| 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 (129,974 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: | |
|---|---|
| Vobby | Apr 10 2014, 12:40 AM Post #781 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's nice how I have the impression that both the two of us perfectly know the other's answer in these kind of bites comparisons. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 10 2014, 01:45 AM Post #782 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very good to prevent misunderstandings--unless one of us posts something unexpected! |
![]() |
|
| vegetarian | May 30 2014, 12:53 AM Post #783 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
50/50 |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 24 2014, 01:40 AM Post #784 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyannosaurus hunted large ceratopsians as the upper bound in terms of prey size. Although genera like triceratops and torosaurus were considerably heavier and bulkier, tyrannosaurus was, quite simply, much taller due to its bipedal nature. Thus its gape would still not matter too much as long as it bit behind the frill (neck). If the allosaur had a huge size advantage, tyrannosaurus could not really bite anywhere that would be fatal unless it could get its neck, as it simply lacked the cutting ability in its tooth and jaw structure as carcharodontosaurus had. At parity, I would almost always favor a tyrannosaurid over a carcharodontosaurid, but if the latter had a good size advantage the tyrannosaurus would not be able to fatally bite it anywhere aside from the neck |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 24 2014, 03:10 AM Post #785 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why? |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 24 2014, 04:41 AM Post #786 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Build- a more gracile and far weaker-built animal would be thrown around quite easily by something far stronger and more heavily-built (or at least to an extent). Tyrannosaurus was well adapted for hunting animals smaller than itself to say the least (crushing morphology implies a greater capacity at THIS sort of predation than more gigantophagous behavior) and could overpower carcharodontosaurus if they were the same size (not to mention how the latter would not be nearly as adept at biting its opposer's skull or limbs), or at least cause massive amounts of skeletal damage to it without too much effort. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 24 2014, 05:02 AM Post #787 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Far weaker-built"? "Thrown around quite easily"? First of all, being able to use such an advantage requires the tyrannosaur to even get in a bite. Secondly, that is a humungous exageration and overgeneralization. Both groups have their mass focused in different regions (since most of Carcharodontosaurus’ postcranium is unknown I have to speak in general terms here), merely that T. rex has a thicker torso doesn’t make it "far stronger". In fact, saying greater mass relative to lenght automatically equals greater strenght is flat wrong. It can, but only if this leads to a greater concentration of bulk in the relevant muscle mass, which is actually not the case here–the difference mostly the result of a difference in torso width. In fact, the limb morphology of carcharodontosaurs is better suited for stability and strenght (through greater proximal lever arms and a greater amount of distal musculature), as opposed to running efficiency in tyrannosaurs (the comparison is like that between a felid and a canid in that regard). Doing "massive amounts of skeletal damage" would be unnecessary, and yes, a bite to the skull or limbs by the carnosaur would be quite deadly, as are those of komodo dragons. A skull bite will cause massive bleeding and probably damage to important musculature, effectively weakening or incapacitating the bite. A bite to the limbs will also cause blood loss, and damage the tendons and musculature, which will have an immediate immobilising effect. Most likely however, they will both try to bite the neck, which results in death either way, Carcharodontosaurus has greater odds of biting it first, simply because it has greater reach and a lighter skull (which pretty much equals being a quicker striker). |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 24 2014, 01:23 PM Post #788 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I realize this. Nonetheless a carnosaur is not necessarily built for "powerful" killing, and especially an allosaurid could be thrashed quite easily.
It probably is...
I never said that "greater mass in relation to overall length" meant that said animal was stronger... Just that it is quite evident that tyrannosaurids were very strongly-built animals which most likely were quite heavily-muscled (at least around the cranium, this would anchor such powerful biting). Allosaurs would rely much less on direct and brute force to kill prey (tyrannosaurus could have very well used overpowering as a possible killing method), and would instead be rather specific in where they bite (a bite to a creature's back/neck regin would be most deadly).
Tyrannosaurids undoubtedly still possessed very thick and powerful hind legs! Canids have very slim and rather gracile limbs that serve little purpose aside from locomotion, so that is a poor analogy.
That is most likely how tyrannosaurids killed... Their dentition is not designed for causing damage to wider, fleshy regions which is pretty much the opposite case for the other theropod here.
Probably not as deadly as you make it out to be. Actual skull damage would be attributed to high, blunt forces, even if a bite to the head could still cause a good deal of tissue-related tearing. Allosaurs most likely targeted regions posterior to the skull, while Komodo dragons are a poor analogy in terms of killing methodology (morphologically, they seem to be similar), as they likely would attack limbs most often (because they are low-to-the-ground, cold-blooded quadrupeds)
But also note that carcharodontosaurid skulls have been known to be proportionally much larger relative to body size than those of tyrannosaurids. Sure, it will nonetheless be a lighter structure and have greater reach, but this does not seem to mean much Edited by The Reptile, Jun 24 2014, 01:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 24 2014, 09:26 PM Post #789 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is built for powerful killing. It just isn't built for powerful biting, that's a big difference. There would be nothing easy about "thrashing" such an animal. In fact, at similar body mass (emphasis on body mass, in case you are using some outlandish definition of size) it is entirely up to debate which creaturewould be the one that gets thrashed. But that is basically what you are talking about when referring to tyrannosaurid robusticity. That is true for allosaurs as well. The opposite is true, tyrannosaurids would be more specific in where they bit. The allosaur can bite almost anywhere. The force applied in an allosaur bite would also be tremendous, but unlike in the tyrannosaur, the downward-component would be the less important part. But it most likely is not how allosaurs killed.
Actually, both have very large proximal limb musculature, while it is the distal parts of the limbs that are slender, in both canids and tyrannosaurs. That's makes them fairly good morphological analogues, the morphology of both is distinctly cursorial, much more so compared to carnosaurs or cats whose limbs are more generalized and rather made to provide stability and grappling ability. Which can be just as dangerous. You have not explained how exactly abite relying on blunt(er) force would provide an advantage overall as compared to the slicing and tearing bite of the allosaur. They are not a good analogy in terms of locomotion and the preferences that result from it, but they are a good analogue in terms of the capabilities of their bites. Longer, but far narrower. Hence, greater reach, but smaller weight. Edited by theropod, Jun 24 2014, 09:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jun 24 2014, 11:47 PM Post #790 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Powerful killing would be in terms of using forceful killing tactics. For the most part, allosaurs were adept at handily ripping flesh, but certainly not using such force to overpower prey.
It is an irrelevant argument though, as different groups of dinosaurs possessed different tail lengths. Allosaurs were not all that heavily-built, at least skull-wise.
I know, but the extent is unknown. Surely they would need a vast amount of musculature (specifically in the neck) to be able to kill quickly, but is there any denying that tyrannosaurids were simply better adapted to kill powerfully? I think not
A tyrannosaurid would be capable of dealing massive amounts of damage to the allosaur's skull and limbs as well as its dorsum (as long as the vertebrae/spinal cord was damaged heavily). Whereas the latter, while certainly very damaging if a limb or skull bite were to occur, would not cause nearly as much damage if it happened to target either of those areas: its teeth were not designed for crushing and would merely tear off the flesh in those regions (whether or not it came in big portions...). Maybe I should clarify; when I said "specific" I meant in terms of general biting area, not more specific areas such as the back, neck, flanks, etc. Both animals have their ideal "biting spots", and for tyrannosaurus it would be able to cause massive amounts of trauma if it were to land a good bite on its opponent's skull, limbs, or back/neck. Whereas carcharodontosaurus' bite would be super effective mainly if it were to attack tyrannosaurus' flanks or back/neck. Having a bite designed for slashing does not make you any more ideal for killing than one designed for crushing/impaction.
True, I do not deny this. But for the most part, killing is going to be done with simple backward pulling to tear intense amounts of tissue apart and cause notorious amounts of blood loss. Surely though, the actual downward impact itself would be very devastating, even if that is not how allosaurs were designed to kill necessarily.
Can I have evidence of this?
As I said, this rather relies on the placement of the actual biting at hand. Whereas crushing bites can effectively "tear" through bone material (whether it be attacking the skull, limbs, or vertebrae) as long as the jaws have great enough power and leverage, those designed for slicing are better adapted for attacking fleshy regions and causing massive wounds (thus this seems to be the reason why tyrannosaurids supposedly did not evolve as obtuse of gapes as allosaurs, because the latter was better designed for attacking flanks but at the same time lacked the skull robusticity and seemingly the bite force of the former)
I already acknowledged that
While being narrower would certainly grant it greater "striking capability", it does not seem likely that it would have affected the structure too much, at least in relation to how much lighter-built carcharodontosaurus' skull was than tyrannosaurus. Also note that a narrower skull that is fundamentally more fragile cannot be used in the same generalized "directions" (and instead is only adapted for dorsoventral motion) Edited by The Reptile, Jun 24 2014, 11:47 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 24 2014, 11:59 PM Post #791 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() ![]() I believe this fight can go either way. Edited by Ausar, Jun 25 2014, 12:01 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 25 2014, 05:45 AM Post #792 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At slicing flesh, but also at powerful cranial depression and pulling. The difference is merely in bite force. Of course they would not "overpower prey" with their bite, that’s not just impossible but unnecessary with such teeth and jaw design. The point being? Since when does skull robusticity equal how powerful the whole animal was? That depends on what you call "kill powerfully". If, like above, it is nothing but bite force, then the answer is obviously no. But that isn’t an advantage. Which I have a hard tiome imagining it to even reach. Why not? Merely? Last time I checked Komodo dragons can do way more damage with single bites to the limb than crocodiles or carnivorans with much higher bite forces. You where the one who claimed having a bite designed for crushing was more ideal. And how is that a bad thing or not related to force? The evidence is all over the place. Compare descriptions of carnosaurian and tyrannosaurid limb bones (for example in The Dinosauria). While it is readily apparent tyrannosaurids have the proportionally (perhaps even absolutely) bigger tighs, the distal elements in carnosaurs are consistently described as more robust, and more kinetic in the case of the metatarsal. Also as a matter of facts the distal elements of tyrannosaurs are proportionally longer. Cursorial animals tend to have more extensive fusion between the metatarsals (easily observable in deer, ratites, and clearly als) and reduced fibulae, and generally more gracile distal limb skeletons, with little distal and lots of proximal musculature. That condition is far more marked in tyrannosaurs than in carnosaurs. In a fight, that certainly isn’t an advantage, if not even a disadvantage. wel, that’s the important part. Why then did you start talking about locomotion and metabolism? What are you getting at? a carnosaur doesn’t have to apply major loads to its skull in lateral direction, and it doesn’t have to use torsion. It can do huge amounts of damage by using depression and pulling. So how do you see it being Thrashed around, or its bite being less effective? Don’t get what you mean by the bolded part. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Sep 4 2014, 09:00 PM Post #793 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Can i joy the debate ? Where should i even start ?
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Sep 4 2014, 10:04 PM Post #794 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, where would you like to start (and where did you you stop the last time?)? |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Sep 4 2014, 11:45 PM Post #795 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Crushing bite vs slicing bite i guess So let start with this anyway There ain't certain way to say which bite is more superior to the other. They're evolved for different purpose and adaptation. Carcharodontosaurus slicing bite is for giant Sauropod, delivering several slashing bites until the preys slowly die from blood lost, shock and infection. T-rex crushing bite gains maximum efficiency against similar size but well-armed and well armored herbivores such as Ankylosaur or Ceratopsidae. Carcharodontosaurus = similar size, well-armed opponent. T-rex clearly has the edge here, plus T-rex can use its robust skull to ram into Carchar and knock it over, no need to bite here. I'm sure you have seen T-rex survived with much worse wounds than just flesh wounds. Sure, if Carchar delivers enough bites, Rex may die later through blood lost, but i don't see how Carchar could do that, T-rex is definitely not that slow and sluggish. Carchar is still a very formidable predator. Rexy just win by luck because he was evolved differently, under different pressure which turn out to be an advantage for him in this interspecific conflict. To be fair, large predators normally avoid each other and even when their is a conflict, they usually try to intimidate and lure each other away instead of "a fight to the death" actually
|
![]() |
|
| 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)




Where should i even start ?
2:22 AM Jul 14