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 (129,968 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:
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 19 2014, 04:25 PM
Quote:
 
Pretty much the latter, considering you haven't posted any sources stating C. saharicus had a gape significantly more then T. rex.
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? lol

I wrote
 
nd no, sauropods were not slow moving. they were slow in terms of top speed, that's all.


you wrote
 

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.

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
Quote:
 
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?

So, i guess you have no evidence since you've resorted to this?no, i do not have such sources. However, i do have many that indicate that T. rex had the highest recorded bite force pressure of any large theropod yet tested. I suppose you want me to post evidence? fine.
Posted Image
Posted Image
From a 2006 study on theropod crania:
Posted Image
Posted Image
"Tyrannosaurid theropods display several unusual adaptations of the skulls and teeth. Their nasals are fused and vaulted, suggesting that these elements braced the cranium against high feeding forces. Exceptionally high strengths of maxillary teeth in Tyrannosaurus rex indicate that it could exert relatively greater feeding forces than other tyrannosaurids. Areas and second moments of area of the nasals, calculated from CT cross-sections, show higher nasal strengths for large tyrannosaurids than for Allosaurus fragilis. Cross-sectional geometry of theropod crania reveals high second moments of area in tyrannosaurids, with resulting high strengths in bending and torsion, when compared with the crania of similarly sized theropods. In tyrannosaurids trends of strength increase are positively allometric and have similar allometric exponents, indicating correlated progression towards unusually high strengths of the feeding apparatus. Fused, arched nasals and broad crania of tyrannosaurids are consistent with deep bites that impacted bone and powerful lateral movements of the head for dismembering prey."
http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app51-435.html
Carnosaur skulls are overall weaker then Tyrannosaur skulls in terms of exerting force. Does this mean that C. saharicus had a significantly larger gape? nope. And you have yet to provide any evidence as for this claim.

Quote:
 
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? lol[

Your childish posting demeanor suggests nothing more then that you have no source for your claim of C. saharicus having a gape significantly more then that of T. rex. Nor did it have a bite force close to it.
Posted Image
The skull of carcharodontosaurus is rather tall and thin in comparison to that of tyrannosaurus. Coupled with the blade-like,serrated teeth, iit suggests that C. saharicus didn't have an extremely high bite force. Nor did it need one, but we both know the reasons why.
Quote:
 
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.

Quote:
 
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

This stems from an intiail misinterpretation on my part. Moving on..
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Nov 20 2014, 03:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I have already given you the evidence, evidence comparable to the amount that you provided (an explanation both from a perspective of functional morphology and information on a relative). the kind of evidence you asked for is not available of course, neither is the equivalent (a source stating specifically so about the gape or bite force respectively in Carcharodontosaurus saharicus) for your case.
In both cases, these are reasonable inferences to draw from related taxa and from functional properties that are actually known.

Having a significantly higher gape is actually a direct consequence of not having "a bite force close to it". What do you think this bite force difference comes from? A very important point is muscle pennation, fibre lenght and insertion morphology, and the amount of musculature. Here, factors that favour a high bite force are exactly those that reduce the gape, which is also why bodybuilder tend to not be exceedingly flexible, while flexible people tend to be lean and moderately muscular.
The second point I made that even if you assumed the same gape for both, at high gape angles T. rex could not function effectively because it could not excert great amounts of bite force if its mouth was opened too far (because its jaw adductors would neither operate at full capacity if stretched too far, nor would the force vectors of the lower jaw oppose that of the upper jaw). Carcharodontosaurus does not have this problem.

Part of this would be easily apparent to you had you had a look at the source I provided (Bakker 1998), which explains the mechanics involved in what I think is reasonably easy to understand for a scientific text, or at least considered the physical principles I mentioned yourself.

If you are unable to bring me a source stating the obvious–that Carcharodontosaurus has a comparatively weaker bite force than Tyrannosaurus–then to demand evidence for a comparable statement on my part is just hypocrisy.
Edited by theropod, Nov 20 2014, 07:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 20 2014, 06:35 AM
I have already given you the evidence, evidence comparable to the amount that you provided (an explanation both from a perspective of functional morphology and information on a relative). the kind of evidence you asked for is not available of course, neither is the equivalent (a source stating specifically so about the gape or bite force respectively in Carcharodontosaurus saharicus) for your case.
In both cases, these are reasonable inferences to draw from related taxa and from functional properties that are actually known.

Having a significantly higher gape is actually a direct consequence of not having "a bite force close to it". What do you think this bite force difference comes from? A very important point is muscle pennation, fibre lenght and insertion morphology, and the amount of musculature. Here, factors that favour a high bite force are exactly those that reduce the gape, which is also why bodybuilder tend to not be exceedingly flexible, while flexible people tend to be lean and moderately muscular.
The second point I made that even if you assumed the same gape for both, at high gape angles T. rex could not function effectively because it could not excert great amounts of bite force if its mouth was opened too far (because its jaw adductors would neither operate at full capacity if stretched too far, nor would the force vectors of the lower jaw oppose that of the upper jaw). Carcharodontosaurus does not have this problem.

Part of this would be easily apparent to you had you had a look at the source I provided (Bakker 1998), which explains the mechanics involved in what I think is reasonably easy to understand for a scientific text, or at least considered the physical principles I mentioned yourself.

If you are unable to bring me a source stating the obvious–that Carcharodontosaurus has a comparatively weaker bite force than Tyrannosaurus–then to demand evidence for a comparable statement on my part is just hypocrisy.
Quote:
 
I have already given you the evidence, evidence comparable to the amount that you provided (an explanation both from a perspective of functional morphology and information on a relative).

Did i miss something? because, all you did was mention Bakker 1998. That's all.
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Having a significantly higher gape is actually a direct consequence of not having "a bite force close to it". What do you think this bite force difference comes from? A very important point is muscle pennation, fibre lenght and insertion morphology, and the amount of musculature. Here, factors that favour a high bite force are exactly those that reduce the gape, which is also why bodybuilder tend to not be exceedingly flexible, while flexible people tend to be lean and moderately muscular.

An explanation wasn't needed, nor warranted. I'm fully aware that a theropod cannot have a high gape & a high bite force due to musculature and whathaveyou.
Quote:
 
Part of this would be easily apparent to you had you had a look at the source I provided (Bakker 1998)

Perhaps it would have, if you actually put a link down. I can't find it, and what i have seen is paywalled.
Quote:
 
If you are unable to bring me a source stating the obvious–that Carcharodontosaurus has a comparatively weaker bite force than Tyrannosaurus–then to demand evidence for a comparable statement on my part is just hypocrisy

What? It's obvious from the dentition and supposed gape of C. saharicus it wouldn't have a high biting pressure. You already stated this:
Quote:
 
What do you think this bite force difference comes from? A very important point is muscle pennation, fibre lenght and insertion morphology, and the amount of musculature. Here, factors that favour a high bite force are exactly those that reduce the gape,

So, why would carcharodontosaurus even have a bite force close to that of T.rex, when its skull morphology doesn't suggest it? Unless, you have evidence suggesting otherwise? If not, it's safe to say that Carcharodontosaurus didn't have a bite force rivaling tyrannosaurus. Do note, however that i'm not stating it had a very weak bite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Did i miss something? because, all you did was mention Bakker 1998. That's all.

I've actually given you the whole citation, you should have had no problem finding it. Here it is again:
Bakker, Robert T.: Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. Gaia, Vol. 15 (1998); pp. 145-158

It's freely accessible online. If you don't find it, I'm gonna help you later (I'm on my mobile right now).
Quote:
 
An explanation wasn't needed, nor warranted. I'm fully aware that a theropod cannot have a high gape & a high bite force due to musculature and whathaveyou.

You attacked me and claimed I had no evidence, aan explanation was obviously i order.

Quote:
 
What? It's obvious from the dentition and supposed gape of C. saharicus it wouldn't have a high biting pressure. You already stated this:
Exactly! Funny how readily you will not just agree with, but actually usurp my argument about gape once you realized that you need it to support your point.
You don't question that T. rex has a stronger bite (and neither do I), ergo you should not question that C. saharicus has a larger gape. The evidence presented (andd in fact, published) for both iss comparable.

Quote:
 
So, why would carcharodontosaurus even have a bite force close to that of T.rex, when its skull morphology doesn't suggest it? Unless, you have evidence suggesting otherwise? If not, it's safe to say that Carcharodontosaurus didn't have a bite force rivaling tyrannosaurus. Do note, however that i'm not stating it had a very weak bite.
So why would T. rex even have a gape close to that of Carcharodontosaurus, when its skull morpgology does not suggest it? Unless you have evidence suggestingg otherwise, it's save to say T.rex didn't have a gape rivalling Carcharodontosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
When it comes to skull morphology T-Rex is designed for crushing bone, and Carcharodontosaurus was designed for slicing flesh. T Rex has to have a smaller gape in order to facilitate the pressures needed to crush bone, and Carcharodontosaurus has a large gape because of the design of its teeth, serrated teeth are beneficial with a large gape allowing more flesh to be harvested, or more damage done over a larger area. End of debate!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^Exactly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moreno
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
For me it depends whos faster in fighting speed and agility to get the first bite, not top speed but rather quick explosive movements. Who can turn faster and the methods (if one tries to flank, but it seems most theropods go for the skull and neck) but some people said that's useless in a theropod fight so I don't know, I think every little bit matters to me. I don't think they stood their and brawled with bites, wouldn't they try to get a better position or angle? Or are they too slow to turn to where it doesn't matter?

Because while a Tryannosaurus Rex can crush/puncture the skull, the Carcharodontosaurus can slice the throat, and leave shock by massive blood loss and what not.

It seems for the most part the T rex might have the better one shot kill (I know carh. Can do the same with a throat bite) to the skull and neck, and the Carharodntosaurus might do better in the long(for a fight) run with blood loss/shock and motor skills degenerating.
But I think Carh. can do massive damage with one bite, maybe not as much as a well placed rex bite, but still vicious.

It's 50/50 to me unless the size puts a slight advantage but that's something I don't really wanna open up.

Good matchup.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
It's all well and true that either can deliver a killing bite whether bone crushing or throat tearing given the right opportunity, but how likely are you able to deliver that killing blow is the key here. And that's where t.rex takes the lead comfortably here. We can tell from the skeleton reconstruction that t.rex is much bulkier, more robust in build and very likely faster on the feet due to much wider thigh muscle and bulkier calves. So it is more likely to over power charchy by brute forcing its way to the neck area for a crushing bite. Now I'm not omitting the odds of charcy getting a lucky bite here and there but the probability of t.rex dominating the physical brawl is much higher thus easier to land a killing bite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moreno
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Nov 23 2014, 11:38 AM
It's all well and true that either can deliver a killing bite whether bone crushing or throat tearing given the right opportunity, but how likely are you able to deliver that killing blow is the key here. And that's where t.rex takes the lead comfortably here. We can tell from the skeleton reconstruction that t.rex is much bulkier, more robust in build and very likely faster on the feet due to much wider thigh muscle and bulkier calves. So it is more likely to over power charchy by brute forcing its way to the neck area for a crushing bite. Now I'm not omitting the odds of charcy getting a lucky bite here and there but the probability of t.rex dominating the physical brawl is much higher thus easier to land a killing bite.
That's what I was looking for. Getting the first bite or rather physical action is key IMO. Ain't always about the better weapon but who can use it and land with it.

Now to physically dominating, would they ram their heads or bodies into each other (probably A Stupid question but I know crocodiles ram heads) or they would push off using their head and neck with the legs as a base jockeying for position? That I can see a T Rex getting the better of slightly at least if not dominating.

So far it sounds like charch better utilize quick bites/nips (slicing bites seem less dependent on power and placement, not saying a crushing bite can't do damage without proper placement, I have seen crocodiles and hyenas mess prey up with "poorly placed and leveraged" bites.)

If what you say is true about t Rex having a faster setup, then charch can't overcommit.

Might change to T. Rex slightly ahead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Is there any evidence for T. rex having bigger tighs at equal body mass?
It seems all the claims of larger tighs are based on comparisons with carcharodontosaurids at lenght parity. It looks very different if you scale them to match in terms of volume.

If, for example, you scale Scott Hartman’s T. rex and Giganotosaurus to equal volumes, the T. rex has a slightly longer and deeper ilium, but the Giganotosaurus has a longer femur, and larger cnemial crest, resulting in the overall area of the tigh mucles being very close (I got about 4% more for the carcharodontosaur, close enough to be considered identical for our intends and purposes and the inprecision involved) in both if you connect these landmarks and the ischium following Carrano & Hutchinson (2002).
Mind you, it’s of course smaller in G. carolinii if you just scale them to the same lenght, or close to it, but that’s irrelevant.
Overall, the amount of leg musculature would likely be larger in the Carcharodontosaur, since tibia, and metatarsals were both longer and thicker in absolute terms.

So given that Giganotosaurus, for which we have a suitably comparable volumetric figure, is close enough as a proxy, it seems this claim is inaccurate, especially considering the caudofemoralis-sizes of carcharodontosaurs and T. rex also similar compared to body mass if consistent methodology is applied (Bates et al. 2012)

Also, for agility it certainly matters that the obtusely angled (dorsally shifted) femoral head allows for a greater lateral flexibility in the hip of Carcharodontosaurus (Stromer 1931), a common feature of carcharodontosaurs (compare Coria & Currie 2006, Canale et al. 2014/15).

So overall the agility advantage doesn’t seem to lie with the tyrannosaur at all, although plausibly a top-speed advantage is present (being, once again, irrelevant).


As regards biting, I don’t think before a bite has already been placed anyone is going to get overpowered here. And once a bite is placed, it’s decided anyway, because the bitten opponent will be mortally injured and/or crippled.

T. rex lacks any other way of using its alledged strenght advantage (that’s once more probably neglegible or non-existant at weight parity and derives from comparing animals of similar lenght instead). It’s robusticity is used once it has bitten, to help it crush a spine by twisting and shaking for example.

And as I already outline earlier it’s Carcharodontosaurus that has the features (longer but lighter skull adapted for fast striking, larger gape, non-reliance on actually biting and holding) allowing it to bite/strike more quickly.



References:
Bates, Karl T.; Benson, Roger B. J.; Falkingham, Peter L.: A computational analysis of locomotor anatomy and body mass evolution in Allosauroidea (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Paleobiology, Vol. 38 (2012); 3; pp. 486-507
Canale, Juan I.; Novas, Fernando E.; Pol, Diego: Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tyrannotitan chubutensis Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich, 2005 (Theropoda: Carcharodontosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology, Vol. 27 (2015); 1; pp. 1-32
Carrano, Matthew T.; Hutchinson, John R.: Pelvic and Hindlimb Musculature of Tyrannosaurus rex (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Morphology, Vol. 253 (2002); pp. 207-228
Coria, Rodolpho A.; Currie, Philip J.: A new carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina. Geodiversitas, Vol. 28 (2006); 1; pp. 71-118
Stromer, Ernst: Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten Ägyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 10. Ein Skelett-Rest von Carcharodontosaurus nov. gen. Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Abteilung, Neue Folge, Vol. 9 (1931); pp. 1-23
Edited by theropod, Nov 23 2014, 09:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moreno
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 23 2014, 09:19 PM
Is there any evidence for T. rex having bigger tighs at equal body mass?
It seems all the claims of larger tighs are based on comparisons with carcharodontosaurids at lenght parity. It looks very different if you scale them to match in terms of volume.

If, for example, you scale Scott Hartman’s T. rex and Giganotosaurus to equal volumes, the T. rex has a slightly longer and deeper ilium, but the Giganotosaurus has a longer femur, and larger cnemial crest, resulting in the overall area of the tigh mucles being very close (I got about 4% more for the carcharodontosaur, close enough to be considered identical for our intends and purposes and the inprecision involved) in both if you connect these landmarks and the ischium following Carrano & Hutchinson (2002).
Mind you, it’s of course smaller in G. carolinii if you just scale them to the same lenght, or close to it, but that’s irrelevant.
Overall, the amount of leg musculature would likely be larger in the Carcharodontosaur, since tibia, and metatarsals were both longer and thicker in absolute terms.

So given that Giganotosaurus, for which we have a suitably comparable volumetric figure, is close enough as a proxy, it seems this claim is inaccurate, especially considering the caudofemoralis-sizes of carcharodontosaurs and T. rex also similar compared to body mass if consistent methodology is applied (Bates et al. 2012)

Also, for agility it certainly matters that the obtusely angled (dorsally shifted) femoral head allows for a greater lateral flexibility in the hip of Carcharodontosaurus (Stromer 1931), a common feature of carcharodontosaurs (compare Coria & Currie 2006, Canale et al. 2014/15).

So overall the agility advantage doesn’t seem to lie with the tyrannosaur at all, although plausibly a top-speed advantage is present (being, once again, irrelevant).


As regards biting, I don’t think before a bite has already been placed anyone is going to get overpowered here. And once a bite is placed, it’s decided anyway, because the bitten opponent will be mortally injured and/or crippled.

T. rex lacks any other way of using its alledged strenght advantage (that’s once more probably neglegible or non-existant at weight parity and derives from comparing animals of similar lenght instead). It’s robusticity is used once it has bitten, to help it crush a spine by twisting and shaking for example.

And as I already outline earlier it’s Carcharodontosaurus that has the features (longer but lighter skull adapted for fast striking, larger gape, non-reliance on actually biting and holding) allowing it to bite/strike more quickly.



References:
Bates, Karl T.; Benson, Roger B. J.; Falkingham, Peter L.: A computational analysis of locomotor anatomy and body mass evolution in Allosauroidea (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Paleobiology, Vol. 38 (2012); 3; pp. 486-507
Canale, Juan I.; Novas, Fernando E.; Pol, Diego: Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tyrannotitan chubutensis Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich, 2005 (Theropoda: Carcharodontosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology, Vol. 27 (2015); 1; pp. 1-32
Carrano, Matthew T.; Hutchinson, John R.: Pelvic and Hindlimb Musculature of Tyrannosaurus rex (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Journal of Morphology, Vol. 253 (2002); pp. 207-228
Coria, Rodolpho A.; Currie, Philip J.: A new carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina. Geodiversitas, Vol. 28 (2006); 1; pp. 71-118
Stromer, Ernst: Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wüsten Ägyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman). 10. Ein Skelett-Rest von Carcharodontosaurus nov. gen. Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Abteilung, Neue Folge, Vol. 9 (1931); pp. 1-23
Yea that's where I hear the conflicting arguements.
Is the striking speed. That to me decides it and explosive speed(acceleration) not top speed.

I just think the slicing bite of Charcharodontsaurus doesn't need The commitment and placement of Tyrannosaurus Rex. Which could give it the advantage and more striking opportunities after a hit or a miss(if it doesn't get countered).

I just hear a lot of people saying charcharodontsaurus bite wouldn't be as a fast kill as T. Rex which isn't true imo, considering what Oras and sharks do. A bite on the throat or hitting major arteries and blood vessels and inducing shock is just as bad with a slicing bite as a crushing bite on the skull, neck, spine. Your done with both.
Edited by Moreno, Nov 23 2014, 09:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Is the striking speed. That to me decides it and explosive speed(acceleration) not top speed.
I think the evidence for the striking speed and ease of placing a bite is pretty solid and in favour of the carnosaur. In the absence of better data I’d say they are about equal in terms of linear acelleration (and both likely very good for an animal their size). In terms of angular acelleration and lateral movement, I think the Carnosaur takes the cake.

Quote:
 
I just think the slicing bite of Charcharodontsaurus doesn't need The commitment and placement of Tyrannosaurus Rex. Which could give it the advantage and more striking opportunities after a hit or a miss(if it doesn't get countered).

I just hear a lot of people saying charcharodontsaurus bite wouldn't be as a fast kill as T. Rex which isn't true imo, considering what Oras and sharks do. A bite on the throat or hitting major arteries and blood vessels and inducing shock is just as bad with a slicing bite as a crushing bite on the skull, neck, spine. Your done with both.
I agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 20 2014, 10:12 PM
Quote:
 
Did i miss something? because, all you did was mention Bakker 1998. That's all.

I've actually given you the whole citation, you should have had no problem finding it. Here it is again:
Bakker, Robert T.: Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. Gaia, Vol. 15 (1998); pp. 145-158

It's freely accessible online. If you don't find it, I'm gonna help you later (I'm on my mobile right now).
Quote:
 
An explanation wasn't needed, nor warranted. I'm fully aware that a theropod cannot have a high gape & a high bite force due to musculature and whathaveyou.

You attacked me and claimed I had no evidence, aan explanation was obviously i order.

Quote:
 
What? It's obvious from the dentition and supposed gape of C. saharicus it wouldn't have a high biting pressure. You already stated this:
Exactly! Funny how readily you will not just agree with, but actually usurp my argument about gape once you realized that you need it to support your point.
You don't question that T. rex has a stronger bite (and neither do I), ergo you should not question that C. saharicus has a larger gape. The evidence presented (andd in fact, published) for both iss comparable.

Quote:
 
So, why would carcharodontosaurus even have a bite force close to that of T.rex, when its skull morphology doesn't suggest it? Unless, you have evidence suggesting otherwise? If not, it's safe to say that Carcharodontosaurus didn't have a bite force rivaling tyrannosaurus. Do note, however that i'm not stating it had a very weak bite.
So why would T. rex even have a gape close to that of Carcharodontosaurus, when its skull morpgology does not suggest it? Unless you have evidence suggestingg otherwise, it's save to say T.rex didn't have a gape rivalling Carcharodontosaurus.
Quote:
 
I've actually given you the whole citation, you should have had no problem finding it. Here it is again:
Bakker, Robert T.: Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. Gaia, Vol. 15 (1998); pp. 145-158

Found it! turns out i did miss something lol
Quote:
 
You attacked me and claimed I had no evidence, an explanation was obviously i order.

I what? Please, show me where this "attack" took place. the fact you were seemingly implying i knew nothing of reliable sources(.i.e. "Youtube comments aren't a source...") Something of this sort isn't appreciated.
Anyway, cheers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Please tell me what term you'd prefer for the following:
Quote:
 
Your childish posting demeanor suggests nothing more then that you have no source for your claim of C. saharicus having a gape significantly more then that of T. rex. Nor did it have a bite force close to it.

Especially considering I had already given evidence for the first, amd was never denying the latter, merely using it as an example for a similar claim you accepted without evidence on the level you were demanding from me.

No idea how that renders a further explanation unnecessary, especially considering you seemed to be unsatisfied with the explanation already posted.
Edited by theropod, Nov 24 2014, 05:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 24 2014, 05:54 AM
Please tell me what term you'd prefer for the following:
Quote:
 
Your childish posting demeanor suggests nothing more then that you have no source for your claim of C. saharicus having a gape significantly more then that of T. rex. Nor did it have a bite force close to it.

Especially considering I had already given evidence for the first, amd was never denying the latter, merely using it as an example for a similar claim you accepted without evidence on the level you were demanding from me.

No idea how that renders a further explanation unnecessary, especially considering you seemed to be unsatisfied with the explanation already posted.
T'was in response to this:
Quote:
 
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? lol

Your insinuation that i'm incapable of finding decently reliable sources isn't appreciated(to what? discredit me?). Hence, that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.