| 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 (129,983 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 12 2013, 01:45 PM Post #646 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I did some measuring on the images from Brochu's paper: tip of skull to right GJ is 136.2cm based on the scale bar. right maxilla is 81.9cm scale it up to actual measurement of 139.5cm on the right side of skull, then the right maxilla becomes 83.9cm. Brochu did not provide measurement of the dentary, but Larson did in his "Variation and Sexual Dimorphism in Tyrannosaurus rex". The measurement is made in a diagnol manner, and is listed at 101cm, which is very close to what i measure from photo--100cm. Larson also list femur at 134cm, and maxilla at 85.5cm. I'm gonna stop measuring individual bones since it's a rather futile attempt to find a solid number, and will take Hustinson's 12.3 meter... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 12 2013, 11:32 PM Post #647 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@blaze: Thanks! Most of them didn´t take that long, some where more tricky tough (carch was easy as there is good documentation of it, allosaurus was relatively easy, T. rex was pretty difficult because of the crushed skull, and I´m working on spino all the time, even tough the individual edits I did where not difficult as I have access to all relevant papers on relatives) @MysteryMeat: Well done research! |
![]() |
|
| ZealRaegus | Mar 31 2013, 08:02 PM Post #648 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lol. Dude, if you look at the Giganotosaurus reconstructions, the arms are pretty small, a bit like Rexes. Its obvious that for the Carcharodontosaurids, that they used their heads more often than they used their arms. Their arms aren't that much bigger than Rex's and we can tell just by anatomy of the skeleton. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 31 2013, 11:12 PM Post #649 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are much bigger than rexes, have you ever seen a skeletal? The arms of T. rex cannot even reach each other across the chest. They cannot reach any opponent, the mani are vestigial and they are by far not as powerfully built as other theropods arms. That's the difference between an arm actively used for whatever purpose in a fight or at least during hunting, and an arm that might still serve the purpose of preventing the animal from flipping over on standing up. Its true, Carcharodontosaur arms are by far not as large as those of allosaurids or spinosaurs, but there is no analogy to the condition seen in derived tyrannosaurids. Neither the arms of Carcharodontosaurus, nor those of Giganotosaurus have ever been found. We have to rely on Acrocanthosaurus and tyrannotitan here. Their arms may not be that long, but they are massive and bear strong claws. Those of T. rex aren't even comparable. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/casts/acrocanthosaurus_arm_cast.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ef4wgDuMenk/Tnt-92KhOZI/AAAAAAAAAf0/ygRPWzpvLDY/s1600/Tyrannosaur_arm_104.jpg |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Apr 1 2013, 12:38 AM Post #650 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Vestigal? A bicep capable of lifting 200kg does not a vestigial forelimb make. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 1 2013, 02:34 AM Post #651 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At least by comparison. I think you would consider a humans arms vestigial on a T. rex too, despite being able to lift impressive weights. if t. rex biceps can lift 200kg, what do you think could a giganotosaurus or carcharodontosaurus lift? Or a Spinosaurus? By comparison, yes, T. rex forelimbs are vestigial. Not if compared to those of a human or most extant animals. Have a look at this: http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/suchomimusarmdisplay052212.jpg?w=500&h=236 Get what I mean? And I know thats Suchomimus, its just an example... |
![]() |
|
| Big G | Apr 1 2013, 03:15 AM Post #652 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus=12 m Carcharodontosaurus=12 m My choose=Maybe he won the Tyrannosaurus, because of the greater force. Edited by Big G, Apr 6 2013, 07:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 1 2013, 03:17 AM Post #653 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What force? |
![]() |
|
| Big G | Apr 1 2013, 03:19 AM Post #654 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To be honest, I'm not sure. I chose the Tyrannosaurus because it seems stronger. I read on this forum that Carcharodontosaurus had a power of the jaws of 2.5-3 t, and always on this forum I read that the Tyrannosaurus had 6 t. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 1 2013, 03:25 AM Post #655 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Carcharodontosaurus bite force based on the most recent figure that I know for Allosaurus would be slightly above 3t for the posterior teeth. The same force from the same study for T. rex is 5,7t. But Carcharodontosaurus doesn't need a strong bite force, its tooth design is made to slice, not crush. Here's an example of what slicing bites can do to a prey animal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Syko2Yo4w One bite in most parts of the body would render an opponent unable to fight, especially if, like Carcharodontosaurus, you are comfortably as tall as said opponent and quite possibly overally larger. With relatively little effort it will be able to deal just the damge it needs to do. And as in komodo dragons, it is possible it would use the postcranial musculature to pull and increase the force that it excerts. Edited by theropod, Apr 1 2013, 04:04 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Apr 4 2013, 02:48 AM Post #656 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus is much more robust and much more brutal as a fighter. Th skull of Carcarodontosaurus is impressive by any mean, but looks really weak by comparison. And skull structure is the business end of these predatory animals. Most likely T. rex takes this, not easily of course, these are two heavyweights titans.... |
![]() |
|
| SAVAGE7 | Apr 5 2013, 11:00 AM Post #657 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
T-Rex is king his jaw muscles give him a bite force of 4 tons of pressure despite jurassic park 3 ole spino had been bitten on the neck by Rex spino's weaker neck in Rexs mouth not a chance Carcharodontosaurus wouldent be much different T-Rex 10/10 |
![]() |
|
| Daspletosaurus | Apr 5 2013, 11:59 AM Post #658 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
honestly this seems to be a scaled up version of Daspletosaurus vs. Allosaurus. So if that is the case then its oh so very close 49 for T-Rex, 51 for Carch. Not a big enough differences to make any real lasting difference. |
![]() |
|
| SAVAGE7 | Apr 6 2013, 06:57 AM Post #659 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How can you say 49 T-Rex 51 Carch Rexs teeth are like razor sharp rock solid 9 inch icesickals except their hard as rock and can't be snapped as easily as an icesickal Carch's teeth are closer to a razor sharp butter knife made out of tinfoil wrapped around a 7 inch long paper thin piece of wood plus rex's jaws could crush a small car with proportionate end results to a person crushing an aluminum soda can with their bare hands and Rex has superior endurance to the other 3 giant theropods spino carch and giga if that don't make 10 out of 10 in favor of T-Rex what does |
![]() |
|
| Daspletosaurus | Apr 6 2013, 10:11 AM Post #660 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
your just taking their mouths into consideration and by that token yes T-Rex wins hands down . But that's not all of Carchs weapons. Carch has longer arms by far and large meat hooks for claws. you must always factor in all assets and cons when judging a match-up. I will admit that normally I would side with the tyrannosaur, (they are my favorite family) but logically if you make each animal the same weight and same length and height, then the only thing that Carch has over Rex is its larger arms. And that right there gives it a small advantage. now remember i said 51 Carch and 49 t-Rex; it really isn't that big of a differences. you would have to do what they do on deadliest warrior, and simulate 5000 battles to see who would be the true winner. |
![]() |
|
| 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