 1. description of the neotype:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30117458
Sadly, there are no estimates for it. But the paper you've used, only stated Carcharodontosaurus to be lighter than T-rex, if they had the same femur size, could please someone compare their femur sizes?
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jan 25 2013, 10:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
the carcharodontosaurus neotype would have a 1,5m femur when scaling from the holotype, sues femur is 1.32m to the greater trochanter and probably 1.38m max.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharodontosaurus, while less bulky, is probably larger, wider gaped, sharper toothed and bigger clawed. It has the tools to kill T. rex, what it lacks in bite force is easily made up for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 PM
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.

Too bad for you, it's not really that likely for them to have equal femur lengths...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 25 2013, 07:46 PM
I feel grey is somehow repeating himself, he has posted the exact same statement for several times.

Please check out my skull reconstruction or the neotypes description. the skull wasn't downsized, the figure was condylobasal lenght while the maximum skull lenght is still the original 1.56m. That being said, there is no reason to automatically believe every downsize.

And to me it seems carcharodontosaurus didn't have a particularly elongated skull, it might have simply been similar to acrocanthosaurus in terms of proportions. In any case it probably has a decent size advantage.
Yes, I repeat myself because among all the self-made models and so, I like to recall actual datas made about these big beasts.

Your reconstruction is well done but does not have high credit to me. Use a real source if you have one please. I don't trust too much self-made works. Which does not dismiss your efforts made at doing it.

The skull of Carcharodontosaurus appears to me clearly less robust than Tyrannosaurus and I strongly assume that the size and robustness of the skull are more decisive here than the claws and the very limited size advantage of the carcharodontosaurid. At least, I need to see one recent update about this.

At equal femoral length, the publi indicates T.rex heavier. Carcharodontosaurus has a femur a bit larger and hence I see it only comparable in size to Tyrannosaurus, perhaps a bit longer, a very slightly bit heavier. Nowhere a decent size advantage.

Sizes of Carcharodontosaurus, and Giganotosaurus have been all the time fluctuating and seems to be stabilized around the size of a large T.rex. No real size disparity. The weaponry and sheer robustness of Tyrannosaurus are more striking to me. Now that can be a personnal feeling at observing both structures and skeletal remains but I still don't see carcharodontosaurids having a more impressive resume. Hence, the giant coelosaurian would have the advantage most of the time, once again depending too the context, environmental factors, which strikes first...

As for the text, I don't believe every downsize but normally I believe any updated work.
Edited by Grey, Jan 26 2013, 01:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 25 2013, 11:26 PM
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 PM
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.

Too bad for you, it's not really that likely for them to have equal femur lengths...

Too bad for me ?

Broly, you mess with the wrong guy, contrary to you, I'm not biased and unobjective, I don't care if one or the other was proven to be the top dog around as I 'm a fan of any giant predator and try to use the most rational and neutral approach. Whereas we all know your non-rational approach when it comes to discuss about Tyrannosaurus. If you're really passionnated you should improve yourself. You have some good knowledge for sure and you all the time waste it with your childish behavior in T.rex ("the wimp of giants theropods") or sauropods ("the ultimate warriors") related threads.

The femoral length is a bit larger than Tyrannosaurus yes. So keeping in mind the paper, I assume Carcharodontosaurus is then comparable or only slightly heavier than Tyrannosaurus.
Hence, I favor the more muscular, powerfully built, made for direct kill, Tyrannosaurus.
Edited by Grey, Jan 26 2013, 01:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Grey i don't have access to the whole paper.
Does it mention how the new measurement of the femur is made? Is it measured from medial condyle to the femoral head?
Even the leg is shrinking? Poor Giga...

@Broly
MSNM V4047 is reliably the largest Spino we got, so in a sense it is like Sue.
SAM 124 has small cervical vertebra, as the paper shows. U can't state that it's an sub-adult just because it's not as big as MSNM V4047.
When you pull out data on an "average" rex, you need to be aware that it includes animals from a huge range and different geological times. There are populations that are much larger than others.
It's fair to compare a large rex to a large spino, and comparing average rex to an average spino is impossible because it's so fragmentary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't have access either, I provided this from member Big Al who posted it another thread. I should ask him, he has usually access to any paper of that kind.

I strongly agree on your last line, fossils records allows to show large specimens but trying to establish some average size in extinct taxa is most of the time a waste of time. Maximum-sized individuals of each species are the only to be compared for a fair and possibly solvable contest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
grey, I wrote "the description of the neotype OR my reconstruction." the latter bases on the former, the only difference is a slightly altered quadrate which by no means affects the measurement, and you can see quite well condylobasal lenght is ~1,4m or slightly above.
In this regard, it does have scientific value, you are free to verify it with serenos reconstruction.

And do you think it is fair to compare the largest and only reported adult out a handful of spinosaurs to the largest of 31 T. rexes?

The approach of merely comparing skull mass is definitely a biased one, as shown here for many times bite force alone isn't that relevant. So far, no suggestion of the jaws of carcharodontosaurus to have been a less potent weapon, or is there?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 01:29 AM
Grey i don't have access to the whole paper.
Here you go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 02:18 AM
grey, I wrote "the description of the neotype OR my reconstruction." the latter bases on the former, the only difference is a slightly altered quadrate which by no means affects the measurement, and you can see quite well condylobasal lenght is ~1,4m or slightly above.
In this regard, it does have scientific value, you are free to verify it with serenos reconstruction.

And do you think it is fair to compare the largest and only reported adult out a handful of spinosaurs to the largest of 31 T. rexes?

The approach of merely comparing skull mass is definitely a biased one, as shown here for many times bite force alone isn't that relevant. So far, no suggestion of the jaws of carcharodontosaurus to have been a less potent weapon, or is there?
Your homework is valuable but not as a scientific data. Even so, my statement at comparing both is the same, T.rex skull is a bit shorter but wider and seems (though I'd like to look further in it) to have been the heaviest head of both.

As for the second request, yes it is fair because we only do with what we have. The largest/the largest is the most logical approach to use, whatever the numbers of reported individuals in each species as we have no mean to determine an average. Trying this is impossible to get a conclusive consensus, certainly not with such limited taxa. T.rex too is in absolute terms limited, as 31 is not a high number, especially since many individuals are extremely fragmentary and/or juveniles.



Carcharodontosaurus jaws are simply less efficient in a direct, quick and devastative attack than T.rex jaws. Which does not prevent T.rex to die afterward of massive blood lose and deep wounds. But the coelurosaurian would be faster at killing than Carcha, which is used to use time for subdue large preys/foes.
Of course yes, bite force is not decisive, but more important than the claws and possible slight size advantage. I don't focuse on the bite force alone but on the whole robust, muscular morphology of Tyrannosaurus.
Edited by Grey, Jan 26 2013, 02:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 12:34 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 25 2013, 11:26 PM
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 PM
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.

Too bad for you, it's not really that likely for them to have equal femur lengths...

Too bad for me ?

Broly, you mess with the wrong guy, contrary to you, I'm not biased and unobjective, I don't care if one or the other was proven to be the top dog around as I 'm a fan of any giant predator and try to use the most rational and neutral approach. Whereas we all know your non-rational approach when it comes to discuss about Tyrannosaurus. If you're really passionnated you should improve yourself. You have some good knowledge for sure and you all the time waste it with your childish behavior in T.rex ("the wimp of giants theropods") or sauropods ("the ultimate warriors") related threads.

The femoral length is a bit larger than Tyrannosaurus yes. So keeping in mind the paper, I assume Carcharodontosaurus is then comparable or only slightly heavier than Tyrannosaurus.
Hence, I favor the more muscular, powerfully built, made for direct kill, Tyrannosaurus.


My Tyrannosaurus hating posts are long outdated, I don't hate Tyrannosaurus, I don't call it a wimp. And it's just fact that sauropods are the strongest dinosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 26 2013, 02:42 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 12:34 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 25 2013, 11:26 PM
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 PM
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.

Too bad for you, it's not really that likely for them to have equal femur lengths...

Too bad for me ?

Broly, you mess with the wrong guy, contrary to you, I'm not biased and unobjective, I don't care if one or the other was proven to be the top dog around as I 'm a fan of any giant predator and try to use the most rational and neutral approach. Whereas we all know your non-rational approach when it comes to discuss about Tyrannosaurus. If you're really passionnated you should improve yourself. You have some good knowledge for sure and you all the time waste it with your childish behavior in T.rex ("the wimp of giants theropods") or sauropods ("the ultimate warriors") related threads.

The femoral length is a bit larger than Tyrannosaurus yes. So keeping in mind the paper, I assume Carcharodontosaurus is then comparable or only slightly heavier than Tyrannosaurus.
Hence, I favor the more muscular, powerfully built, made for direct kill, Tyrannosaurus.


My Tyrannosaurus hating posts are long outdated, I don't hate Tyrannosaurus, I don't call it a wimp. And it's just fact that sauropods are the strongest dinosaurs.
I agree but you're far to be objective yet, like here, you display a clear personnal preference to Carcharodontosaurus which interfers in your ability to have a credible manner of discuss these questions. As for example, you NEVER mention Tyrannosaurus clear advantages and impressive features, only acting like if any of these context were clear mismatchs in disfavor of rex. That is just not true. The length and conflictual atmosphere of these threads are a hint of it.


No wonder sauropods were basically the strongest dinosaurs, with some weighing 50 to 80 metric tons. But these animals were at first preys, which evolved big to get safety, they did not evolve becoming warriors. Ceratopsians were...

When you argue that a sauropod equally sized (weight) to Tyrannosaurus would destroy it, you once again lack of your intellectual honesty. I don't beg you to admit that in this match T.rex necessary wins, but I advise you to be more honest and use a neutral attitude. This is what are doing serious enthusiasts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.