| 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 (129,985 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 28 2013, 01:24 AM Post #616 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's bite force isn't that collossal when regarded in the context of it's size, it is still mainly slicing power that does the job, of course combined with the strong forces, but you have to keep in mind it's prey was huge too...
Edited by theropod, Jan 28 2013, 01:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 28 2013, 01:32 AM Post #617 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whatever the size, its teeth were adapted to such a task, dispatching whales, targeting the most robust body regions. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jan 28 2013, 05:03 AM Post #618 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, you always said Megalodon weighed 50t on average (tough I don't know where you got this from, as there's no average figure for Megalodon). Such a Megalodon would have a bite force of ~11t:![]() http://www.bio-nica.info/Biblioteca/Wroe2008GreatWhiteSharkBiteForce.pdf |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 28 2013, 05:56 AM Post #619 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Megalodon was definitely able to target huge and robust prey items and deal tremendous damage to them, the point is, the bite force figure used nearly everywhere is not stronger than that of a great white shark when compared to it´s size or that if it´s prey. So the bite force, at least when taking this figure, is not an explanation why it should not be comparable in terms of jaw funktion.
Edited by theropod, Jan 28 2013, 05:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 29 2013, 06:38 AM Post #620 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's not a question of bite force. Whatever the size, this shark has evolved to prey on : - large preys items. - killing them bite biting the hard bony parts (ribs, shoulders, chest) in attempt to crush the internal organs (Kent). |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 29 2013, 06:42 AM Post #621 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I always was under the impression C. megalodons killing strategy was taking huge chunks out of whatever it found, including the bony areas such as ribcages, leading to the massive trauma it needed to kill it´s prey. The point here was a different one, that member broly erraneously tought it relied on bite force and was thus not comparable to other slicers, which is misled because the bite force figure he is using is that of an upscaled GWS. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 29 2013, 06:46 AM Post #622 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The very large size, in absolute terms, make that the bite, in absolute terms, was still huge and potent at killing quickly large animals. Regarding its teeth, please found Bretton Kent works in the Hell's Teeth article. He demonstrates how megalodon bite marks are predominant in the most robust areas of its preys. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 2 2013, 11:59 PM Post #623 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think this might belong here more so than on the other thread: I have scaled serenos reconstruction and measured the scale: The neotype is more than 50% larger than the holotype (603/390px, max. lenght), which however doesn't seem to be Acrocanthosaurus sized, but 15 % smaller (446/386px, pmx-sq) Assuming this Acrocanthosaurus specimen to have been 11,5-12m as reported by Mortimer, Holtz and Blaze, I get the following figures: 11,5/1.15=holotype size 1=10m 12/1.15*=holotype size 1=10,4m Of course all rather vague (and most likely far too astronomic) approximations, however worth consideration. The enormous sizes can probably be explained by the already brought up point that more derived forms likely had proportionally larger heads and longer legs. Still, an enourmous animal by any standart. I cannot actually remember a single total lenght estimate for carcharodntosaurus save for Therrien & Henderson's being ever published, I would appreciate if someone could share some research in this regard, because at the moment we have virtually nothing. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 9 2013, 06:50 AM Post #624 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Size based on skull lenght that I happen to know reliable measurements for (both pmx-q/qj as reported in the literature or as can be concluded from it), postcrania reconstructed mainly basing on Hartmans skeletons of Acrocanthosaurus and FMNH PR I could imagine many people probably disagree with this reconstruction, and I'm starting to think I could have exagerated with the slender and elongate proportions (acro minus the neural spines...). Still it might give some perspective to this. PS: the height of Carcharodontosaurus is not exagerated, keep in mind the probable femur lenght SGM DIN 1 had. Edited by theropod, Feb 9 2013, 07:32 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Arovinrac | Feb 10 2013, 08:56 AM Post #625 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How long/tall are they |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 10 2013, 09:25 PM Post #626 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hope this helps: ![]() I think I'm gonna do an alternate version fo this Carcharodontosaurus, because even tough not unrealistic this ones proportions are hard to swallow. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 10 2013, 10:14 PM Post #627 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's always best to have multiple versions: ![]() ![]() Carcharodontosaurus is based on SGM-DIN 1's skull lenght and Acrocanthsoaurus, Mapusaurus and Giganotosaurus respectively (eith marginally shorter skull than Giganotosaurus because Giganosaurus has a more backwards oriented quadrate). With mapusaurus it ended up a bit less tall, in the others I used the same legs. The height is not certain of course, but based on the holotypes long legs for its size, it was very likely taller than Giganotosaurus. Edited by theropod, Feb 10 2013, 10:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vivyx | Feb 10 2013, 10:26 PM Post #628 |
![]()
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's right, at least the charco has chances of winning, I at least give it a chance. |
![]() |
|
| Arovinrac | Feb 11 2013, 10:10 AM Post #629 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for the grid Theropod, Carcharo is much bigger than I thought it was |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 11 2013, 11:52 AM Post #630 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But why on Acrocanthosaurus? it has a relatively small skull for its body size compared to Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus, that'll result in a bigger animal, so it's nice that you made others based on Mapusaurus and Giganotosaurus but then... why add to them the legs of the original outline? Not only are they already too big (If C. saharicus has a 157cm skull and a 150cm femur the proportion is that the skull ~1.05 times the femur length, in Acrocanthosaurus the proportions is 1) that that taxon has different leg proportions than Giganotosaurus and presumably Carcharodontosaurus too. I thing the more likely is the Mapusaurus one but with a bit smaller legs and a bit longer torso mmm I'll say the Giganotosaurus one with smaller legs but the skull looks too small. Edit: Which skeletal you used for Giganotosaurus body? it doesn't look like either Hartman's or Paul's. Edited by blaze, Feb 11 2013, 12:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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