| 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 (129,984 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: | |
|---|---|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 11 2013, 12:17 PM Post #631 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would be more accurate to use giga or Mapu. I think Hartman's Sue has a big head. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 11 2013, 12:18 PM Post #632 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As in proportionally too big? at 1.32m femur length the skull in Hartman's Sue is 1.39m mmmm |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 11 2013, 01:02 PM Post #633 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
O nevermind then. It seems to me that Sue is not as long in Hartman's drawing as in the mounted skeleton. I'm not sure why. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 12 2013, 01:20 AM Post #634 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The skeletals torso has some spine curvature that the mount lacks. Blaze, it seems the holotype is a bit smaller than Acrocanthosaurus (have a try scaling the skull of the neotype to the size of the holotypic remains), I don´t think the legs are too long in my scale. You can see that in none of them the femur would be. As Carcharodontosaurus possibly had longer legs I didn´t just use those of Giganotosaurus. Leg proportions are thus far unclear of course, as the holotype is certainly not adult, considering its size. As I wrote, the skull is proportionally slightly smaller than the one of Giganotosaurus to account for quadrate-rotation-differences which I doubt would affect size. All excepf for the Mapusaurus-version are based on hartmans skeletals (that doesn´t mean I copied them, but the proprotions base on them.) Why on Acrocanthosaurus: Most complete Carcharodontosaur known to date and it is absolutely possible that carcharodontosaurus didn´t have such an exceptionally large skull for its size. In fact, based on the leg lenght reported from the holotype it would be very odd. Does the Acrocanthosaurus-based one look to small skulled to you? |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 12 2013, 01:28 AM Post #635 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It does but it might just be perception bias (accustomed to look at big skulled reconstructions). |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 12 2013, 02:41 AM Post #636 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hopefully we will have better findings of this animal someday. I´m not saying the one based on Acrocanthosaurus is the most accurate, as I wrote I think the extremely slender body seems outlandish, but it is worth being shown. I was surprised how long they all ended up, despite being in the posture of a living animal, anyway. I´m not sure which one I favour. The one based on Giganotosaurus and the one based on Mapusaurus are both the same lenght, and probably not too different in terms of weight. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 12 2013, 03:33 AM Post #637 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hopefully, I just wish it doesn't happen like the last time that we went for 50 years without anything new ... Well, Sue. ![]() EDIT: Changed it to be scaled after the length of the ilium in the scanned Sue mount from Hutchinson et al. (2011). EDIT2: @Misterymeat, updating the image a second time changed the url, now your quote links to older versions. Edited by blaze, Feb 12 2013, 06:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 12 2013, 04:35 AM Post #638 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just realized the title says iguidensis, not saharicus. There you go: ![]() Either you accidentally stretched the drawing vertically or Scott drew the legs too long. That's a 140+cm femur in the image you provided. Both scaled to the same ilium length. As you can see, Sue is 12.2m long in the stretched old image you made, really not far off from 12.29m figure. Edited by MysteryMeat, Feb 12 2013, 04:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 12 2013, 05:29 AM Post #639 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't want it to sound like I'm shifting the blame but I'm sure I didn't stretch it vertically. In the version with scalebar that Hartman has in Deviantart the femur is 1.44m, the ilium is ~1.59 or so, I thought it was too big all around, because Brochu (2003) says the right ilium is 1.46cm long but in the image from Hutchinson et al. (2011) it can be measured at 157cm so it's not that big after all. I guess I have to change it, scaled after the ilium as can be measured in that image, otherwise I'll be spreading misinformation. |
![]() |
|
| Megafelis Fatalis | Feb 12 2013, 05:54 AM Post #640 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry for interposing, but I used Hartman's scale bar, the result is ~ 11.9m long Tyrannosaur :
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 12 2013, 05:59 AM Post #641 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The ilium is 160cm long according to Hartman's scalebar, in the image from Hutchinson study it is 157cm , 160/157 = ~1.0192, 11.66m * ~1.0192= 11.88m. That is the source of the discrepancy. Edited by blaze, Feb 12 2013, 06:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 12 2013, 06:14 AM Post #642 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So I guess the femur length is way off in the drawing. 144/1.0192=141.3, still way longer than the reported 132 measurement. Hartman might have used the scale bar in the photo of lateral femur view, in which the femur appears to be of four different length in all four views. It seems really hard to measure big bones precisely and photograph them straight on. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 12 2013, 07:33 AM Post #643 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is especially hard not to get things distorted by perspective. the question is actually, whether a skeletal really necessariy shows the femur in a perfect vertical line, and whether the proportions can really be compared to reported measurements 1 to 1 anyway, there is a lot of room for error here. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 12 2013, 07:33 AM Post #644 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@blaze nice image manipulation! |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 12 2013, 08:37 AM Post #645 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hahah that was pretty simple actually, just a bit time consuming, your skulls on the other hand, those are actually nice. |
![]() |
|
| 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