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 (129,973 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Your premise seems to be that "flesh wounds" are less deadly to a similar-sized animal than wounds which damage bones.
In fact they are not, everything you can achieve by crushing you can also achieve by slicing through flesh.

You can live with a punctured skull or even a broken neck if you are lucky enough to not sustain any damage to your brain or spinal chord in the process (which we know from T. rex), and of course you can live with a flesh wound that happens to miss everything vital. You can not live with a cut throat, just as much as you can’t live with a punctured brain, at least not for more than a minute or so (in which the animal obviously won’t be doing anything terribly exciting except for bleeding, bleeding and even more bleeding–and probably struggling to keep its head up since its neck musculature would be severely damaged too).
That animals many times their size would die slowly from a Carcharodontosaur bite does in no way imply similar-sized animals would too.

The crushing bite is an advantage not for similar-sized prey per-se, just for the very bony (ceratopsian with giant head, horns and frill) or armoured (ankylosaur with osteoderms) variant that gives you inferior chances if you rely on biting fleshy areas as opposed to biting bony ones. Otherwise Komodo dragons and Great white sharks would have crushing bites (Because guess what? Their mulluscivorous/durophagous relatives have crushing bites! So if this was an advantage for them one would expect them to be able to develop the same.).

T. rex is not armoured, and nobody would seriously suggest that a Carcharodontosaurus’ bite could not easily cause fatal injuries on many regions of its body, at least as easily as the reverse.

Oh, and is there any (even the slightest) of suggestion that any tyrannosaur used its head to engage in any kind of ramming behaviour? In what situation exactly would you even see it doing that?
For an animal without specific adaptions, powerful headbutting is very dangerous, especially if it is this large. There’s a reason bighorn sheep and pachycephalosaur have very specialized skull structures for this purpose, and they are both far smaller than an adult T. rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
That is an interesting point about bighorn sheep and pachycephalosaurs; I never thought about that. Certainly, tyrannosaurus would have had far more luck using head-butting than carcharodontosaurus ever would, but I have never thought about the comparison to animals specially designed for head-based combat.

But what I think he was claiming was that carcharodontosaurus' "bite" in general is highly specialized for attacking sauropods, which is true for basically all allosaurs. Tyrannosaurids became the dominant terrestrial predators just as titanosaurs were becoming more isolated (there were a few genera during the Late Cretaceous, but if I remember correctly, they were still far more numerous during the earlier time periods when carcharodontosaurids thrived; hence the specialization). So really, both apparata are definitely capable of creating fatal wounds to other dinosaurs, but each skull and tooth morphology has its benefits and disadvantages; and each one was evolved to cope with different prey types.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My point was that no animal not specially adapted is likely to do it, especially if it is this large. The risk of injury would be far too big (and, to top it all, bipedal). It doesn’t matter whether T. rex or Carcharodontosaurus would be better suited for it, because neither would attempt it.

Allosaurs are a far more diverse clade than you give them credit for, and as I recall to have pointed out earlier they are by no means all that "specialized" in sauropods. Sauropods simply constituted their most important food source, just like the kind of armoured herbivore we know from T. rex’ ecosystem was the most important for it. But this did not require particular specialization beyond the adaptions you always see in macrophagous animals (larger, more robust heads and necks, more powerful limbs etc.), the basal condition of Allosauria already had the key features necessary.
These do not mean they had any functional need to prey on sauropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oh no I definitely agree that there is diversity among pretty much all animal groups, whether prehistoric or modern. But that does not necessarily make allosaurs THAT much different, at least to the extent where it would matter.

As for specialization in sauropods, well allosaurs were STILL better designed for predating on large animals than tyrannosaurids were. Even if their morphology was not evolved to kill sauropods firsthand, that doesn't make them as well adapted as tyrannosaurids for it. Still consider what we know about them, not where these features came from.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You seem to contradict yourself in that post. Allosaurs are certainly better designed for preying on saropods than tyrannosaurids are, which you acknowledge just to write that something didn't make them as well adapted as tyrannosaurids for it.

My point wasn't that there were no dietary specializations among these two groups, there certainly were, and Carcharodontosaurs certainly fed on sauropods to a large extend. but that doesn't mean these animals were either in some way specialized that they were not still capable generalist predators. You can see that in extant predators,they certainly do prefer certain types of prey, but they also hunt various other species and are fully suitable for it.

Namely, carcharodontosaurian jaws would be very effective against any similar.sized or smaller, unarmoured animal, and so would those of tyrannosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
You seem to contradict yourself in that post. Allosaurs are certainly better designed for preying on saropods than tyrannosaurids are, which you acknowledge just to write that something didn't make them as well adapted as tyrannosaurids for it.

I wasn't necessarily saying that they didn't evolve those characteristics for a reason, just that they still possessed them even if that was out of the question. Get what I'm saying? I completely agree that those features were most likely evolved to cope with sauropods, but even if that was not the case (and the features were still present), the idea that allosaurs were better designed for killing sauropods still holds true.

Quote:
 
You can see that in extant predators,they certainly do prefer certain types of prey, but they also hunt various other species and are fully suitable for it.

Well yes, but opportunism does not have to come from "generalized feeding features". That is like saying that spinosaurids could not kill dinosaurs because they were clearly evolved to hunt fish, saying that sea otters cannot hunt fish because their molars are designed for crushing shellfish (http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Sotter/sotter_lat.jpg), or that humans cannot eat meat because we are clearly designed for herbivory.

Quote:
 
Namely, carcharodontosaurian jaws would be very effective against any similar.sized or smaller, unarmoured animal, and so would those of tyrannosaurs.

Of course, but the difference is how effectively they can be used
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I wasn't necessarily saying that they didn't evolve those characteristics for a reason, just that they still possessed them even if that was out of the question. Get what I'm saying? I completely agree that those features were most likely evolved to cope with sauropods, but even if that was not the case (and the features were still present), the idea that allosaurs were better designed for killing sauropods still holds true.
We seem to be talking at cross purposes.

It was you who stated carcharodontosaur bites were sp specialized for hunting sauropods:
Quote:
 
But what I think he was claiming was that carcharodontosaurus' "bite" in general is highly specialized for attacking sauropods, which is true for basically all allosaurs.


But I think you can’t really say that it was that specialized, since many of the features which would enable it to attack sauropods are actually basal tetanuran traits (oreninrostry, ziphodonty…), it simply did not reduce them.
Now, the actual point was that verdogu thinks this would give Carcharodontosaurus a disadvantage when facing a similar-sized opponent. My point is that that’s not the case, features well-suited for attacking giant prey aren’t any less effective on smaller opponents as long as those don’t display any features that would require different adaptions (like armour for example). I have provided examples already. Komodo dragons prey on goat and boar most of the time, even though they are apt at bringing down water buffalo because they have the necessary bite. Great white sharks should be expected to mainly prey on large whales based on the logic that that’s what they are best suited for, but in fact they mainly feed on pinnipeds and small odontocetes.
Last time I checked no theropod has anything that could be called armour, and we are talking about a confrontation between two theropods

Quote:
 
Well yes, but opportunism does not have to come from "generalized feeding features". That is like saying that spinosaurids could not kill dinosaurs because they were clearly evolved to hunt fish, saying that sea otters cannot hunt fish because their molars are designed for crushing shellfish (http://www.skullsite.co.uk/Sotter/sotter_lat.jpg), or that humans cannot eat meat because we are clearly designed for herbivory.
Humans are not clearly designed for herbivory, that’s a myth created by radical vegetarians.
We are built for an omnivorous diet compromising nutritious plantmatter (fruit, roots etc.) and meat.

All of this seems to be besides the point though. All I was referring to were features of the jaw apparatus and what kind of behaviour they are suited for.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Namely, carcharodontosaurian jaws would be very effective against any similar.sized or smaller, unarmoured animal, and so would those of tyrannosaurs.

Of course, but the difference is how effectively they can be used
What difference? How effectively they can be used was the thing I was expressing in the sentence you replied to: very effectively for both of them!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
It was you who stated carcharodontosaur bites were sp specialized for hunting sauropods

I know, but I was saying that, even if they weren't EVOLVED to hunt sauropods (which they probably were in the first place), they would still be better adapted for it as long as the same features were present. Get what I'm saying?

Quote:
 
But I think you can’t really say that it was that specialized, since many of the features which would enable it to attack sauropods are actually basal tetanuran traits (oreninrostry, ziphodonty…), it simply did not reduce them.

Well yea but it is taking those features to a new level, if that makes any sense. Were similar theropods as well adapted for killing big animals because they had similar dentition? Not always, as gape and prey coexistence also means a lot.

Quote:
 
Humans are not clearly designed for herbivory, that’s a myth created by radical vegetarians.
We are built for an omnivorous diet compromising nutritious plantmatter (fruit, roots etc.) and meat.

Primates should still be considered more ideal for crushing plant matter than anything, as they do not possess the well-suited sheering molars of carnivorans (which are known as carnassials).

Quote:
 
What difference? How effectively they can be used was the thing I was expressing in the sentence you replied to: very effectively for both of them!

A tyrannosaurid's bite is pretty much only suited for impaling and crushing as opposed to slicing, whereas the allosaur was not nearly as well adapted for that despite having capabilities for killing smaller animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I know, but I was saying that, even if they weren't EVOLVED to hunt sauropods (which they probably were in the first place), they would still be better adapted for it as long as the same features were present. Get what I'm saying?

I get every single word of it, what I don’t get is the connections. why "still", if you suggest they evolved for it in the first place?

Quote:
 
Well yea but it is taking those features to a new level, if that makes any sense. Were similar theropods as well adapted for killing big animals because they had similar dentition? Not always, as gape and prey coexistence also means a lot.
Err, yes, actually theropods with similar teeth likely had similar feeding style and prey preferences.

Quote:
 
Primates should still be considered more ideal for crushing plant matter than anything, as they do not possess the well-suited sheering molars of carnivorans (which are known as carnassials).
Great white sharks don’t have carnassials, does that make them adapted for herbivory? Humans are not herbivores, that’s frankly a ridiculous claim. Human dentitions are built for a generalist diet, But they have to do less work at mastication of both plant and animal tissues because we augment them with tools, hence they are relatively weak compared to both herbivorous and carnivorous dentitions of similar size.
Have a look at what the dentition of a herbivorous primate looks like and compare it to ours!
Quote:
 

A tyrannosaurid's bite is pretty much only suited for impaling and crushing as opposed to slicing, whereas the allosaur was not nearly as well adapted for that despite having capabilities for killing smaller animals.
So? That does not contradict what I wrote. I stated that carnosaur bites, just like those of tyrannosaurs, would have been very effective against any unarmoured animal of similar or smaller body size. What does how well-adapted for slicing they are have to do with it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Sep 9 2014, 07:26 AM
Great white sharks don’t have carnassials, does that make them adapted for herbivory? Humans are not herbivores, that’s frankly a ridiculous claim. Human dentitions are built for a generalist diet, But they have to do less work at mastication of both plant and animal tissues because we augment them with tools, hence they are relatively weak compared to both herbivorous and carnivorous dentitions of similar size.
Have a look at what the dentition of a herbivorous primate looks like and compare it to ours!
Again a little nitpick, less mastication is relative. When it comes to plant tissue, yes. When it comes to animal tissue, no. Most meat eaters don't chew their food so much anyway, so we probably are pretty active chewers in the animal tissue category.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I mean as compared to out immediate predecessors and relatives. Compared to carnivores which don’t really chew that’s true (those have strong jaws for killing, not chewing), but it’s about how much we have to use our jaws in order to be able to eat something.
Chimps certainly have to chew more than we do when eating meat, they don’t cook it and don’t use tools for preprocessing it. The same applies to plantmatter, hence chimps have much more robust jaws and dentition than we do.
Edited by theropod, Sep 9 2014, 11:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
I get every single word of it, what I don’t get is the connections. why "still", if you suggest they evolved for it in the first place?

Because it is supposed to indicate that it would still be as well adapted as long as the features were still present, even if they didn't evolve for it in the first place.

Quote:
 
Err, yes, actually theropods with similar teeth likely had similar feeding style and prey preferences.

Not always, but a good chunk of the time this holds true. Are ceratosaurs going to be killing diplodocids within the 10+ ton range just because their teeth were recurved and serrated? Probably not if they did not possess the same jaw-opening capabilities as allosaurus and its closest kin.

Quote:
 
Great white sharks don’t have carnassials, does that make them adapted for herbivory?

Carnassials are present in mammals only
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I had to do this.
Posted Image
"They used microcomputed tomography to construct three-dimensional images of the skull and to show how the jaws would have moved in the living animal. This revealed that the teeth had developed into forms strikingly similar to those seen in modern mammals — and very different from the simple conical pegs found in all crocodiles and alligators today. In particular, there were molar-like teeth that met together, providing two parallel shearing edges to slice food, just like those of a modern carnivore."
Source
Edited by Ausar, Sep 11 2014, 07:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Not always, but a good chunk of the time this holds true. Are ceratosaurs going to be killing diplodocids within the 10+ ton range just because their teeth were recurved and serrated? Probably not if they did not possess the same jaw-opening capabilities as allosaurus and its closest kin.

Ceratosaurus’ teeth are pretty different from those of Allosaurus. They are ziphodont, but both proportionately larger and more elongated (maxillary crown height/crown base width ratio of 4.5 vs 3.8 in Allosaurus, and crowns longer than dentary depth versus notedly short ones).

The teeth of these two obviously don’t function the same way, starting with very long teeth being a hindrance to having a large gape.

Besides a Ceratosaurus isn’t going to be killing "10+ ton" diplodocids simply because it is too small (largest specimen is about the size of a subadult/young adult Allosaurus) and there’s no indication whatsoever that it employed gregarious behaviour.

Quote:
 
Carnassials are present in mammals only
Technically that’s true (even though ausar has a point), but I don’t see the relevance. Not having carnassials doesn’t automatically mean an adaption for herbivory. Humans are not exclusive herbivores, neither were they built to be, saying so would be just plain silly.
Edited by theropod, Sep 12 2014, 10:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
"They used microcomputed tomography to construct three-dimensional images of the skull and to show how the jaws would have moved in the living animal. This revealed that the teeth had developed into forms strikingly similar to those seen in modern mammals — and very different from the simple conical pegs found in all crocodiles and alligators today. In particular, there were molar-like teeth that met together, providing two parallel shearing edges to slice food, just like those of a modern carnivore."

So? What does this prove? This is just one genus. And besides, these aren't true molars or canines, just molariforme and caniniforme dentition, which is common in archosaurs.

Quote:
 
Ceratosaurus’ teeth are pretty different from those of Allosaurus. They are ziphodont, but both proportionately larger and more elongated (maxillary crown height/crown base width ratio of 4.5 vs 3.8 in Allosaurus, and crowns longer than dentary depth versus notedly short ones).
Quote:
 

Not that different. They were still recurved, laterally compressed to an extent, and serrated in spite of the uppermost ones being longer.

Quote:
 
The teeth of these two obviously don’t function the same way, starting with very long teeth being a hindrance to having a large gape.

Exactly, which is why animals having similar-shaped teeth do not automatically possess all of the ideal hunting characteristics needed for killing large sauropods.

Quote:
 
Besides a Ceratosaurus isn’t going to be killing "10+ ton" diplodocids simply because it is too small (largest specimen is about the size of a subadult/young adult Allosaurus) and there’s no indication whatsoever that it employed gregarious behaviour.

Actually its size is one thing, but its skull and tooth combination is another. A wide gape and ability to tear out large chunks of flesh is what allowed allosaurus to kill sauropods BECAUSE it was going to be much smaller than almost every sauropods that it would be hunting. Small size + lack of specialization =/= a high capacity to kill something so large.

Quote:
 
Technically that’s true (even though ausar has a point),

Read my first quoted response

Quote:
 
but I don’t see the relevance. Not having carnassials doesn’t automatically mean an adaption for herbivory. Humans are not exclusive herbivores, neither were they built to be, saying so would be just plain silly.

Well no, but primates seem to exercise herbivorous behavior much more-so than carnivorous; they are omnivores, yet they seem to only hunt other vertebrates rarely (and some, like gorillas, NEVER do this)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.