Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jun 8 2012, 05:34 PM (129,977 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
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.

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image

_________________________________________________________________________________

Blue orca
 
Tyrannosaurs Rex vs Carcharodontosaurus
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Ustanak
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
The works where Giganotosaurus was stated heavier than T. rex are quite old, I've seen numerous others where rex was listed heavier (not by much as well).

That T. rex had more pneumatization is one thing, that this had a significant impact on its overall weight is another, that it was then lighter than Giganotosaurus is even more difficult. I was not targetting you by that post and good if you can live with Hartman's opinion (which I will favor over yours, you understand) but I always like to read comments of guys like broly disappointed of the results by Hartman and trying to show him by any mean he's wrong ! So much for the list of "ten theropods dethroning the king". B-)

Reastically, at the point we are, the only one quite surely surpassing Sue in weight is the larger Spinosaurus individual.
Edited by Ustanak, Jul 20 2013, 08:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
few things are really sure. If you trust Cau, perhaps no theropod will be heavier, but that doesn't mean we do. The point is that studies found the density of T. rex to be quite low, that this can evidently have significant impact on the weight in multi-tonne animals (0,8 va 0,9 or so), and should not be disregarded under the pretext that it won't have much impact, especially if you compare SGM-DIN 1 to sue for getting an impression of their respective species it would be better to assume it being bigger being the case, when that is clearly possible, if not probable.
I doubt the whole thing was made up by the authors, a 10%+ density difference is nothing you can just hypothetise in a study. Other studies show T. rex and sue in particular is very heavily pneumatised, I gave examples in different threads.

The works stating Giganotosaurus as heavier are numerous, and many of them only a few years old (you know were I gave the examples), but they probably don't matter much considering they lack methodology, just if you want to know what is usually acknowledged, which I know matters a lot to you.

Anyway, Carcharodontosaurus is problematic as regards size. It could be anywhere between the holotype of Giganotosaurus (6,5-6,7t) and the largest individual of Mapusaurus roseae (8,6-8,9t when scaling isometrically). Either way considering it's probably the only adult specimen and probably as big as sue if not bigger, it's more than far fetched not to say the species was likely bigger.

Or we may as well use a really small T. rex in this matchup, one weighing <4,5t.
Edited by theropod, Aug 9 2013, 05:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Since this is C.iguidensis T-rex crushes the smaller carnosaur but since this thread was made when people thought C.iguidensis was bigger we should use C. saharicus.
With C.saharicus I have heard the only one found was 13 metres long so this is a much closer fight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There is more than one C. saharicus specimen known. I think there are six (of which two got destroyed). The genoholotype seemingly was very small.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Oct 1 2013, 01:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Makaveli7
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Tough call. From known specimens, C. saharicus seems to be bigger than the average T. rex. However, even a 10-11m Tyrannosaurus beats C. iguadensius. Saharicus would challenge even the biggest Tyrannosaurus but iguadensius is screwed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Oct 1 2013, 01:49 AM
There is more than one C. saharicus specimen known. I think there are six (of which two got destroyed). The genoholotype seemingly was very small.
There are many very fragmentary specimens (mostly isolated teeth and vertebrae) that were never estimated.
For the holotype we know it´s probably about Acrocanthosaurus-sized (smaller than the largest known A. atokensis)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Is that based on Acrocanthosaurus proportions?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes. The specimen would be even smaller than that when scaling it down from a big-skulled Giganotosaurus. But going by the cranial and femoral size, it more closely aligns with Acrocanthosaurus anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
A 50/50. Both can kill each other, as both are equal in size and formidability.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't really want to revive this match, I just needed a place where both animals were discussed.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2008/11/arctometatarsalian-week-quinta-parte-ai.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

In the end of the post, Cau confronts this two animals, explaining that, while hunting, T. rex was actually specialised in agility, and Carcharodontosaurus in stability.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Agility and stability are very hard to separate in a large biped, in fact agility depends on both stability and maneuverability, so the former is already half the battle.

I don't know where in that reasoning the assertion of increased agility has it's place, it could just be necessary to catch prey with higher top speed (Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians). Hunting sauropods is not a task that doesn't require agility, it just doesn't require to engage prey in fast races, neither was Gondwana free of ornithopods (both small ones like Leallynasaura, a possible prey to neovenatorids, and larger iguanodonts) at that time which in any case would require agility and a fair amount of speed to catch.

The actual application of the arctometatarsus in enhancing agility is untested and as of now apparently untestable as well.
There are extant taxa with analogous structures (tarsometatarsus of aves, fused metatarsals of artiodactyls, or even simply elongate pes of cursorial carnivorans), and they do not seem to have enhanced maneuverability, ignoring the factor of running speed, they are, simply and plainly, an adaption towards cursoriality. These also are more elongate and less kinetic than the feet of less cursorial animals.

However I'd be interested in seeing whether Tyrannosaurs and carnosaurs really have greatly different femoral heads.
Edited by theropod, Oct 25 2013, 04:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Probably he was referring to running speed. The italian word "agilità" is probably a bit different from "agility", at least this is my impression when I read discussions here. I think you should ask him about your doubts, it could be nice to share his responses here. Anyway, he wrote at least other four posts about arctometatarsus, maybe you could find them clarifying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Whether true or not, it would make sense. Stability when hunting large sauropods is pretty convenient, whilst agility whilst hunting prey that flees is too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Fishfreak
Jun 11 2012, 02:09 PM
DinosaurMichael
Jun 8 2012, 08:39 PM
Tyrannosaurus Rex due to more powerful bite, and more robust body. Not to mention it's the most advanced Theropod.
Agreed. Also I think Rex was slightly more intelligent, even though it won't help much.
Being intelligent in those fights doesn't matter because you are talking about dinosaurs, not humans. They can't think like humans which means that doesn't matter at all. I would say this is a close fight because both dinosaur weighed nearly the same and that makes both of them the same size. I would favour Tyrannosaurus rex in this fight though, although it's a close match. Tyrannosaurus was bulkier and had monstruous jaws, which are some of the reasons why I would favour T. rex here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharodontosaurus had monstrous jaws too...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.