| 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: |
| Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM (129,986 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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. ![]() _________________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Jan 27 2013, 10:48 PM Post #601 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
none of these Carcharocles teeth: http://2dgf.dk/xpdf/bull32-01-02-1-32.pdf seem more robust than the ones of carcharodontosaurus: http://www.indiana9fossils.com/dinosaurs/Carcharodontosaurus-Teeth.htm The facts are, that there are no tests, no comparative studies, not even scientists studying both and giving a statement, there are just seperated claims that do not take each other into account. I'm not getting the impression that the coloured teeth on the right are from an animal that did avoid bones at all costs because they would shatter and at the same time the greyscale ones on the left from an animal known for decapitating whales or sawing throught their ribcages. Please, just some evidence, that's all I want! But your interpretations are not enough. It is as simple as that, that teeth are described as bladelike does not exclude them being robust enough to withstand bone. Carcharocles too ahs bladelike teeth. Carcharocles teeth are very thick for shark's standarts, while Carnosaurs typically have narrower, more bladelike teeth when compared to some other theropods. I jsut skimmed the descriptions of Mapusaurus, C. saharicus and C. iguidensis, I might have overlooked it, but i couldn't even find a claim that the teeth would have shattered on contact with bone. For all we know, it is absolutely possible that carcharodontosaurus could target bony areas in similar sized opponents or prey, we even have a piece of spinosaurus bone suggesting that. An animal whose teeth where so terribly fragile wouldn't even have bitten the back of spinosaurus. Edited by theropod, Jan 27 2013, 11:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 27 2013, 11:00 PM Post #602 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hey seriously man, if you want to be fair and objective, use total length of the teeth of the theropod please, and not only the crown which of course, enlarges the size compared to total megalodon tooth. You again forget the very wide structure of megalodon teeth and their thicker base. I've provided evidences and sources. Megalodon is described by Kent or Siversson as targeting and slicing bones. Coria and Currie explained carcharodontosaurids would break their teeth if biting a large bone (check the related videos like Extreme Dinosaurs or Beyond T.rex). Fossils evidences of megalodon slicing through large bones exist. Not for carcharodontosaurids. Check the link of Therrien work for verify my quote of him about theropods excepted tyrannosaurids avoiding bones. What would be the purpose a comparative study between this particular shark and carcharodontosaurids ? It will not be done of course. Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 11:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 27 2013, 11:12 PM Post #603 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You think it would be fair to compare the whole carcharodontosaurus tooth to the crown of megalodon? That was a joke, right? I scaled them to the point the serrations start at, because I want to compare the FUNCTIONAL lenght of the tooth, not the part that is embedded in the bone anyway. No scientist speaks about the teeth being as crazily fragile as you seem to think in a publication, don't you think there might be a reason for that? This does not fit their morphology and is mere speculation. I'm well aware there are no comparative studies, that's why I think you should be more cautious with stating your pieced-together-information as a fact. Edited by theropod, Jan 27 2013, 11:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 27 2013, 11:18 PM Post #604 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You don't understand how these teeth works. The root plays a role in the biting process as it depends on it of the capacity in widstanding to the pressure. This is why T.rex root is longer than in carnosaurs, this is why Carcharocles teeth are more deeply anchored than Carcharodon. This is because of the root that carnosaurs teeth are not made either to attack hard substances. Yes, they are relatively fragile in this purpose. We have evidences for megalodon at biting through bones, not carcharodontosaurids. They avoid bones. You clearly desire that carcharodontosaurids have this capacity. I just argue what is known on the subject at now. Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 11:21 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 27 2013, 11:29 PM Post #605 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And you are telling me I was insulting? Before this escalates, you should know that I do not desire anything, I am just being realistic. There is no clear evidence for or against this capacity, and their comparative morphologies do not suggest the teeth of Carcharocles to be more robust. The roots of carcharodontosaurs are actually a whole lot deeper than carcharocles teeth, and the crowns do not appear to be any thinner. These teeth are not relatively fragile. They might be fragile when compared to crocodile or T. rex teeth, but there is nothing suggesting they where when compared to C. megalodon. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 27 2013, 11:41 PM Post #606 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That was no insult, just a remark. You are comparing the robust teeth of a shark bting through bones, known by evidences, with the long, narrow teeth of dinosaurs presenting no evidence of biting through bones. The teeth of megalodon are totally more robust as the are very wide, very thickened at their base. The root is a root of shark teeth ! Sharks teeth are modified placoid scales. That's why I tell you since a while to limit that kind of comparisons. The root anyway are adapted to the bite of the animal. As for the evidences, every paleontologist having studied these carnosaurs will tell you that these teeth are not made at slicing through bones. That's one of the most acknowledged fact about these animals, so no wonder if I ask to myself if you really ignorant or animed with bad faith. I know you since a while, and I fear you're too haughty to admit it. Added to your liking in carcharodontosaurids (something perfectly understandable), you seemingly lose your objectivity to me. Seriously, I've provided to you the paper of Therrien with the notified quote. I can't believe you don't understand it. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 27 2013, 11:46 PM Post #607 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unfortunately for you (just a remark!!!) these long narrow teeth are thicker than the thick robust ones of the shark... Something being widely acknowledged is no replacement for it being true... I fear your perfectly understandable liking for Carcharocles and Tyrannosaurus and your less well understandable tendency to stick to something no matter how illogical it is make you even less objective, despite you claiming otherwise. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 27 2013, 11:53 PM Post #608 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For Christ Sake, pay attention for a moment to what I write please ! For once, when comparing teeth, you have to compare ALL the entire tooth, because the root structure plays in the biting process. Then, you are wrong, the shark teeth are definitely thicker in that dimension. And, if really you want to compare, compare these teeth too in lateral view. Megalodons widest teeth approach 15 cm in width. Less robust than carcharodontosaurids teeth ? I like any giants, I'm talking about teeth structure here. Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 11:53 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 28 2013, 12:25 AM Post #609 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From a side view, yes. From a front view, no. and the teeth of Carcharocles simply are not thicker than those of carcharodontosaurus if scaled to equal crown lenght, that's it, that's a fact unlike the things you have been posting. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 28 2013, 12:41 AM Post #610 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There's no fact, as you use a small part of the theropod tooth and the entire tooth of the shark. You can't understand that root counts when biting a bone. You can't understand that thickness is not the only factor rendering a tooth robust. Megs teeth are much more resistant. Just figure out you seizing each tooth and stabbing a hood made surface. You'll understand that the theropod tooth has much higher chances to crack. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 28 2013, 12:48 AM Post #611 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And you cannot understand that I am not comparing it to the whole megalodon tooth, but only to the blade, which is the part that can be comapred best in two differently proportioned teeth. you appearantly don even understand Carcharodontosaurus has a far logner root than Carcharocles. And you cannot understand that none of your erguments have debunked mine. of coruse there are other factors than thickness, you seriously think i don't know that? But thickness is one factor that you claimed Carcharocles teeth where stronger in, which is wrong. And you still didn't manage to explain why you think while megalodon decapitated wheles, Carcharodontosaurus teeth, which are robust too (something you shouldn't deny unless you want to ridicule yourself) would shatter making them totally useless when targetting areas with bones in them. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 28 2013, 12:53 AM Post #612 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Stop there. Maelstrom member provided another paper in the other thread confirming my line. Root is essential in the function to bite a hard bone, you have to use it. Carcha teeth are not thicker, the thickest megs teeth are around 4 cm. Your comparisons are flawed. Check the other thread, admit you're wrong (or not, whatever) and please, have to go back to the subject. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jan 28 2013, 01:05 AM Post #613 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Great White Sharks are better comparisons for Carcharodontosaurids than Megalodon is... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 28 2013, 01:08 AM Post #614 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please read what I wrote, not what Grey misinterprets it as. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jan 28 2013, 01:15 AM Post #615 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Megalodon's colossal bite force makes it a poor comparison, if you have a 180,000+ newton bite force, even a slicing dentition can cut through large bones... |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:22 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)









![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
2:22 AM Jul 14