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 (129,988 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 08:10 PM
The point is, it sliced bones, it didn't crush them, and it had extremely sharp teeth.
Well, T-rex too probably didn't rely 100% on blunt force:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142982
According to that paper, T-rex skull was actually rather weak skull, but it's cranium still could absorb a lot of stress while biting and tearing, so the paper suggests that T-rex used a puncture and pull strategy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 26 2013, 10:30 PM
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 08:10 PM
The point is, it sliced bones, it didn't crush them, and it had extremely sharp teeth.
Well, T-rex too probably didn't rely 100% on blunt force:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4142982
According to that paper, T-rex skull was actually rather weak skull, but it's cranium still could absorb a lot of stress while biting and tearing, so the paper suggests that T-rex used a puncture and pull strategy.
I find that paper quite questionable...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 26 2013, 10:34 PM
I find that paper quite questionable...
Well, about "weak" Rayfield meant not very stable. In fact Carnosaurs like Allosauurs could've had more stable skulls, but T-rex skull could absorb much more stress, so it logically had a greater bite force. Anyway, if the puncture and pull theory is correct, T-rex too could've sawed trough bones, using it's serrations.
They said T-rex skull needed to be less hard, because if not, it couldn't have had the "shock absorbers" for it's bite force.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't understand what you mean by "more stable" and "more shock absorbing". All theropod skulls are composed of various bones, in fact that's the case with any skull, and Tyrannosaurs had a more compact skull shape than most others.
Where does it say it could absorb much mroe stress than others? That's certainly true in a mediolateral direction, but Rayfield herself demonstrated Carnosaurs to have been able to absorb tremendous forces. It is the mandible of T. rex that is mushc more robust, and in its broader skull there is a lot more space for jaw closing muscles.

What matters here is the resistance of the skull to forces, and I don see that being questioned in the paper. It doesn't consider the actual bite force, does it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 10:55 PM
I don't understand what you mean by "more stable" and "more shock absorbing". All theropod skulls are composed of various bones, in fact that's the case with any skull, and Tyrannosaurs had a more compact skull shape than most others.
Where does it say it could absorb much mroe stress than others? That's certainly true in a mediolateral direction, but Rayfield herself demonstrated Carnosaurs to have been able to absorb tremendous forces. It is the mandible of T. rex that is mushc more robust, and in its broader skull there is a lot more space for jaw closing muscles.

What matters here is the resistance of the skull to forces, and I don see that being questioned in the paper. It doesn't consider the actual bite force, does it?
Maybe I have explained that a bit wrong, but you can find a short summary of that here:
http://www.rp-online.de/wissen/leben/tyrannosaurus-rex-hatte-stossdaempfer-im-kopf-1.2278166
Less stable means some of the bones were rather loose connected, I hope that explains this a bit better.
From the Abstract:
It has been suggested that the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex was capable of producing extremely powerful bite forces and resisting multi–directional loading generated during feeding. Contrary to this suggestion is the observation that the cranium is composed of often loosely articulated facial bones, although these bones may have performed a shock–absorption role. The structural analysis technique finite element analysis (FEA) is employed here to investigate the functional morphology and cranial mechanics of the T. rex skull. In particular, I test whether the skull is optimized for the resistance of large bi–directional feeding loads, whether mobile joints are adapted for the localized resistance of feeding–induced stress and strain, and whether mobile joints act to weaken or strengthen the skull overall. The results demonstrate that the cranium is equally adapted to resist biting or tearing forces and therefore the‘puncture–pul’ feeding hypothesis is well supported. Finite–element–generated stress–strain patterns are consistent with T. rex cranial morphology: the maxilla–jugal suture provides a tensile shock–absorbing function that reduces localized tension yet ‘weakens’ the skull overall. Furthermore, peak compressive and shear stresses localize in the nasals rather than the fronto–parietal region as seen in Allosaurus, offering a reason why robusticity is commonplace in tyrannosaurid nasals.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jan 26 2013, 11:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Really pretty simplyfied, but I get that The "unstable" skull was rather a guesstimate before the features where more closely examined, as the built was in fact made to absorb forces well. To me this doesn seem to be contradicting a strong crushing bite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I rather ment with the puncture and pull strategy, it could too use it's serrations quite effectively, for the puncture part, it needs the bite force of course, but for the pulling part, it would be able to effectively use it's serrations.
I've now quoted a part from the abstract, which explains what I ment, this wasn't ment to contradict a crushing bite, rather that it could also have done some kind of sawing.
P.S. Here the paper for those people who are too lazy to log in:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1547/1451.full.pdf
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jan 26 2013, 11:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Such a metod would be pretty unusual for an animal with a robust mandible, very broad skull and strong bite, wouldn't it? Also I somehow cannot properly imagine it's long teeth to have fulfilled such a purpose. For a sawing motion, one would expect shorter, less variable (sizewise) teeth. I couldn imagine this to have been an effective dentition for slicing bones, and it wouldn't need to anyway, at least not with a pull metod. I would rather imagine a shaking motion to break thick bones if necessary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The paper states a very strong bite force for T. rex, and it examines the skull strenght that seems to be very high.
The pulling motion is rather hypothesis. Based on tooth morphology and bite force, I don think it would be necessary or effective, the teeth are great for punkturing and crushing, not so much for being torn through bones, for that they are too long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 26 2013, 08:10 PM
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.
It is well known that carcharodotosaurids don't have teeth made at puncturing bones. Tyrannosaurids have. Flat, extremely serrated, likely to crack when puncturing a bone, no need to "hope" they are turning out to be reveled potent at cuting bones, that is one certainity we have here.
And between all the teeth found, in the several giants carcharodontosaurids known, they had full the time to study and figure out the morphology and function of these teeth.

Carcharocles has (and is actually, read Kent, Farlow, Renz...) to be compared to tyrannosaurids, because both targeted bones and crushed internal organs of the victims.
They're comparable in the potency of their teeth to inflict damages to bones and their similar killing style.
Carcharodontosaurids weren't made to do what these two guys did.


The white shark bites, waits and achieve. Check the documentation.
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 01:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The teeth of carcharocles are not thicker than those of carcharodontosaurs, I'm pretty sure I have actually shown you a sideview comparison with allosaur teeth...

Could you please post the study that made you so sure about that? All I can see is, that Carcharocles has been compared to T. rex, because it had really thick teeth for shark standarts, and T. rex is the most well known theropod with which one associates them first.

Why don you have a try actually listing some features in which Carcharocles teeth are more similar to T. rex than to carcharodontosaurs? Who exactly even stated that? All the people you list are shark experts, and just they used T. rex as an analogy of a well known anaimal with some similarities they don't exclude the possibility of better analogies. T. rex has also been compared to the GWS by Greg Erickson, does that mean it is the best comparison?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2013, 01:23 AM
The teeth of carcharocles are not thicker than those of carcharodontosaurs, I'm pretty sure I have actually shown you a sideview comparison with allosaur teeth...

Could you please post the study that made you so sure about that? All I can see is, that Carcharocles has been compared to T. rex, because it had really thick teeth for shark standarts, and T. rex is the most well known theropod with which one associates them first.

Why don you have a try actually listing some features in which Carcharocles teeth are more similar to T. rex than to carcharodontosaurs? Who exactly even stated that? All the people you list are shark experts, and just they used T. rex as an analogy of a well known anaimal with some similarities they don't exclude the possibility of better analogies. T. rex has also been compared to the GWS by Greg Erickson, does that mean it is the best comparison?

Your first line is just wrong, friend, Carcharocles teeth are known and described as extremely thick and robust, most of the links and lectures (like the one with Mike Siversson) I've provided were clear and demonstrative regarding the particularity of Carcharocles teeth.

This is not a question sharks or dinosaurs standards, but a question of what these teeth are made for. In tyrannosaurids and mega-toothed sharks, their function was to penetrate and destroy internal organs and bones. Not in carnosaurs.

That's not a question of comparisons studies either. Each teeth of one type of carnivore is studied and evaluated by morphologists, then they know what is the job these teeth have to do. Dr Kent is not a shark expert but a tooth morphologist by training.

And in simple terms, tyrannosaurids targets bones, megalodon targets bones, carcharodotosaurids did not.

Figure out not if these teeth are looking alike but at what they are made for.

Get a look at the megalodon wiki article. Rated as a Good Article, it provides numerous reliable sources to all of this, including the particularity of Carcharocles teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.

To me that somehow sounds as if you considered T. rex weaponery better, basing on the assumption that the klilling apparatus of Carcharodontosaurus was significantly slower...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2013, 01:35 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.

To me that somehow sounds as if you considered T. rex weaponery better, basing on the assumption that the klilling apparatus of Carcharodontosaurus was significantly slower...
I don't consider one is better, all is depending of the prey. Armored for T.rex, larger bodied for Carcharodontosaurus.

But in a fight contest between two somewhat similar-sized carnivores, I consider tyrannosaurs teeth and jaws more plausible to prevail than the more economic style of carcharodontosaurids.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 27 2013, 01:34 AM
theropod
Jan 27 2013, 01:23 AM
The teeth of carcharocles are not thicker than those of carcharodontosaurs, I'm pretty sure I have actually shown you a sideview comparison with allosaur teeth...

Could you please post the study that made you so sure about that? All I can see is, that Carcharocles has been compared to T. rex, because it had really thick teeth for shark standarts, and T. rex is the most well known theropod with which one associates them first.

Why don you have a try actually listing some features in which Carcharocles teeth are more similar to T. rex than to carcharodontosaurs? Who exactly even stated that? All the people you list are shark experts, and just they used T. rex as an analogy of a well known anaimal with some similarities they don't exclude the possibility of better analogies. T. rex has also been compared to the GWS by Greg Erickson, does that mean it is the best comparison?

Your first line is just wrong, friend, Carcharocles teeth are known and described as extremely thick and robust, most of the links and lectures (like the one with Mike Siversson) I've provided were clear and demonstrative regarding the particularity of Carcharocles teeth.

This is not a question sharks or dinosaurs standards, but a question of what these teeth are made for. In tyrannosaurids and mega-toothed sharks, their function was to penetrate and destroy internal organs and bones. Not in carnosaurs.

That's not a question of comparisons studies either. Each teeth of one type of carnivore is studied and evaluated by morphologists, then they know what is the job these teeth have to do. Dr Kent is not a shark expert but a tooth morphologist by training.

And in simple terms, tyrannosaurids targets bones, megalodon targets bones, carcharodotosaurids did not.

Figure out not if these teeth are looking alike but at what they are made for.

Get a look at the megalodon wiki article. Rated as a Good Article, it provides numerous reliable sources to all of this, including the particularity of Carcharocles teeth.
You don know whether Carcharodontosaurs did, you don have evidence against it, and I would like to at least see some sort of actual comparison before starting to hypothetise differences. My first line is true as long as you don bring up evidence against it. The only sideview image of a carcharocles tooth does not seem to confirm your claim of it being thicker than a carnosaurs tooth, at least not at equal crown lenght.

You have not brought up actual evidence for the things you are writing, you are piecing together statements from numerous sources and interpreting them in the way that you like.

So would you mind giving me clear and unambigous scientific confirmations for the following assessments of yours:

-Carcharocles teeth are more similar to Tyrannosaur teeth than to carnosaur teeth in terms of morphology and function
-Carcharodontosaurs never targeted bones
-Carcharocles teeth are thicker than carcharodontosaur teeth

I only see your speculation on all these points.
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.