| 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 (129,976 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: | |
|---|---|
| Megalosauroid | Nov 18 2013, 02:57 AM Post #751 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They were used to slice through fleshy prey, not bony theropod skulls, they are relatively weak compared to that of Sharks and not designed to bite through bony dinosaur skulls. They were still terribly powerful though. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 18 2013, 03:50 AM Post #752 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Shark teeth are designed for slicing too, so why are carnosaur skulls that much weaker then? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 18 2013, 04:03 AM Post #753 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you have any source for carcharodontosaur teeth being by comparison weaker than those of sharks, let alone less effective? No tv shows please, real evidence. There is plentyful evidence for carnosaurs leaving ghashmarks on large bones, so do extant analogous taxa, thus their teeth surely were not terribly fragile. Certainly they are not adapted for crushing big bones, but they don't need to be because in exchange they excell at exanguination. |
![]() |
|
| Megalosauroid | Nov 18 2013, 04:25 AM Post #754 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What Carnosaurs left when they bit bones was a small gash, and no Carcharodontosaurid bite marks have ever been found, only from Sinraptorids and Allosaurids but never from Carcharodontosaurids, Allosaurus is known to have more powerfully built teeth than Carcharodontosaurus because it was less specialized for Sauropods and more towards generalism. Sharks seem to have a completely different feeding strategy as seen here: ![]() ![]() Sharks shake their prey shattering and slicing, they target Seals which despite all the fat have a lot of bone. Carcharodontosaurids bite and slice fleshy sauropods using their powerful muscles, they dont need to touch a single bone. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 18 2013, 04:33 AM Post #755 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
???? Sauropods have bones, lots of them, large ones. Allosaurids left bite marks on the bones of sauropods, supposedly while either feeding on them or hunting them. Their teeth are very similar in morphology, those of Carcharodontosaurids are merely relatively longer and allometrically thicker. The action of a shark shaking something and a carcharodontosaur pulling on it is pretty much the same, due to the different jaw shape and tooth orientation, and of course it would saw through or break a small bone (like a seal's) in its way in both. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 18 2013, 05:37 AM Post #756 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Or simply because there is a lot better fossil record of Allosaurus. We also know much more bite marks Tyrannosaurus bite marks than from of other tyrannosaurid, so what does this prove? |
![]() |
|
| Megalosauroid | Nov 18 2013, 11:53 AM Post #757 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sharks shake prey laterally, their skulls and teeth are built to resist craniolateral forces, an adaptation that animals with big bite forces have, Carcharodontosaurus has teeth that are adpated for a different strategy. PD: the teeth of Allosaurus are thicker side to side than the teeth of Carcharodontosaurus, and the skull seems to show a more generalist animal: ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Megalosauroid | Nov 18 2013, 12:03 PM Post #758 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is a good point, but the fact that Tyrannosaurus has more known bite marks is just because it has more powerfully built teeth than all of his relatives, even Tarbosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Nov 18 2013, 12:03 PM Post #759 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
True, they have different skulls and teeth, but they still have a lot similarities, and the killing method is thought to be the same, slicing whit their ziphodont dentition. The theropod bites, then pull backwards supporting the movements with strong neck muscles, adapted for the purpose. If you dislinke the shark comparison, you can think about komodo dragons, but note that varanids don't usually bite each other in intraspecific competition, while we have evidence for allosauroids to fight each other trough face-biting. Bites aren't better or worse, have just different purposes and mechanisms. |
![]() |
|
| Megalosauroid | Nov 19 2013, 06:01 AM Post #760 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is True |
![]() |
|
| Vodmeister | Apr 8 2014, 08:11 AM Post #761 |
![]()
Ultimate Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That would explain its favoritism over Spino but not Carcha. Fact is, carcha had a pretty beastly bite of its own, and it was larger than Rex plus build quite similarly. |
![]() |
|
| Superpredator | Apr 8 2014, 08:16 AM Post #762 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Carchara had a slicing bite not a crushing bite though |
![]() |
|
| spinosaurus rex | Apr 8 2014, 08:28 AM Post #763 |
![]()
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
um, any theropod with a skull as large as carcharodontosaurus would have a bone crushing bite force. just not at the same calabir as tyrannosaurus. in my mind, this is around a 50/50 match up. of course though, carcharodontosaurus jaws and detition is more incline to a large gape and heavy lacerations above all else. the tyrannosaurus would be just as dead in the carnosaurs jaws as vice versa
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Apr 8 2014, 08:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Apr 8 2014, 08:34 AM Post #764 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It wasn't necessarily larger, it is too fragmentary so we don't know how big it really was, but most estimates are around the same size as Tyrannosaurus rex. We don't know about how robustly built it was either, and its foe's bite is just beastlier. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Apr 8 2014, 08:38 AM Post #765 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He meant it as in its purpose, also any theropod will have a bone crushing bite force, but it will only be true to a certain extent. |
![]() |
|
| 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