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 (129,990 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:
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 02:57 AM
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.
I didn't feel like listing Tyrannosaurus' advantages, as many people only look at those, and they don't point out the other theropod's pros. I learned that during my (sometimes long) debates with Tyrannosaurus fanboys.

And I don't believe that this thread is a mismatch in disfavor of Tyrannosaurus,
I even said that Tyrannosaurus would win more often than not against C. iguidensis.

And I never said that a sauropod would destroy Tyrannosaurus at equal masses...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, you apply exactly what you don't like in the tyrannosaur fanboys argumentation.


Perhaps you don't believe it is mismatch in disfavor of rex but your acting is all the time as such. To dislike fanboys do not imply to dislike the actual animal which, when roaming 66 millions years ago, didn't give a coprolithe of what actual 9 years olds youtubers think.

I've seen several threads (I won't search them but the fictional Amphicoelias/T.rex is among) where you favored a sauropod over a tyrannosaur at similar body size. Unless it was some joke.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 02:31 AM
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.
the jaws aren't the same either, it would be foolish to assume an animal like carcharodontosaurus would necessarily have less effektive jaws, just because of a lower bite force.

as for my so called "homework", why don't you just check it yourself? The skull very likely wasn't downsized but measured in a different way, as in sereno's reconstruction there is a measurement that fits. I would appreciate criticism of my work, but please the kind of criticism that points out possible flaws in my work, not the fact that I don't have a PHD.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't have the experience of others for judge your work from an objective viewpoint. That's why I rely mostly and almost only on peer reviewed and off-line communication with authors.

If Tyrannosaurus had spinosaurid-like structured teeth, I would more likely give it to the carcharodontosaurid. But that's not the case, its teeth are massive serrated rail-road spikes, reaching and puncturing the bones, allowing a quick brutal death for its opponent if it had the opportunity to strike first.

Carcha is not made to kill in such a quick way. As it doesn't have, in my opinion, a clear size advantage and not a more robust body structure, I expect rex to own the outcome, most of the time.




Or I need to see how a bite of Carcharodontosaurus would be deeper, inflicting more lethal damages, overall be more devastative and killing quicker than a rex bite.

Edited by Grey, Jan 26 2013, 04:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why should it have to kill quicker than a T. rex or go deeper?

From what I know, the massive damage a potent slicing bite can do can absolutely rival that of a crushing bite. coherentsheaf for example has posted numerous examples of really small monitor lizards killing large bovines rather quickly.

A slicing bite isn't slow as some think, it is a fast way to kill. It doesn't leave a wound and waits some hours for the prey to bleed to death, the jaws would sever tendons, muscles, arteries, just about every soft tissue, and leave the victim unable to fight back. One bite of the carcharodontosaurus is jsut as deadly to the T. rex as the reverse.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 02:18 AM
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?
It's even more unfair to compare one Spino specimen, which happens to be the largest to an average of dozens of rex specimens what are from across entire western nothern america in a geological time span of millions of years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 26 2013, 03:16 AM
I didn't feel like listing Tyrannosaurus' advantages, as many people only look at those, and they don't point out the other theropod's pros. I learned that during my (sometimes long) debates with Tyrannosaurus fanboys.
I feel you like going against the majority just for the sake of it.
And you happen to believe that most people overrate Tyrannosaurs and underrate sauropods, so you try your best to put them down, even with baseless arguments at times.
Do you get a kick out of it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't know why you think that would be that unfair. Assuming this spino was the only adult one, it should be compared to an average T. rex (~11,5-12m), not the largest one. But I just think it is inappropriate to be hyper-conservative about spinosaurus just because of incertainities ("Dal sassos estimates where debunked", "spinosaurus was 14,4m long"...).
assuming it wasn't the only adult one, it is less extreme, but still there is a clear bias towards T. rex when comparing largest specimens each, because T. rex has a 5 times or so larger sample size which will following the rules of statistics probably increase the span between the extremes of the sample.
With this in mind, it would probably still be fairer to use the largest spinosaurus against an average T. rex than vice versa. It is certainly not fair to try to push spinosaurus' estimates down by all costs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'm not downsizing Spino for it's sample size. The specimens are so fragmentary it's impossible to make concrete conclusions.
But you gotta consider, rex specimens are collected through out entire western North America, while MSNM V4047 is one individual, from one spot of kem kem beds. If you wanna be more fair, at least pick a handful of rex specimens that are from the same formation of relative close vicinity and age, like Hell Creek in one US county or something, and compare it to MSNM V4047 and SAM 124. Otherwise it is totally unfair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 04:52 AM
Why should it have to kill quicker than a T. rex or go deeper?

From what I know, the massive damage a potent slicing bite can do can absolutely rival that of a crushing bite. coherentsheaf for example has posted numerous examples of really small monitor lizards killing large bovines rather quickly.

A slicing bite isn't slow as some think, it is a fast way to kill. It doesn't leave a wound and waits some hours for the prey to bleed to death, the jaws would sever tendons, muscles, arteries, just about every soft tissue, and leave the victim unable to fight back. One bite of the carcharodontosaurus is jsut as deadly to the T. rex as the reverse.

Yes sharks and komodo dragon seem to have no problem evicerating whatevers in their mouths, or disabling bigger prey quickly. Charcharo is like a land version of megalodon and t-rex a livyatan,
Charcharo has the wider gape, sharper teeth, and chainsaw mechanism in it's jaws,
T-rex has the stronger bite force and larger more robust teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
to satisfy both sides, here I made a list for each animals
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus:
SGM-DIN 1 = neotype
Tyrannosaurus rex:
FMNH PR 208 = sue
+probably size (at >13m)
+wide field of vision
+slicing power
+gape and strike speed
+arms and claws
+bulk (=durability)
+binocular vision
+crushing power
+probably maximum running speed
SIZE:

Holotype (IPHG 1922 X46) likely about Acrocanthosaurus sized (NCSM 14345, 11,5-12m? those are the reported estimations, and i read it likely rivaled the largest tyrannoslaurs at least lenghtwise, which would fit that)
See this thread for more: Why Carch is bigger than Giga

That make the neotype (SGM DIN 1 which is easily ~20% larger) 13,8-14,4m

Basing on the assumption of an approximate 13m Carcharodontosaur being the same weight as sue, it would be around 25% heavier than the latter.

basing on Hartmans estimates, that'd make it ~8t
SIZE:

FMNH PR 208 was 12,3m when stretched out, this is appearant from the skeleton scan

it was earlier put at 12,8m, probably before they recovered the tail

At lenght parity it would have certainly massed more than a similar sized carcharodontosaur, so weight differences aren as large as the lenghts alone would suggest

Hartman estimates it at 6,4t, Greg Paul at 6,1, Brochu at 6-7, Mortimer at 5,8t (though her estimates seem a bit inconsistent) and the laser scanned skeleton without adjusted torso lenght and rib posture gave estimates of 9,5t for it.
advantages:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 05:30 AM
I'm not downsizing Spino for it's sample size. The specimens are so fragmentary it's impossible to make concrete conclusions.
But you gotta consider, rex specimens are collected through out entire western North America, while MSNM V4047 is one individual, from one spot of kem kem beds. If you wanna be more fair, at least pick a handful of rex specimens that are from the same formation of relative close vicinity and age, like Hell Creek in one US county or something, and compare it to MSNM V4047 and SAM 124. Otherwise it is totally unfair.
I'm sorry, but I still don't get your point about geography. Why should it be more fair when taking T. rexes from the same place? It is not as if we where referring to just one T. rex population here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Jan 26 2013, 05:37 AM
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 04:52 AM
Why should it have to kill quicker than a T. rex or go deeper?

From what I know, the massive damage a potent slicing bite can do can absolutely rival that of a crushing bite. coherentsheaf for example has posted numerous examples of really small monitor lizards killing large bovines rather quickly.

A slicing bite isn't slow as some think, it is a fast way to kill. It doesn't leave a wound and waits some hours for the prey to bleed to death, the jaws would sever tendons, muscles, arteries, just about every soft tissue, and leave the victim unable to fight back. One bite of the carcharodontosaurus is jsut as deadly to the T. rex as the reverse.

Yes sharks and komodo dragon seem to have no problem evicerating whatevers in their mouths, or disabling bigger prey quickly. Charcharo is like a land version of megalodon and t-rex a livyatan,
Charcharo has the wider gape, sharper teeth, and chainsaw mechanism in it's jaws,
T-rex has the stronger bite force and larger more robust teeth.
The analogy Carcharodontosaurus/Carcharocles is flawed.

Carcharocles was proficient at cuting large bones, Carcharodontosaurus wasn't. Use Carcharodon insted, who bleed to death seals.

Theropod, I'm interested in those cases from coherentsheaf of monitors killing larger bovines by slicing bites.

But to me, the ability of T.rex to destroy the bones increases the sheer lethality of the wound. All the depictions and theories I have seen from Coria, Currie and others, is that carcharodontosaurids used the bite and wait tactic.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 05:43 AM
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 05:30 AM
I'm not downsizing Spino for it's sample size. The specimens are so fragmentary it's impossible to make concrete conclusions.
But you gotta consider, rex specimens are collected through out entire western North America, while MSNM V4047 is one individual, from one spot of kem kem beds. If you wanna be more fair, at least pick a handful of rex specimens that are from the same formation of relative close vicinity and age, like Hell Creek in one US county or something, and compare it to MSNM V4047 and SAM 124. Otherwise it is totally unfair.
I'm sorry, but I still don't get your point about geography. Why should it be more fair when taking T. rexes from the same place? It is not as if we where referring to just one T. rex population here.
Because one specimen doesn't represent the entire genus. It's from KemKem beds, while holotype is from Baharia, on the other side of the continent.
One is not a good sample size in any situation, that is the bottom line.
30 is a very good sample size for statistics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
on sauropods, which aren't exactly comparable in terms of durability, are they? Also, everything here bases on speculation. The same is the case with the carcharocles analogy, we don't have the material to confirm or debunk it.
Carcharodontosaurs where certainly able to kill smaller prey quickly, crushing the bones isn't necessarily better, and for damaging bones a strong bite force isn't always necessary. I don't remember any of the scenarios for the theorized bite and wait method to have been for another theropod.
I am confident that a carcharodontosaurus could kill a tyrannosaurus just as quickly as the reverse. The victims of comodo dragons, even tough bitten to the legs, fell into shock and bleeded to death very quickly, without having the chance to fight back. The same was probably the case with carcharocles attacks even tough whether the analogy fits remains to be proven (but wheren't there bitemarks of carch found on the spinous process of spinosaurus?).
imo carcarodontosaurus saharicus 55/45-60/40
iguidensis would imo loose as it seems like what we have was actually significantly smaller than saharicus
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.