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 (129,987 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:
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2013, 01:41 AM
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.
There's no speculations.

Man, just check the documentation available about respectively megalodon, tyrannosaurs and carcharodontosaurids teeth and look at what there teeth are made for each animal.

T.rex and megalodon, in their both respective related works, are acknowledged to have been proficient at damaging bones, not carcharodontosaurids.


About Carcharodontosaurus just check any document about the teeth morphology. I'm really surprised you are ignorant on that field. Take a time to consult the works on all these animals.

I don't have to prove you anything, I really tought it was a matter of common knowledge for you.
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 01:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is a matter of common knowledge that one should occasionally compare works and not just regard each seperately, and that comparing morphologies cannot hurt you either. I'm not the one who is ignorant in this regard, I just haven seen any anatomical description describing why Carcharodontosaur teeth should have been incapable of withstanding bone if those of Carcharocles could, and why sharing some similarities with T. rex and having been compared to it should mean it is the closest analogy.
Hence: just check their comparative anatomy and the actual things the descriptions say, without interpreting things that aren't there, like megalodon being more similar to T. rex than to carnosaurs or carcharodontosaur teeth being unable to withstand bone just because that isn't their primary purpose.
Edited by theropod, Jan 27 2013, 02:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2013, 02:02 AM
It is a matter of common knowledge that one should occasionally compare works and not just regard each seperately, and that comparing morphologies cannot hurt you either. I'm not the one who is ignorant in this regard, I just haven seen any anatomical description describing why Carcharodontosaur teeth should have been incapable of withstanding bone if those of Carcharocles could, and why sharing some similarities with T. rex and having been compared to it should mean it is the closest analogy.
Hence: just check their comparative anatomy and the actual things the descriptions say, without interpreting things that aren't there, like megalodon being more similar to T. rex than to carnosaurs or carcharodontosaur teeth being unable to withstand bone just because that isn't their primary purpose.
Man, any document, lecture or article talking about Carcharodontosaurus feeding apparatus explains well that these animals did not have teeth made at puncturing bony structures.

Carcharocles teeth are totally different. Check the documents about it related in the wiki article.

Scientists don't play at comparing everything all the time. Just look at what each tooth was made for. Take a time for consult all of this before argue.

I'm not scientist and I don't have the time and wheel to make a comparison scale of all these teeth. Any feeding apparatus has been studied and how each animal bittens and killed its preys is known.


The only two here that bitten and damaged the bones were T.rex and Carcharocles. For both the morphology of their teeth has been studied and bite marks on respective preys have been found as confirmation.

Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 02:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
No, it is theorized in the case of Carcharodontosaurus, you are not distinguishing between theories that might not stand a comparison with known behaviour and facts.

You are finding the same excuse over and over again, you are unable to explain why what you state should be true, and thus you try to make it look like such an explanation wasn't necessary
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Man, stop there. Its teeth have been studied, there's no therory there. They were made at cutting flesh but if they bite a bone, they are likely to crack.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You don't know what you are talking about, do you? You cannot even give me the name of a study or a metodology, therefore, it is a theory. These teeth are not thinner than those of Carcharocles, which obviously could withstand bone pretty well. if you doubt that, give me a study proving otherwise!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
But Carcharocles teeth have much different morphology than Carcharodontosaur teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Without testing, the assumption that they could not withstand bone is at best a theory, if not a mere hypothesis. Of course they have different morphology, but don't T. rex teeth have an even more different one, and yet some people like to compare them, and others even go so far to interpret that as T. rex being necessarily the closest analogy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2013, 03:54 AM
You don't know what you are talking about, do you? You cannot even give me the name of a study or a metodology, therefore, it is a theory. These teeth are not thinner than those of Carcharocles, which obviously could withstand bone pretty well. if you doubt that, give me a study proving otherwise!
But you are talking about the teeth of a neoselachian with thos of a carnosaur ! The differences are huges.

Carcharocles teeth are to sharks what T.rex teeth are to theropods.

You don't have to compare each tooth, you have to learn what each tooth in each animal are made for. Check what has been said by Coria and others about the teeth in carcharodontosaurids.

And why are you once again becoming slowly more insulting ? I treat you respectfully, do the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The differences between these lamnids teeth and those of tyrannosaurs are even bigger, and one has to view comparative studies, at least before excluding possibilities that where never debunked by any mechanical study (if they where, please post it!) based on mere guesses that did not base on such comparisons. For all we know, if Carcharocles could slice bone, Carcharodontosaurus could have done so too, as there is no comparison of the two concluding that Carcharocles teeth where more robust, even less, that they where more similar to T. rex than to Carcharodontosaurs. That they would crack when encountering bone is guess, it does not fit a comparison with animals whose teeth did not crack.

Where have I been any more insulting than you are?

Quote:
 
I'm really surprised you are ignorant on that field. Take a time to consult the works on all these animals.

I don't have to prove you anything, I really tought it was a matter of common knowledge for you.


Apart from that, I too consider permanent ignoring of my arguments a kind of insult, so I guess this:
"You don't know what you are talking about, do you?" was justified.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharocles teeth are described as extremely robust, thick and unlikely to crack, more deeply rooted than Carcharodon. Sliced in half vertebras of large baleen whales are reported.

The last time I checked, carcharodontosaurids teeth are described as serrated steak knifes, flat, narrow and not made at biting through bones (Coria, Currie). The several documentaries surrounding these animals show these interviews. No bite marks as evidence of carcharodontosaurids targeting bones are known in their prey items.

There's no comparison study made because there was no need to. You just have to see each works. No test is necessary to determine the function of a kinf of tooth, studying the morphology is.

But what are doing by the way ? Are slowly trying to establish by your own hands that carcharodontosaurids were potent at slicing bones based on a comparison you did between an allosaur and a meg teeth ?

Please, check again the basical information provided when these giants carcharodontosaurids were discovered and described. There's a plenty of source about it, I don't have the will to search it or to discuss this even more, really.

My line was actually more like a compliment as I was surprised by your "lack" of knowledge about the established function of these teeth. No sarcasm from me these times.

In turn, your line sounded really provocating to me.

Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 09:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
But yet it doesn seem as if carcharodontosaur teeth where thinner than Carcharocles teeth, because such statements are relative.

If scientist A states animal A had flat teeth, and scientist B states animal B had thick teeth, that has always to be regarded in the contexyt of the group they are from, and sharks happen to have pretty thin licint teeth in nearly any case, while that is not the case with theropods, of which the most well known one, T. rex, has thick puncturing and crushing tools in its mouth.

I really don't want to start behaving like Taipan, so would you please give me some better reasons than the ones you have posted?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
When several authors describes Carcharocles teeth as extremely thick, this is not relative exclusively to sharks but in absolute terms. Megalodons teeth are not really large but massive, wide and heavy. The Hell's Teeth article from Kent is complete. Siversson hinted on the aspect and thickness of these teeth.
They are vastly different than those of dinosaurs, but the links with those of Tyrannosaurus are explained in the book of Mark Renz, Hunting the Hunter (2002), with several photographies of each tooth in each animal. Unfortunately this part is not viewable anymore in Google Books.


Like I said, this is simply based on what each teeth are recognized to have been used.

I've seen enough numerous TV interviews where Coria or Currie or both explained how the teeth of these theropods worked and how they're not adapted to attack bones but instead fearsome meat cuting tools..

What I argue here is clearly acknowledged. In fact, I would prefer that you instead provide me sources and evidences that these animals were as much able to slice bones than giant specialized Cenozoic neoselachian.


EDIT : thanks to Jinfen who found the Therrien publi

This bone-crushing ability would be a derived charateristic of tyrannosaurids: other theropods typically avoid bones when feeding (Fiorillo 1991; Chure et al. 1998; Jacobsen 1998).
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 10:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That does not imply that they are thicker than those of carcharodontosaurs, and that is not the case going by every photo of the teeth that I have seen, but you are free to bring up ones proving so if you have any.

Posted Image
I don't see how this tooth's crown should be totally unable to withstand bone, if this tooth was able to slice through the skeleton of large whales:
Posted Image

That's just not realistic and don't expect me to believe it unless it is based on more than guesses, for example on a comparative study or a biomechanical test.
Edited by theropod, Jan 27 2013, 10:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You should be more cautious with the pic you provided. This megalodon tooth is not totally profiled to the objectif and you can see the whole structure from the basis is definitely thicker than the teeth above. Others megs teeth are even thicker. And you don't keep in mind that the very wide heart-shaped structure of these teeth provides even more durability.

Anyway, the point is made. This particular species of shark was proficient at cutting bones, whereas I've provided a source in the previous post that theropods, except for tyrannosaurids, avoided bones. Carcharodontosaurids did not what megalodon did when biting a prey. Can we go back to the main question of the thread ?
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 10:29 PM.
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.