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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Tarbosaurus bataar v Zhuchengtyrannus magnus
Topic Started: Jul 4 2012, 03:47 PM (9,626 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Tarbosaurus bataar
Tarbosaurus belongs in the subfamily Tyrannosaurinae within the family Tyrannosauridae, along with the earlier Daspletosaurus, the more recent Tyrannosaurus and possibly Alioramus. Animals in this subfamily are more closely related to Tyrannosaurus than to Albertosaurus and are known for their robust build with proportionally larger skulls and longer femurs than in the other subfamily, the Albertosaurinae.
Although many specimens of this genus have been found, little definite data was confirmed on the dinosaur as of 1986, though it was presumed to share many characteristics with other tyrannosaurids. The close similarities have prompted some scientists to suggest a possible link between the North American and Eurasian continents at that time, perhaps in the form of a land bridge.
As with most dinosaurs, Tarbosaurus size estimates have varied through recent years. It could have been 10 meters long, with a weight of 4 to 5 - 7 tons.

Posted Image

Zhuchengtyrannus magnus
Zhuchengtyrannus (meaning "Zhucheng tyrant") is an extinct genus of carnivorous theropod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous period. It is a tyrannosaurine tyrannosaurid which lived during the late Cretaceous period in what is now Zhucheng, Shandong Province of China. It is known from the holotype ZCDM V0031, a nearly complete right maxilla and associated left dentary (lower jaw, both with teeth) recovered from the Wangshi Group, dating to about 70 million years ago. It is one of the largest known Tyrannosaurid theropods, and the holotype has been estimated to have been 10–12 m (33–39 ft) in length and up to 6 short tons (5.4 t) in weight. The holotype dentary is slightly smaller than that of most specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex and slightly bigger than most of Tarbosaurus bataar, but significantly smaller than the corresponding bones of the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen ("Sue"). The dinosaur was found in an area that was a floodplain in the Cretaceous period and which contains one of the highest concentrations of dinosaur bones in the world.

Posted Image

___________________________________________________________________

Dilophosaurus Atrox
 
Tarbosaurus vs. Zhuchengtyrannus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I vote for tarbosaurus 55/45
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bump
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dino-ken
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
tarbosaurus 55/45


IMO - that's a bit of an overestimate - since Zhuchengtyrannus and Tarbosaurus are basically the same, as they are both Tyrannosaurine Tyrannosaurids, and roughly the same size. Although it's interesting to note that Zhuchengtyrannus may be a direct ancestor of Tarbosaurus, since it lived about 3-4 million years before Tarbosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, if the link to the skull size comparison is correct, I think the winner should be pretty obvious.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I’m not so sure anymore tha that comparison reflects the sizes accurately.
If you look at the maxxillaries, you can easily envisioning the Zhuchengtyrannus-maxilla fitting into the skull of that Tarbosaurus–the difference lies in the relative size restored for the other parts; look at the huge size disparity in the jugals for example. It could be the same as with Lythronax and Nanuqsaurus: the actual overlapping material is similar in size, but one is found to be smaller because it is reconstructed more conservatively.

The Zhuchengtyrannus does however definitely seem to have smaller (or at least mesiodistally shorter) teeth.

Also, the portrayed Tarbosaurus seems oversized.

I guess someone should put together a comparison with the actual photos.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jaws
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
SpinoInWonderland
Jan 11 2013, 06:51 PM
The new dinosaur, named Zhuchengtyrannus magnus, probably stood four metres tall, was 11 metres long and weighed around six tonnes.
12m v 10m=zhucheng wins 60/40 in these kinds of matchs size means every thing
Edited by Jaws, Oct 2 2015, 10:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The 10-12m range given by Hone et al. (2011) for Zhuchengtyrannus is based on the similar dimensions of its bones to the upper size range of Tarbosaurus specimens but from where did they get the idea that 10-12m was a reasonable range for Tarbosaurus? the "upper range" mentioned by them corresponds to specimens with 1.1m long skulls and estimated body lengths of 9m not 10-12m

9m for Zhuchengtyrannus is also supported by the fact that those same bones are comparable to those of Biestahieversor and large Daspletosaurus specimens, again with skulls 1-1.1m long and total lengths of 9m.

Hone et al. (2011) for some reason forgot to mention that the maxilla is noticeably smaller (by almost 10cm) than that of the largest Tarbosaurus specimen, which is the only one could have reached 10m in length.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jaws
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
blaze
Oct 2 2015, 01:18 PM
The 10-12m range given by Hone et al. (2011) for Zhuchengtyrannus is based on the similar dimensions of its bones to the upper size range of Tarbosaurus specimens but from where did they get the idea that 10-12m was a reasonable range for Tarbosaurus? the "upper range" mentioned by them corresponds to specimens with 1.1m long skulls and estimated body lengths of 9m not 10-12m

9m for Zhuchengtyrannus is also supported by the fact that those same bones are comparable to those of Biestahieversor and large Daspletosaurus specimens, again with skulls 1-1.1m long and total lengths of 9m.

Hone et al. (2011) for some reason forgot to mention that the maxilla is noticeably smaller (by almost 10cm) than that of the largest Tarbosaurus specimen, which is the only one could have reached 10m in length.
oh 50/50 then with edge to tarbo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinosaurFan95
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Tarbosaurus, two-fingered hands down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Carnoferox's sex toy
[ *  *  *  * ]
I see what you did there, DF95. But for the most part, I do indeed agree with your statement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.