| 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 (129,965 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: | |
|---|---|
| Teratophoneus | Jan 5 2015, 09:29 AM Post #916 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not saying that T.rex is longer (I'm agree that it was longer), but that the fact that Carcharodontosaurus is longer than T.rex isn't a sure fact. There is no agreement about this in scientific community. Naish doesn't think it's longer, for example. Edited by Teratophoneus, Jan 5 2015, 11:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Jan 5 2015, 11:26 AM Post #917 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For one, that wasn't actually Taipan's work; he got that from another source, where size estimations are variable. Face it, when it comes to prehistoric animals, size isn't exactly the most consistent. And tyrannosaurus as well had enormous jaws (which were, ultimately, more robust and suited for crushing) and long, serrated teeth as well. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jan 5 2015, 12:03 PM Post #918 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree. Incidentally the size disparity exhibited between just the holotype and neotype specimens of Carcharodontosaurus is only a little less than between the largest and smallest specimens of Tyrannosaurus; 18% vs. 22% in linear dimensions. Those two specimens fit neatly within the known size range of Tyrannosaurus too. |
![]() |
|
| ansram | Apr 19 2015, 09:28 PM Post #919 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Got to agree with the guys who said that T-Rex bites would act faster compared to Carch. Bone crushing bite will be devastating on any body part, Carcha's bites would have to be very carefully directed (such as the neck) to deliver a fatal wound. OTOH, T-Rex bites are going to be debilitating regardless of the body part being bitten, so all T-Rex needs to deliver is one mad bite somewhere on Carcha's body. A crushed bone anywhere would leave Carcha too weak to continue the fight. Perhaps both animals may die after the fight (in case they both get a chance to bite each other wickedly), but Carch would die first if T-Rex manages to get a bite. Against their normal enemies, Carcha's strategy was to kill its prey by repeatedly delivering large slice wounds and bleeding its prey to death. For T-Rex it was all about one killer bite to the head or neck. T-Rex bite was capable of ripping off armoured dinosaurs, so we can imagine what T-Rex can do to animals that aren't armoured. If Carcha does not end the fight quickly with a bite to Rexy's neck, it is going to have a tough time avoiding that single bone crushing blow T-Rex is going to deliver. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 20 2015, 04:33 AM Post #920 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, sure. The great bone-crushing that is instantly debilitating or fatal anywhere vs the weak and slow-acting slicing that needs to be carefully aimed to cause damage at all… It’s not as if animals went onto hypovolemic shock if they lost large amounts of blood quickly (as if they even did if bitten by a set of harmless 1.5m jaws with 10cm teeth sticking out of them), or as if they needed muscles and tendons in order to move. All that counts is the structural integrity of the bones. Now seriously, the strategy described in the above post is applicable to prey that is several times larger than Carcharodontosaurus itself. Imagine the sort of damage its bite would do to a (likewise unarmoured) opponent similar to its own size. For carcharodontosaurus, it is also all about one killer bite to the head or neck. Obviously, it will be the one to have the quicker and easier time injuring its opponent elsewhere, because it only needs to slash, not crush (guess which takes longer). |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Apr 26 2015, 03:07 PM Post #921 |
![]()
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Going with the Carcha here because its bite is deadlier and much more effective and devastating. Not to mention, in size, it's obvious who is bigger than the other. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Apr 26 2015, 04:42 PM Post #922 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is? As I mentioned in the other thread Carcharodontosaurus is very similar in size to Giganotosaurus. Scott Hartman recently estimated the largest specimens of Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus to have weighed almost the same as each other, with a fractional advantage to Tyrannosaurus. Now of course, it is possible that Carcharodontosaurus was slightly heavier than the pair of them, but that is not a certainty at all, in fact my own estimates indicate the opposite. For the sake of something interesting, lets assume that the largest known Carcharodontosaurus specimen weighed the same as the largest Giganotosaurus - 8,200 kg. The smallest C. saharicus, the holotype specimen, is somewhat smaller than this - my own estimate is ~19% smaller (linear dimensions), but it varies from as low as 15% to over 20% depending on who attempts it. That means we can estimate this specimen at around 4,800 kg. The largest Tyrannosaurus is estimated at 8,400 kg, however, the smallest specimen is some 22% smaller than this, meaning an estimate of around 4,500 kg. With very similar upper and lower weight boundaries, I think calling either of these two definitively larger than the other is premature. |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Apr 27 2015, 11:33 PM Post #923 |
![]()
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I now realize we use latest designs here. I'm going with the Carcha now, because it could easily beat the Spino. One stomp. There, dead.
|
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Apr 28 2015, 10:44 AM Post #924 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The one in this drawing is Giganotosaurus, not Carcharodontosaurus. Also, why do you think that it can beat T.rex only because it could beat (that's actually a your assumption) Spinosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| Darker | Apr 28 2015, 08:08 PM Post #925 |
![]()
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I got confused with the threads, I thought I was answering to the Carcha vs Spino thread. I still think Carcha would win due to having a better bite (but probably less powerful) and being slightly heavier. |
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Oct 15 2017, 08:12 AM Post #926 |
|
Carnoferox's sex toy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would say it's a 50/50. Whoever gets the first bite wins this. |
![]() |
|
| joule-trix | May 19 2018, 06:31 AM Post #927 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't usually like to bash but to be honest this is not even a fight to me its more of a free meal for t.rex Crach lived 30-40 million years before t.rex meaning t.rex had 30-40 million years of extra evolution behind it, One person made a great statement comparing these 2 is like comparing a neanderthal with a club to a navy seal with a aka-47 navy seal will win probably 90% of the time and i think the same goes for this match up. T.rex literally almost out does carch in every aspect for the following reasons. All of my sources will be included in all my number of reasons. 1.) t.rex is more heavily built there is no evidence of carch weighing 10-15t, Most reliable sources place it at around 7-8t and based on the measurements of scott hartman's desighn t.rex is 7-9t so they are basically equal in weight,length,and height. We should also take in consideration how they are built t.rex is more robust than carcha, its skull is also alot wider and heavier and its teeth are thicker. To be honest i dont understand how the public readily accepts these fragmentary fossil bones for carch saying it was 50ft long and 15t but when we find a fragmentary fossil bone of t.rex saying the same thing we automatically shoot it it down saying its impossible. When in reality since we have far more t.rex skeletons than carch to make these comparisons the t.rex fragmentary fossils should be more reliable since we can make more active and consistent comparisons to the many more t.rex fossils we do have! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fWE64V7GQ&t=3408s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hu1cmej02g - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qckg3Idq7dk - https://spinoinwonderland.deviantart.com/art/Carcharodontosaurus-saharicus-skeletals-2015-528058826 - http://www.topix.com/forum/science/dinosaurs/TPJS53IUS1ABMDGL3/size-estimations-of-the-t-rex-ucmp-118742 another reason why im guessing we dont accept these larger fragmentary t.rex specimens as much as giga,spino,or carchs is because if there truely was a 11t 45 ft long t.rex it would demolish any of these guys no contest and once and for all end this debate of who is the biggest and baddest, not to mention bigger doesn't always mean better look at the raptors for example..... 2.) t.rex is obviously faster and built better for running than carch it has a fused metatarsal for far more stability for running, a shorter femur , s four chambered heart, and pneumatic bones which allows for a lot better air flow in the skeleton and the body in general this design helps modern day birds soar over mountains and other birds like ostriches to run forever at a speed of 40 mph. carch does not have a fused metatarsal or four chambered heart , not signs of a truly cursorial animal which t.rex definitely was. Not only does t.rex seem to out do carch in speed but its is also going to outlast carch in stamina as well. Carch is probably pushing up to 30 mph( im being very nice here most sources i found on this said 20mph) t.rex is pushing 35-40 mph. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvrEF4y2-vg&list=PL7pg0jIC5etCKwwzeN-RpwvpeLFcaqUpp&index=83 - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep19828 - https://www.dinopit.com/carcharodontosaurus/ 3.) T.rex had some of the largest olfactory lobes out of any animal alive!! it had obviousley better smell than that of carch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqa1-dQWJBA&t=981s 4.) t.rex has better eyesight probably twice as good as an eagles it had some of the largest eyes out of any animal known. - http://ix.cs.uoregon.edu/~kent/paleontology/binocularVision/ 5.) It had a larger brain meaning it was probably more intelligent than carch as well - https://www.thedailybeast.com/t-rex-was-smarter-than-we-thought - https://insider.si.edu/2016/03/new-horse-sized-tyrannosaur-big-brain-reveals-t-rex-became-top-predator/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHihHMbeJ2I - https://www.dinosaurhome.com/the-amazing-brain-of-t.rex-916.html 5.) I shouldn't have to even mention this but it had an obviously more powerful devestating bite, one bite its over for carch plain and simple. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fWE64V7GQ&t=3408s -http://www.academia.edu/5982936/Maximum_Bite_Force_and_Prey_Size_of_Tyrannosaurus_rex_and_Their_Relationships_to_the_Inference_of_Feeding_Behavior This debate is over t.rex has 30 million years of evolution over carch get over it!! |
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | May 19 2018, 06:58 AM Post #928 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I should have stopped at the free meal part, but the rest of the post is equally flawed.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | May 19 2018, 09:12 AM Post #929 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What's it going to take for people to realize that evolution does not work like human technological progress? |
![]() |
|
| joule-trix | May 19 2018, 09:56 AM Post #930 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I find it funny how im being bashed right now for using some great sources from actually paleontologist , yet all the people who are bashing this don't have anything and i mean literally anything to back up how carcha would win. Guys this debate has been brought up and this question has been asked many times to paleontologist and they all say t.rex wins it was faaaar too advanced for carch to handle and yes evolution does play a huge role when you are looking at the Philogenetics and and therapods in this type of debate and who ever thought i meant human technology get a grip we as a species within the homo genus use weapons to fight we did it then we do it now!! dinosaurs don't use wepons they have their own natural biological weapons. Im sure navy seals don't use aka's but u get the idea smart ones the tools we use for fighting now are more effective than the tools we used back then. Stop talking crap and bashing show me a source or proof how carcha would win it is out done in literally every single aspect except maybe arms.Please watch this video by an actual paleontologist he even brings up how t.rex is far more powerful than carcha and giga. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&t=2394s Its easier to talk my friend and say something is wrong, than actually taking the time and consideration to do your own knowledge and proof why you are right which im sorry to say you have not. TECHNOLOGY is simply human tools we have used them then and we use them now a man with a skilled man with a club is most likely going to loose to a man with a gun, humans in general cant bite with a force of 1000 lbs or have claws, we need tools to more efficiently kill our prey and ourselves sadly. T.rex and carch have there own biological weapons there fore the don't use tools, im pretty sure u get the basic idea, i suggest you take some time to watch what this paleontologist says in this video he says t.rex is far more advanced than giga or carcha. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jD7kQvyPs&t=2394s. Edited by joule-trix, May 19 2018, 10:05 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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