| 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 (129,969 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: | |
|---|---|
| Ausar | Nov 11 2014, 06:21 AM Post #856 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But you didn't answer my question, plus you merely responded to my claim by repeating your assertion. In fact, I have proof Triceratops' skull had a protective function, and I don't see why this wouldn't (at least sometimes) help against predators. "The horns and frill of Triceratops and other ceratopsids (horned dinosaurs) are interpreted variously as display structures or as weapons against conspecifics and predators. Lesions (in the form of periosteal reactive bone, healing fractures, and alleged punctures) on Triceratops skulls have been used as anecdotal support of intraspecific combat similar to that in modern horned and antlered animals. If ceratopsids with different cranial morphologies used their horns in such combat, this should be reflected in the rates of lesion occurrence across the skull. We used a G-test of independence to compare incidence rates of lesions in Triceratops (which possesses two large brow horns and a smaller nasal horn) and the related ceratopsid Centrosaurus (with a large nasal horn and small brow horns), for the nasal, jugal, squamosal, and parietal bones of the skull. The two taxa differ significantly in the occurrence of lesions on the squamosal bone of the frill (P = 0.002), but not in other cranial bones (P>0.20). This pattern is consistent with Triceratops using its horns in combat and the frill being adapted as a protective structure for this taxon. Lower pathology rates in Centrosaurus may indicate visual rather than physical use of cranial ornamentation in this genus, or a form of combat focused on the body rather than the head." http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004252 Edited by Ausar, Nov 11 2014, 06:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 11 2014, 06:55 AM Post #857 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's based on statistical analysis of wounds resulting from intraspecific (likely ritualized) conflict. Quite a different thing from a functional analysis of the frill itself. Regardless of the frill's strength, those wounds would have been there. Ergo, certainly not proof. But yes, the frill in trike is quite solidly built, unlike in other ceratopsians. But it isn't so much the thickness of the bone (that likely wouldn't stop a T. rex, consodering it also deeply bit a Triceratops sacrum), its the shape that makes it difficult to bite. Edited by theropod, Nov 11 2014, 06:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 11 2014, 09:23 AM Post #858 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You yourself noted Triceratops' frill is more solidly built than those of other ceratopsids, that's all that really need be established here. In fact, it's depressing Jiggly Haydeni didn't acknowledge that aforementioned fact considering how it's pretty much common knowledge for anyone who's done some basic research on ceratopsids. Obviously the comparative thickness of Triceratops' frill would offer far better protection from a tyrannosaur bite than that of other ceratopsids. Even considering Tyrannosaurus could bite through the structure, that fact, if anything, just proves to be impressive on the tyrannosaur's part considering how it's capable of biting through a large, thick piece of solid bone (so the point that Tyrannosaurus had to get through a thick bony frill still stands). The fact that the shape of the frill would have obstructed an effective bite on the neck (as you've noted) would further solidify the basic point that Triceratops' frill was an effective obstacle. Edited by Ausar, Mar 2 2015, 10:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Utahraptor | Nov 11 2014, 01:53 PM Post #859 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This battle is a toss up for me. Perhaps a slight advantage to the Tyrannosaurus as it seems to be a bit bulkier. 55/45 I see the fight playing out with the Carcharodontosaurus getting the first bite because of its longer skull, but that would put it in range of the T-Rex's bite and power. Seems like the Carchar's wide gape evolved to kill giant sauropods in a pack hunt. By itself the bite wouldn't have don't much but bites from from multiple individuals would be really add up because of the blade like teeth design. Perhaps it can slash the jugular of Rex but the top of the neck would be really vulnerable and the jaws of a t rex would certainly cause more damage no matter where it bit. That's the difference here |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 12 2014, 03:51 AM Post #860 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps?
And that of T. rex wouldn’t? Not buying that.
Always the same, always without evidence of any kind, and always plain wrong. What you’re saying implies that T. rex blunt teeth would work better on soft tissues than the blade-like teeth of Carcharodontosaurus. Besides, it’s choices of where it can bite are more limited to begin with. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 12 2014, 04:11 AM Post #861 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
does carchy have a more varied range of places it can bite? bringing this up served no point whatsoever. if you're inclined to believe so, i'd like to see reasoning. odds of one outmanuevering the other are miniscule. also, before any one brings it up...“more agile” or “faster” is a bit indeterminate for animals being extinct for millenia. both are in the same weight class, and hunted relatively slow moving prey. there's no need for speed, if you will...i don't see multi-ton animals being very agile, either i'd say 50/50, at least for now.. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 12 2014, 05:22 AM Post #862 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It does, and it did. look at the line I was replying to. It is certainly relevant to note this if someone claims T. rex would cause more damage no matter were it bit, because that statement omits this point. Grater gape+no need for good leverage mean it can bite objects with a high girth that an animal that relies on a massive bite force could not or only ineffectively bite. There are also bones so thick that trying to crack them would be ineffective (sauropod leg bones for example) while cutting the overlying tendons is perfectly viable, but those are indeed another topic. So yeah, saying that " t rex would certainly cause more damage no matter where it bit" is as one-sided as it is wrong. In the sense of what you are probably imagining, they are yes. I wasn’t the one to claim the agility advantage in the first place, even though I provided reasoning why on the whole it likely doesn’t lie with the tyrannosaur. That’s far too generalized. Not all of their prey was slow moving, and being slow in running speed doesn”t mean a predator doesn’t require agility to kill it. The prey item can still execute swift movements that a predator has to cope with, it merely won’t be able to escape quickly. And agile for animals of their size, of course. |
![]() |
|
| Utahraptor | Nov 12 2014, 05:50 AM Post #863 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Look at the skull and neck attachments of a Tyrannosaurus Rex and then compare it with a Carcharodontosaurus, it had a thicker and more robust neck all the way around. Would a Carchars bite to the top of the neck do as much damage as a T Rex bite would? Now onto to the underside of the neck. A T Rex wouldn't need the thinner more blade like teeth to slice the throat of a Carchar. Infact the larger teeth would likely cause more damage because they're bigger and would leave a wider , deeper gash. Of course we cant say it with 100% certainty but the odds are the underside of the neck was soft fleshy and vulnerable no matter what the teeth design is. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 12 2014, 07:27 AM Post #864 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which doesn’t prevent it from being cut. And what you’re saying only applies to width, tyrannosaurid necks aren’t deeper than carnosaur necks at neck lenght parity (Snively & Russell 2007, fig. 8ab), merely wider, owing largely to the fact that the muscles are shifted outward by the positioning of their attachments. Of course their vertebrae are thicker overall, they have to support a far heavier skull. But firstly, that doesn’t mean they are not under similar stress, and secondly, damaging the bone is not important to a carcharodontosaur’s bite. It’s not very likely that it will damage the spine, that doesn’t mean it won’t be highly debilitating (what does a T. rex with cut dorsiflexors do?Hang its head.). And would a T. rex bite to the flanks do any notale damage at all? Plus, it’s not as if a full-on crushing of the neck would be an easy task, it likely involved quite a bit of clamping on twisting, shaking etc. To slice it, sure it would. To damage it, not necessarily, but it’s obvious that thin, blade-like teeth, being better at cutting, will more easily damage instead of displace the tissues, leading to much greater damage and blood loss. T. rex’ teeth are designed for robusticity, increasing the thickness and hence the edge angle, the edge radius and changing the shape of the serrations so as to not aid in cutting (Abler 1992). No, what they will do is leave puncture marks (like a crocodile, or most carnivorans). Unless it pulls on that neck for a long time, it isn’t going to tear it. References: Abler, William L.: The serrated teeth of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs, and biting structures in other animals Paleobiology, Vol. 18 (1992);2; pp. 161-183 Snively, Eric; Russell, Anthony P.: Functional Variation of Neck Muscles and Their Relation to Feeding Style in Tyrannosauridae and Other Large Theropod Dinosaurs. The Anatomical Record, Vol. 290 (2007); pp. 934-957 |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 15 2014, 12:10 PM Post #865 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you mind posting a source? Because, some pages back i found this from the user "vobby"
I'm fully aware that Tyrannosaurus doesn't have that impressive of a gape, but you're making it out as if C. sahricus' is significantly more then that of T. rex( but, i'll wait for your source until i say any more on this issue.
I never said you were. In fact, i made it pretty clear it was regarding the issue in general, not directed to any person in particular. OK then. This pretty ends that.
Sauropods weren't slow moving? the heavily armored ankylosaurus wasn't slow moving? i'd beg to differ. Surely, they can run swiftly in short burst, but not prolonged periods of time.Look at elephants & rhinos, for example.
I never stated once they weren't, merely stated that we can't determine which combatant here was more agile. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 15 2014, 05:44 PM Post #866 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It appears you completely misunderstood Vobby's post. It dealt with the resulting bite area (something I don't think is very important), not with the effects of gape on the ease of biting. And yes, the gape of Carcharodontosaurus is likely significantly more. We know this for other carnosaurs (Bakker 1998), And even tough the specialization for gape was likely less marked in C. saharicus, it's still not suffering from the restrictions imposed by the need for a powerful bite force. Differently phrased, even if they had the same maximum attainable gape, T. rex would not be able to operate effectively at very large gape angles, because it relies on excerting large forces, which it cannot if most of its bite force is directed foorwards or if iits muscles are stretched too much. Carcharodontosaurus on the other hand only needs to slash, not engulf and crush, and arguably a posterior pulling motion powered by the neck would be the most important component anyway. And no, sauropods were not slow moving. they were slow in terms of top speed, that's all. A sauropod or ankylosaur could likely move its tail very quickly, and they were also plausibly reasonably fast turners, judging by how powerful their legs are. And ornithopods likely reached respectable running speeds as well. Also, how do you go from "not all of their prey was slow-moving“ to " sauropods weren't sslow moving", when it appeara you associate this term with running speed? Reference: Bakker, Robert T.: Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. Gaia, Vol. 15 (1998); pp. 145-158 |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 18 2014, 01:38 AM Post #867 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not really,i just thought it was relevant to our discussion.
And why is that? if the resulting bite area isn't significant for an animal with a substantially large gape, how is it going to be anynore effective in this scenario?
So, 'less marked' =greater gape? seems like speculation on your part.
This is what its dentition and overall skull morphology suggests, yes..
Which was my point to begin with. I'm well aware that they could move their tails at rapid rates of speed; looking at the tail of diplodocoids is an indication of that.
"slow moving" is generally associated with running speed, so i don't see your point in saying this line:
I'm very well aware that this aspect deals with agility as well. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 18 2014, 07:14 PM Post #868 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's where the misunderstanding is. The primary advantage of gape is not that it increases the lenght of the wound (which is easily devastating either way) it is that the greater angle at the joint allows to bite things that coulddn't be bitten with a smaller angle. Read the rest of the part you quoted. There are reasons for this. Do you have any counterarguments or are you just challenging it anyway? And that's an advantage for quick and versatile attacks. yeah, sure…
Let's leave aside what it is generally asociated with, but you do associate them, right? That both contradicts what you wrote about my point also having been your point from the beginning (that sauropods aren't slow moving), and it does not constitute a reason to focus exclusively a sauropod, which were certainly important, but by far not the only prey. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 19 2014, 03:30 AM Post #869 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pretty much the latter, considering you haven't posted any sources stating C. saharicus had a gape significantly more then T. rex.
Wasn't arguing that it wasn't. See, this is where you are misunderstanding ME, my friend. I never stated sauropods were particularly fast movers. Let's look at my statement, shall we?
You're arguing from a stance that wasn't even warranted from my posts. I asked for evidence that the gape of C. saharicus was significantly more then that of T.rex, a request you still have not fufilled. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 19 2014, 04:25 PM Post #870 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you really require that, would you mind showing me a source that explicitely states that T.rex had a stronger bite force than Carcharodontosaurus? A proper source if course, not a youtube comment. Because Carcharodontosaurus' bite force has never been estimated. By your logic, how could we possibly claim T. rex had a significantly stronger hite? ![]()
Apparently it was not, your point is that sauropod are slow miving because you synonymize this with low running speeds. But that that's a widespread misconception doesn't make it relevant. And you still haven't explained how you went from my statement that not all the prey items were slow moving to discussing whether sauropods are. 'cause even if they were, ornithopods and marginocephalians still obviously weren't on any account Edited by theropod, Nov 19 2014, 06:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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