| 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 (130,018 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: | |
|---|---|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 07:10 PM Post #121 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We have several specimens of Tyrannosaurus, and it's clear that they have differing proportions. Isometric scaling is only reliable if the number of specimens is few. We'll be using Sue for now, since it isn't clear if MOR008 is a big-headed individual or not. And 13 meters is around average for Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis, not maximum. The lower estimates for Carcharodontosaurus are for C. saharicus. And the maximum estimate for Carcharodontosaurus is about 14 tonnes, so if you want to use maximum, Tyrannosaurus would get destroyed easily. |
![]() |
|
| Archer250 | Oct 27 2012, 07:12 PM Post #122 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 07:28 PM Post #123 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You took it out of context. I said that if we use maximum estimates, Carcharodontosaurus would win easily. "And the maximum estimate for Carcharodontosaurus is about 14 tonnes, so if you want to use maximum, Tyrannosaurus would get destroyed easily." |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 07:42 PM Post #124 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
13m is hardly the maximum for carcharodontosaurus (we already had size comparisons basing on skull lenght that made it 13-13,5m, and that was only saharicus. the 13,5-14m range again seems much saver as a maximum). I wouldn´t agree with broly about MOR 008, but for obvous reasons it was most likely measured a different way. about the weight, we should probably use the maximum for neither of them. 15t for carch and 9,5t for T. rex are nothing but utter exagerations basing on the same flawed metodologies of making them extremely bulky, beyond the point that is possible for a bipedal with obvious adaptions for fast running. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Oct 27 2012, 07:44 PM Post #125 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes but Broly, these estimates between the two species were not based on the same methods at the same time. Carcharodontosaurids are not that bigger than Tyrannosaurus, they are little bigger, but still in the same size range, with a totally different built. We have no way to determine an average size for Carcharodontosaurus at now. You need well preseved individuals representing a sample of population, not two or three fragmentary remains... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 27 2012, 07:50 PM Post #126 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who says C. iguidensis had the same propotions as C. saharicus. IT ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES! And the different propotion thing also applies for Carcharodontosaurus. So the 13m Carcharodontosaurus can be easily debunked with the same argument as the 13m Tyrannosaurus! |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 07:51 PM Post #127 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When a few individuals are found those normally represent the average. we are currently compareing those to the largest of 31 Tyrannosaurus rex specimens. of course we have to, because there is no way of telling how much larger the largest ones where, but in reality, Carcharodontosaurus was likely somewhat bigger than T. rex. Compare 12-14m Carcharodontosaurus specimens to 11-12m T. rex average to see what I mean. There is absolutely no point in taking the most conservative estimate for Charcharodontosaurus and things like the 9,5t estimate for T. rex. saying that T. rex was bigger is unreasonable imo, Charcharodontosaurus iguidensis has at least a slight edge here. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 07:52 PM Post #128 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
completely agreed. Broly didn´t really get that point seemingly. he thinks he could debunk the size of some T. rex specimen with the exact same arguments he himself debunks when it comes to a biased body-mass comparison. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 08:00 PM Post #129 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I never said that Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis had the same proportions as Carcharodontosaurus saharicus. I just meant that the 13-meter Tyrannosaurus is extremely doubtful... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 08:02 PM Post #130 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You still don´t get it, do you? if you use this argument to debunk a 13m T. rex, you have to use it in C. iguidensis as well. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 09:11 PM Post #131 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The difference is, that no official estimates were made for MOR008, but you can look up many estimates for Carcharodontosaurus...and the estimates for C. iguidensis were likely not obtained through isometric scaling... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 27 2012, 09:36 PM Post #132 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You should maybe look at this:Daren Naish doesn't think Carcharodontosaurus was bigger. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Oct 27 2012, 09:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 27 2012, 09:59 PM Post #133 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't agree with Daren Naish, I never agreed with him...at all... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 27 2012, 10:00 PM Post #134 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
May I ask why? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2012, 10:12 PM Post #135 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
it´s more like that he doesn´t believe in it being substantially bigger than T. rex or bigger without a doubt. Broly, whether the estimates are official or not doesn´t change anything in that regard. There wheren´t even any estimates published for C. iguidensis. |
![]() |
|
| 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