| 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 (129,967 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: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Nov 24 2014, 06:00 AM Post #886 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was implying absolutely nothing about your knowledge about sources. In fact, those that you posted are pretty much exactly the same that I'd have used when asked to support that statement. My point was exclusively about the content of the available sources. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 24 2014, 11:13 AM Post #887 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
First you are utterly wrong about charchy having larger volume in the thigh. If we're using Giga as proxy then even at a length disadvantage, t.rex still has more mass in the thigh as SHartman clearly demonstrated. scott hartman Now due to popular belief charchy is the lighter built compared to Giga so t.rex would have even more advantage here. You can keep spin it but I always trust Hartman's skeleton drawings and his mass estimates. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 24 2014, 06:56 PM Post #888 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm talking about volumetric parity, Hartman's comparison shows individuals of significantly different volumes (7450l vs 9200l). Are you really surprised the smaller indivvidual also has smaller tighs? And assuming Carcharodontosaurus was more slender, that makes it more likely it's tighs were proportionally larger, not smaller. After all, more slender usually means "more slender body", the leg muscles being just as robust or more so. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Nov 24 2014, 08:42 PM Post #889 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You know for them to have volumetric parity, a t.rex would have to be a sub adult since you have to drastically reduce its length and we know on average adult rexes are 12m give or take. Is it really fair? And t.rex tend to grow substantially bulkier as they reach full maturity, the juveniles or sub adults are fairly gracile in comparison so that's a flawed argument. Besides, since we are pitting the biggest of each species in this fight, why should we castrate t.rex to volume parity? It's almost like at equal weight a raptor would have bigger thighs etc than a t.rex, you know how fruitless your argument is now? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 24 2014, 09:16 PM Post #890 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are probably closer to 11.11.5m (and adults range from 10m to 12.3m, it’s complete bs that everything below 12m would be subadult. Rather, it’s sue that is exceptionally old, being one of the few theropods to have an external fundamental system), but leaving that aside, I was talking about scaling the Giganotosaurus holotype up isometrically, not using a smaller specimen of T. rex. Although, now that you remind me, that would be a good idea. Sure that would be fair, you’ve been comparing the smallest Giganotosaurus to the largest T. rex. But that isn’t the point, you were talking about agility if i understood you correctly. For agility, of course what matters is the size of the leg musculature (not just the tigh btw) compared to the overall weight. Hence, it’s far from surprising that a carnosaur smaller than sue also has accordingly smaller tigh musculature (especially keeping in mind it would have a smaller percentage of its leg musculature concentrated in the tigh). But if you scale them to the same size, they actually have similar-sized tighs. All the more, you should be content to use the largest and bulkiest of all T. rex individuals. That actually creates a bias, considering that other theropods in all probability get bulkier too as they mature and grow, while according to you we probably only have subadults (since you’re calling everything below the upper 13% of adult size range a subadult…). It might be. But then again, if I had even used that argument, what would be your argument to suggest the Carcharodontosaur specimen in question wasn’t just as subadult? According to your logic, it would be extremely unlikely for it not to be. You might be, I’m not. That’s terribly biased towards whichever is known from more individuals. You’re of course right, Carcharodontosaurus should be bigger. However, I still don’t see how that matters for the proportionate size of the tigh muscles. A dromaeosaur (and much less still a raptor, which doesn’t even use its legs for walking that much) would likely have smaller tighs than T. rex at weight parity. They are at least 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller. Large, especially giant theropods (which, whatever exact figures you take, are all relatively similar in size) compensate for their size by having proportionately larger leg muscles. Haven’t you noticed how much larger their hips and tail bases are, how much longer their tighs and how much more robust their hindlimb bone structure? There’d be much more musculature there in a Tyrannosaurus or a Carcharodontosaur than in a small maniraptoran. But with Giganotosaurus, I’ve measured it myself, and it does not have smaller tighs at weight parity. If anything, it’s tighs may have experience the same positive allometry you seem to be suggesting for T. rex (I haven’t checked that yet). EDIT: For what it’s worth, Hutchinson et al. 2011 found no evidence for positive allometry in tigh volume, rather negative allometry. that also applies to the caudofemoralis, and applies to carnosaurs too (Bates 2012) 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 Hutchinson, John R.; Bates, Karl T.; Molnar, Julia; Allen, Vivian; Makovicky, Peter J.: A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. Vol. 6 (2011); 10; pp. 1-20 Edited by theropod, Nov 24 2014, 09:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 4 2014, 08:36 AM Post #891 |
|
Deleted User
|
T.rex is too small to compete with a 10 t carnosaur. |
|
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Dec 4 2014, 10:28 AM Post #892 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The evidence for 10 tons is about as real as the easter bunny. Seriously, you go around claiming all of this, yet there is no evidence for it, and the odds are for Carcharodontosaurus saharicus being actually under 10 tons. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2014, 05:06 AM Post #893 |
|
Deleted User
|
Try to scale Acro up to 14.3-14.6 m andyou'll see. |
|
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Dec 5 2014, 05:12 AM Post #894 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If I use proper estimates, the only thing I'll see is that you're wrong. Moreover, you still fail to grasp that all this 14m thing is baseless. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Dec 5 2014, 05:16 AM Post #895 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Try to scale Giganotosaurus up to ~13 meters and them maybe you'll see. Either way your claims is pretty silly. 10 tons = 9,070kg. Scott Hartman estimates the largest Tyrannosaurus, 'Sue', at 8,400 kg. So what you are saying is, your liberal and unrealistically large estimates of Carcarodontosaurus are only 600 kg greater than the largest Tyrannosaurus. And that somehow makes the latter "too small". Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Dec 5 2014, 05:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Dec 5 2014, 05:21 AM Post #896 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ Yet the tyrannosaurid has more on it, a likely more powerful bite based on what is known, for example. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2014, 05:51 AM Post #897 |
|
Deleted User
|
You cannot accept that Carch is hge, can't you? |
|
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Dec 5 2014, 07:05 AM Post #898 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can and I have. ~13 meters and ~8 tonnes is huge by theropod standards. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 5 2014, 07:50 AM Post #899 |
|
Deleted User
|
What a pity it isn't that big. blaze told me that SMG-DIn 1's skull is about as big as Giganotosaurus holotype's (1.55 m), because Sereno's recostruction was too elongated, so it was more like to 12.4 m and 7 t. Still big though. |
|
|
| Teratophoneus | Dec 22 2014, 05:04 AM Post #900 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think he was using short tons. This fight could go in either way. broly's Super Carcharodontosaurus (at ~14-15 m and ~9-10 t) would destroy T.rex, but I believe that it was comparable to Giganotosaurus, wich is already as big as T.rex. So, that's a 50/50 to me. |
![]() |
|
| 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