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 (129,989 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 07:44 AM
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.
exactly, but that doesn't really answer my question. of course, all this is uncertain, mnsm might have been a particularly large or small individual. still, in a sample size of 1 this one should be considered average. It is statistically unlikely for it to be eqivalent to the largest T. rex specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 07:51 AM
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
Sorry, my inner grammar Nazi compels me to let you know that Komodo is spelled with a K. :)

I do think the bite of a Tyrannosaurus would kill faster than a slicing bite. But the difference would only be a matter of minutes. If both animals got a neck bite in...both would die.
Edited by MightyMaus, Jan 26 2013, 07:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 07:54 AM
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 07:44 AM
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.
exactly, but that doesn't really answer my question. of course, all this is uncertain, mnsm might have been a particularly large or small individual. still, in a sample size of 1 this one should be considered average. It is statistically unlikely for it to be eqivalent to the largest T. rex specimen.
there's no "average" when the sample size is one. It is unlikely to be an extreme, but that's true for any random single sample.
One individual doesn't represent any population well, when it's the only one you know.
It probably better represents Spinosaurus from Morocco, but we don't know how well it represents the genus in general.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 07:51 AM
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
Carcharodontosaurids teeth have been studied and this is a matter of fact that they are not made at puncturing hard bones. The case of the bite marks on a Spinosaurus spine just shows...a bite mark. The teeth were not made to slice it and even so, they would most likely crack. To leave marks does not make you a bonecrusher !

When you have time, try to check the old docs about Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus when they were firstly found. The describers made numerous explanations of their most likely killing method. Bite and wait, just like the classic, gruesome tactic of the white shark upon seals. The lamnid waits a few minutes before achieve its victim. Carcharodontosaurids have been compared to it.

Victims of Tyrannosaurus were also reported shocked during the process of the attack, only with massive internal damages, including bones. This kind of bite is made to kill quickly. The biting style of Carcha is a more economic, safer method. Not less lethal but not as fast in killing a large prey.
Edited by Grey, Jan 26 2013, 08:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 04:15 AM
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.

Carcharodontosaurus had sharper, thinner teeth than any tyrannosaurid. Tyrannosaurus had a strong bite force and good weaponry, sure, but carcharodontosaurus simply had better, sharper weapons. Tyrannosaurus probably killed by using its bite force in unison with its teeth to create deadly puncture wounds, while carcharodontosaurus probably killed with intense ripping and blood loss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Jan 26 2013, 08:14 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 04:15 AM
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.

Carcharodontosaurus had sharper, thinner teeth than any tyrannosaurid. Tyrannosaurus had a strong bite force and good weaponry, sure, but carcharodontosaurus simply had better, sharper weapons. Tyrannosaurus probably killed by using its bite force in unison with its teeth to create deadly puncture wounds, while carcharodontosaurus probably killed with intense ripping and blood loss.
There's no better weaponry, there is the quick killing and the economic killing. The killing of armored, agressive preys, and the killing of large, massively bodied preys.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 08:22 AM
Godzillaman
Jan 26 2013, 08:14 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 04:15 AM
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.

Carcharodontosaurus had sharper, thinner teeth than any tyrannosaurid. Tyrannosaurus had a strong bite force and good weaponry, sure, but carcharodontosaurus simply had better, sharper weapons. Tyrannosaurus probably killed by using its bite force in unison with its teeth to create deadly puncture wounds, while carcharodontosaurus probably killed with intense ripping and blood loss.
There's no better weaponry, there is the quick killing and the economic killing. The killing of armored, agressive preys, and the killing of large, massively bodied preys.

Tyrannosaurus has a heavier build and more powerful bite force and jaw structure, but the teeth alone are what I am referring to. The teeth of most carnosaurs are simply sharper and thinner than those of tyrannosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Jan 26 2013, 08:25 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 08:22 AM
Godzillaman
Jan 26 2013, 08:14 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 04:15 AM
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.

Carcharodontosaurus had sharper, thinner teeth than any tyrannosaurid. Tyrannosaurus had a strong bite force and good weaponry, sure, but carcharodontosaurus simply had better, sharper weapons. Tyrannosaurus probably killed by using its bite force in unison with its teeth to create deadly puncture wounds, while carcharodontosaurus probably killed with intense ripping and blood loss.
There's no better weaponry, there is the quick killing and the economic killing. The killing of armored, agressive preys, and the killing of large, massively bodied preys.

Tyrannosaurus has a heavier build and more powerful bite force and jaw structure, but the teeth alone are what I am referring to. The teeth of most carnosaurs are simply sharper and thinner than those of tyrannosaurs.
I did not claim the contrary !

It does not mean that tyrannosaurids were less better armed, than carnosaurs, don't forget they form a hyper-specialized lineage of predators, at the pinacle of the theropod evolution.

My main point is that they are more direct, brutal killers than carcharodontosaurids, hence, have at least slightly ("slightly" because Carcha remains one hell of an opponent) to kill the carcharodontosaurid at first than vice-versa.

One analogy with sharks, at parity, Carcharocles/Carcharodon, in their killing style, are comparable to Tyrannosaurus/Carcharodontosaurus.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 08:36 AM
Godzillaman
Jan 26 2013, 08:25 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 08:22 AM
Godzillaman
Jan 26 2013, 08:14 AM
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 04:15 AM
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.

Carcharodontosaurus had sharper, thinner teeth than any tyrannosaurid. Tyrannosaurus had a strong bite force and good weaponry, sure, but carcharodontosaurus simply had better, sharper weapons. Tyrannosaurus probably killed by using its bite force in unison with its teeth to create deadly puncture wounds, while carcharodontosaurus probably killed with intense ripping and blood loss.
There's no better weaponry, there is the quick killing and the economic killing. The killing of armored, agressive preys, and the killing of large, massively bodied preys.

Tyrannosaurus has a heavier build and more powerful bite force and jaw structure, but the teeth alone are what I am referring to. The teeth of most carnosaurs are simply sharper and thinner than those of tyrannosaurs.
I did not claim the contrary !

It does not mean that tyrannosaurids were less better armed, than carnosaurs, don't forget they form a hyper-specialized lineage of predators, at the pinacle of the theropod evolution.

My main point is that they are more direct, brutal killers than carcharodontosaurids, hence, have at least slightly ("slightly" because Carcha remains one hell of an opponent) to kill the carcharodontosaurid at first than vice-versa.

One analogy with sharks, at parity, Carcharocles/Carcharodon, in their killing style, are comparable to Tyrannosaurus/Carcharodontosaurus.




I see what you are saying. I agree that tyrannosaurs were probably more brutal. But I still believe that the teeth of carcharodontosaurus were deadlier as a whole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 26 2013, 03:26 AM
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.
That was a supermassive sauropod, shrunken to Tyrannosaurus size...the square-cube law allows the sauropod the victory...if the sauropod was naturally as large as Tyrannosaurus, it would lose...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 05:13 AM
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?
Well, I think for myself instead of just going with the mainstream...

And they do, they are the ones with baseless arguments like:
"Tyrannosaurus has a septic bite"
"Tyrannosaurus is the king"
"Sauropods were dumb as rocks"
"Sauropods are defenseless mountains of meat"

They have to be put down, they shall not spread their bias to others!

Be a voice of reason, not a stereotype follower...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 05:10 AM
It's even more unfair to compare one Spino specimen, which happens to be the largest
It is also the smallest confirmed adult of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 26 2013, 01:36 PM
MysteryMeat
Jan 26 2013, 05:10 AM
It's even more unfair to compare one Spino specimen, which happens to be the largest
It is also the smallest confirmed adult of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus...
Heck, it could be a smallish adult for all we know! But I won't make that leap of faith, instead I will say it is an average spino.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 05:41 AM
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:


Good comparision!
I agree BTW, when taking these sizes.
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 07:51 AM
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.

But that doesn't mean all meat slicers kill that fast.
For example sharks need more time to kill their victim. You see that in the shark/seal encounters. The seals sometimes survive, even when getting bitten.
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 26 2013, 01:34 PM
Well, I think for myself instead of just going with the mainstream...

And they do, they are the ones with baseless arguments like:
"Tyrannosaurus has a septic bite"
"Tyrannosaurus is the king"
"Sauropods were dumb as rocks"
"Sauropods are defenseless mountains of meat"

They have to be put down, they shall not spread their bias to others!

I think nobody on this forum believes that BS. So you don't have to reply to T-rex supporters on this forum in the same way as you reply to T-rex supporters on YT. So please just forget the youtube guys.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm still pretty sure when bitten to the neck that'd be rexys death sentence, and it would't be able to fight back. I haven't really seen incidents where a gws got a good bite on a seal without killing it immeadiately.
Also, whether the teeth of carcharodontosaurs could withstand bone well remains to be studied, everything is possible as here are so few remains. The anatomy definitely does not debunk that possibility, and I do not remember any tests done.
And in any case, the way carcharocles jaws functioned is still more similar to carnosaurs than to tyrannosaurs. The point is, it sliced bones, it didn't crush them, and it had extremely sharp teeth.
I don't see why people think it would ake a difference whether your whole neck is sliced up with severe tendons ans muscles, with you bleeding to death within a minute, or your spine is crushed. To me, that wouldn't make a difference, it would be impossible to fight back in either case.

PS: sorry, I noticed the komodo dragon-thing myself, but I was too lazy to correct it.
Edited by theropod, Jan 26 2013, 08:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.