| 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 (129,981 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: | |
|---|---|
| retic | Jun 26 2013, 05:09 AM Post #676 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
carcharodontosaurus wins for the same reasons why giganotosaurus would win. it is bigger and it has serrated teeth to make up for a weaker bite. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 26 2013, 05:39 AM Post #677 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He talked about Acrocanthosaurus. I am sure he realizes the fact that Carcharodontosaurus had a way longer femur. Anyway, Carcharodontosaurus may have been taller than Tyrannosaurus, but I doubt it was as much taller as it would really make a difference, as it's arms are really short (at least when based on Acrocanthosaurus). I know that the arms could have been used for predation, but they first needed to seize their prey with their jaw, in order to be able to use their arms: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S0952836905006989/abstract;jsessionid=589B38256052EE3089E07F88479B582C.d02t04 As the first bite will already decide the fight, I doubt this would make a difference. @spinosaurus rex, both have serrated teeth, but I understand what you mean. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jun 26 2013, 05:52 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 26 2013, 05:59 AM Post #678 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The same abstract states the humerus could be moved anteriorly at least up to the glenoid (implying at least a roughly vertical posture), and the elbow could approach a 90°-flexion. This means if it pulls back the head, it wouldn't have difficulties using these forelimbs. Yes, it is most likely they will bite first anyway and already decide the fight. But if this should get some sort of pushing/grappling match, the arms are an advantage that has to be considered. They are definitely not useless. The paper even interprets them as possibly being used for delivering fatal blows, something I highly doubt, but it shows how formidable the clawed manus are. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 26 2013, 09:05 AM Post #679 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was generalising when I said 'same height'. True, Carcharodontosaurus might be 20cm taller at the hips, but what realistic difference is this going to make? The forelimbs of Acrocanthosaurus are not that large in terms of length or robustness, and the claws are not especially large. All they are going to be able to do is grip. There is 3 meters of head/neck in the way that will have to go over the Tyrannosaurus for the arms to even have a hope of doing anything; a tall order even for something such as Spinosaurus. If they are in such a situation, the Carcharodontosaurus is already at an advantage and could quickly deliver a killing bite anyway - the arms are not going to be a huge factor. The relative abilities of the theropods' jaws to cause fatal damage quickly is a far more important factor. It surely isn't a coincidence that the majority of large theropod lineages all converge on the reduction of forelimbs and enlarging of the skull. |
![]() |
|
| Tyrant | Jun 26 2013, 09:31 AM Post #680 |
![]()
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've been repeating this point in practically every thread involving tyrannosaurus and other theropods with arms slightly larger than it. These arms will NEVER be a factor in the fight and in fact will probably hinder the Carcharodontosaurus if it tried bear hugging tyrannosaurus. BTW I still favor tyrannosaurus as its jaws are better suited for crushing other theropods jaws and seeing how these animals are both lumbering giants, I don't see Carcharodontosaurus being able to manage to circle around the the fleshier flank of the tyrannosaurus. Edited by Tyrant, Jun 26 2013, 09:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 26 2013, 09:54 PM Post #681 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It could also just bite the neck and likely cause instantly letal damage, it doesn't need to get to the flanks. The ability to cause fatal damage quickly is a very potent one in Carcharodontosaurus, by no means inferior. Even if it couldn't catch the neck (unlikely imo), its long jaws may allow it to sever the jaw musculature and disable or weaken its opponents weapon (always given it bites first of course). There are far more important superficial facial structures than one would think (maxillofacial arteries and nerves, temporal and masseter muscles), a devastating slicing btie to this area is not to be underestimated, and may actually be more dangerous than one tyrannosaur biting another one in this area (which evidently didn't cause fatal damage). So carcharodontosaurus may be better off at killing/disabling its opponent by face biting than another animal with just the same jaw design as T. rex, in other words, this is balanced since it gives both the ability to kill or incapacitate each other. Even if you don't think they would be a benefit, I cannot see what disadvantage the arms could be. I think the evolutionary trend towards enlarging the jaws and reducing the forelimbs is a sign of specialization of predation habits, not necessarily relevant to their use in a direct fight. However what we can see is that carcharodontosaurs probably (at least from what we found so far, tough it would be interesting to have a look at Maastrichtian Carcharodontosaurs in this regard) never reduced their forelimbs in a manner similar to Tyrannosaurines. Even in tyrannosaurs they are very strong, and the arms in carnosaurs are more massively constructed alltogether. They must have had some use. I still have this feeling the arms are an underrated factor, tough not among the most important advantages. |
![]() |
|
| Big G | Jun 26 2013, 09:58 PM Post #682 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, C. iguidensis is smaller than Tyrannosaurus. Only C. saharicus is larger, but in this figth is C. iguidensis. Easy win for Tyrannosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 26 2013, 10:09 PM Post #683 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But a Tyrannosaurus bite would as well damage the structures you mentioned (a lot of pressure on them would too easily destroy them). As Tyrant said, the bite maybe didn't kill the Tyrannosaurus, because it has a lot of blood in these structures. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 26 2013, 10:22 PM Post #684 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There would be no slicing motion and no similarly vast amount of sliced tissue involved, as the bite marks (which are punctures) show. Of course it too has this capability, just like carnosaurs can leave ghashes or bite through small bones, and has to have for feeding, but it is not comparable imo. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 26 2013, 10:33 PM Post #685 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Following points: -When both bite each other's face, both would have the other's jaw in their grip, this would limit motions and therefore it would get harder to use slicing motions. -Tyrannosaurus could too use a puncture-pull strategy (you know that this isn't just suggested, but we also have bite marks, which indicate that strategy). -Crushers can cause very bloody wounds as well, every macropredator has to be able to do something like that. You know about the hyena example. Most of the mammalian carnivores are also rather adapted for puncturing, when compared to sharks or monitors, but they can slice: From "Wild Cats of the World". I would use mammalian carnivores as an analogy, because Tyrant has shown that Tyrannosaurus' teeth were much sharper than the ones of a crocodile and therefore I believe crocodiles are a bad analogy. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 26 2013, 10:54 PM Post #686 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is true. Mammalian predators are probably a better analogy for T. rex than crocodilians. -if Carcharodontosaurus bit its opponents face, it could also use a slicing (pull-) motion. I am not talking about a case where both somehow lock their jaws, in which case the carnosaurs skull may take fatal damage, at the same time likely still damaging the tyrannosaur's badly but not fatally. The carnosaur can incapacitate its opponent with a good bite to the face. If both bite each others faces at the same time, the tyrannosaur likely kills its opponent first and possibly takes enough damage to kill it afterwards, at least secondarily. However usually one will have the first bite, this is either the carcharodontosaurus: in this case it probably severs the facial structures, including the jaw musculature and renders the tyrannosaur helpless to finish it off. Or the tyrannosaur, in this case it probably crushes its opponent's skull. -Those bite marks are obviously no killing bites, but signs of feeding, the same applies to mammals when they use their carnassials. It needed powerful motions to rip flesh off after feeding, because it has to do this in any case. That doesn't mean this would/could be applied in a fight effectively. That some degree of bleeding would occur after more or less every bite is clear to me. however the efficiency with which an animal can damage soft tissues greatly depends on how easily its teeth rip through them. If they require a lot of force for it, it will go for the bones and be less apt at slicing the flesh. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 26 2013, 11:01 PM Post #687 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, except if Carcharodontosaurus manages to encase the Tyrannosaurus' upper and lower jaw, Tyrannosaurus is also going to get one of Carcharodontosaurus' jaws. For example when Carcharodontosaurus attacks the upper jaw. Tyrannosaurus can bite the lower jaw. When this happens, both will pretty much each other's jaw in their grip. As most mammalian carnivores (which we take as an analogy here) can also grapple with their mouth (which requires a strong grip), Carcharodontosaurus will have a hard time coming free. Not just wolves can grapple with their mouth, other carnivorans can do so too: I however agree that Tyrannosaurus may die afterwards. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 26 2013, 11:50 PM Post #688 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^If Carcharodontosaurus bites the upper jaw, it won't get bitten. I think you are having a different kind of face biting in mind, which I think is unlikely in relatively narrow, deep-skulled animals. I doubt their dorsoventral planes will be parallel, rather in a close-to 90° angle. I'm working on a comparison showing how I envision this. I agree, if bitten Carcharodontosaurus likely won't free itself. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 27 2013, 12:17 AM Post #689 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() I know, I should spend my time doing more useful, scientific stuff, shouldn't I? Anyway, i didn't have A or B in mind, since there is very little surface to attack in relatively narrow rostra like these, and it basically means putting your jaws into your opponents mouth. I don't consider the "kiss" scenario (C/D) very likely either. What I meant was G, F or E, in which case one gets a hold of the other's skull without putting its own skull into its opponents mouth. E) would pretty likely cause a fracure of the carnosaurss rostrum and decide the fight in favour of the tyrannosaur. G or F would probably sever T. rex' jaw musculature and facial arteries, leaving it to die or rendering it defenseless for a killing btie to the carotids or jugular. I did not suggest Face biting would be a strategy Carcharodontosaurus would be particularly good at, but it is imo sufficiently to not be outclassed even if this developes into a skull-bite-match, thanks to its long jaws and gape (in the above image it's 90°). |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 27 2013, 12:27 AM Post #690 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just as question, is the comparison above showing Tyrannosaurus' maximum gape? |
![]() |
|
| 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