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 (129,970 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Neither would "kill outright" with a skull bite, and slicing teeth aren’t the most important factor there–most animals don’t use skull bites for killing, and those that do target the braincase very precisely, in a way that’s impossible here.
Both could however quickly disable their opponent with a skull bite. Alternatively, a throat or nape bite would be what most predators would actually attempt to bite if they wanted to kill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Yeah i would have to say that T-Rex would take the cake here even though I love me them african dinos.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
T.rex could definitely kill it outright with a neck bite since it can bite through the thick frill of a triceratops, what's a relatively gracile carcharodontosaurine neck gonna do to its bite? At equal weight it's 70-30 T.Rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 9 2014, 10:36 AM
T.rex could definitely kill it outright with a neck bite since it can bite through the thick frill of a triceratops, what's a relatively gracile carcharodontosaurine neck gonna do to its bite? At equal weight it's 70-30 T.Rex.
Carcharodontosaurines have no need for a strong bite force, they have a completely different dentition specialized for slicing. A bite to a tyrannosaurus neck is going cause massive tearing wounds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Think frill my @$$ that thing is extraordinarily brittle compared to many other things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Ceratodromeus
Nov 9 2014, 10:51 AM
bone crusher
Nov 9 2014, 10:36 AM
T.rex could definitely kill it outright with a neck bite since it can bite through the thick frill of a triceratops, what's a relatively gracile carcharodontosaurine neck gonna do to its bite? At equal weight it's 70-30 T.Rex.
Carcharodontosaurines have no need for a strong bite force, they have a completely different dentition specialized for slicing. A bite to a tyrannosaurus neck is going cause massive tearing wounds.
Sure, I'm not ignoring the massive slicing damage carchy can do to T.rex's neck, the bite could potentially cause mass blood loss and be fatal afterwards, but not instantly in a fight. A bone crushing bite however would kill you in an instant no questions asked. So for the sake of a fight, T.rex wins the match but both could die afterwards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jiggly Aegypticus
Nov 9 2014, 12:58 PM
Think frill my @$$ that thing is extraordinarily brittle compared to many other things.
Where'd you pull this from? Triceratops is known for possessing a thick frill unlike many other ceratopsids.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 9 2014, 02:37 PM
Ceratodromeus
Nov 9 2014, 10:51 AM
bone crusher
Nov 9 2014, 10:36 AM
T.rex could definitely kill it outright with a neck bite since it can bite through the thick frill of a triceratops, what's a relatively gracile carcharodontosaurine neck gonna do to its bite? At equal weight it's 70-30 T.Rex.
Carcharodontosaurines have no need for a strong bite force, they have a completely different dentition specialized for slicing. A bite to a tyrannosaurus neck is going cause massive tearing wounds.
Sure, I'm not ignoring the massive slicing damage carchy can do to T.rex's neck, the bite could potentially cause mass blood loss and be fatal afterwards, but not instantly in a fight. A bone crushing bite however would kill you in an instant no questions asked. So for the sake of a fight, T.rex wins the match but both could die afterwards.
It’s not true that bone-crushing bites are fatal instantly.
As far as this confrontation is concerned, they are both going to have the same consequences if they bite the neck.
Both are going to incapacitate instantly and kill within short amounts of time (within minutes).

Of course there can be no doubt a T. rex bite has the ability to crush the bones in a carcharodontosaurus neck, the same way that there can be no doubt a carcharodontosaurus bite has the ability to tear the musculature and blood vessels. It’s just that the former isn’t inherently superior to the latter as far as quick disabling or killing is concerned.
Edited by theropod, Nov 9 2014, 11:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't get this crushing bite vs slicing bite debate anyway. I don't think it matters much in this fight, if one of them bites the other in a vital area of the body it's most certainly over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
It's true both have the ability to end one another quickly if bitten on a critical region, I still believe a bone crushing bite is faster and more efficient unless show me proof otherwise. That said, the rest physical attributes all favors T.Rex for being more robust and bulkier built, barrel chest, much more heavily muscled neck and thighs. Likely faster or more agile, stereoscopic view for more precise bites. So statistically speaking one would favor T.Rex in a fight like how you bet a soccer match.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sleipnir
Member Avatar
Steed of the Deathless
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
50/50
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 10 2014, 10:47 AM
It's true both have the ability to end one another quickly if bitten on a critical region, I still believe a bone crushing bite is faster and more efficient unless show me proof otherwise. That said, the rest physical attributes all favors T.Rex for being more robust and bulkier built, barrel chest, much more heavily muscled neck and thighs. Likely faster or more agile, stereoscopic view for more precise bites. So statistically speaking one would favor T.Rex in a fight like how you bet a soccer match.
Actually it's by definition not morebefficient. Whether it's more effictive is a different question, although in the absence of demonstration one can only be amazed by it being such a widely held belief.

Other physical attributes like gape, height, striking speed, reach and forelimbs favour the carcharodontosaur. Agility being in favour of the tyrannosaur is far too simplyfied, if there is anything to it. Carcharodontosaurus probably had better lateral flexibility, ground friction and stability, and lower rotational inertia.
Edited by theropod, Nov 10 2014, 08:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 10 2014, 10:47 AM
It's true both have the ability to end one another quickly if bitten on a critical region, I still believe a bone crushing bite is faster and more efficient unless show me proof otherwise. That said, the rest physical attributes all favors T.Rex for being more robust and bulkier built, barrel chest, much more heavily muscled neck and thighs. Likely faster or more agile, stereoscopic view for more precise bites.
Hyena don't kill wildabeest, impala, etc. in one bite and they're modern day bone crushers, so are wolves but again, you don't see wolves killing deer, elk, etc. with a singular bite either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Few extant animals usually kill or incapacitate near-instantly with one bite, and those that do get there only after an extended period of contact via other means (i.e. grappling limbs). Others kill with a single bite, but the dying process can stretch over a period of 30 minutes with large prey because no immediately vital region is targeted.

They aren’t good analogies because both ziphodont and durophagous animals that are at least somewhat fitting analogies for this case today rarely if ever target immediately vital areas like the neck, and because none are comparable in built.

But any analogy is limited since at the scale we are talking about these bites will likely have way more dramatic effects. So I do think they could deal the required amounts of damage more easily to each other assuming a nape/throat bite respectively. The victim would be subdued almost instantly.

Cause of death on both cases would likely be a lack of oxygen in the brain (depending on the bite through loss of blood flow to the brain, hypovulemic shock, or respiratory paralysis), the cause of incapacitation a severed spinal cord or severed neck musculature and bleeding.

There are some animals (e.g. pantherines for the crusher-corner, machairodontines for the slicers) that presumably kill/killed this way. But most modern slicers don’t target the neck (because there are many other areas that they can bite that are easier to reach), and the only animals that could be termed crushers that do are using gragarious behaviour, grappling or both to get there.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggly Mimus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
ARE YOU KIDDING ME. The frill has been proven to be fragile compared to many bones that T-rex would have to bite through
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.