| 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: |
| Torvosaurus vs Edmontonia | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 13 2012, 08:38 AM (4,634 Views) | |
| Vodmeister | Sep 13 2012, 08:38 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Ultimate Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Torvosaurus![]() Torvosaurus was a large predator that walked on two powerful legs, had a strong, and S-shaped neck. It had a massive tail, a bulky body, and heavy bones. Its arms were short and it had sharp claws. Torvosaurus was up to 33-40 ft (10-12 m) long and 8 ft (2.5 m) tall at the hips. It weighed up to 3 tonnes. Torvosaurus and Allosaurus were similar, but there were quite a few differences between the two genera. For example, they had very different vertebrae, and the limbs (especially the arms) of Torvosaurus were more robust than those of Allosaurus. Torvosaurus was a huge carnivore, a meat eater equipped with sharp, pointed teeth in large, powerful jaws - it was the biggest meat-eater in its habitat. This theropod also had long, sharp clawed hands, but its arms were a bit larger than those of T. rex. Torvosaurus probably ate large, plant-eating dinosaurs, such as Stegosaurus and sauropods. Torvosaurus was a large, fierce predator that could kill medium-sized sauropods (or sick or injured large sauropods like Apatosaurus) and many others of its contemporaries. Torvosaurus may also have been a scavenger. Edmontonia ![]() Edmontonia was an armoured dinosaur, a part of the nodosaur family from the Late Cretaceous Period. It is named after the Edmonton Formation (now the Horseshoe Canyon Formation), the unit of rock it was found in. Edmontonia was bulky and tank-like at roughly 6.6 m (22 ft) long and 2 m (6 ft) high. It had small, ridged bony plates on its back and head and many sharp spikes along its back and tail. The four largest spikes jutted out from the shoulders on each side, two of which were split into subspines in some specimens. Its skull had a pear-like shape when viewed from above. It weighed about 3.2 - 3.5 tonnes. The large spikes were probably used between males in contests of strength to defend territory or gain mates. The spikes would also have been useful for intimidating predators or rival males, protection, or for self-defense against animals in its size-range. To protect itself from much larger predators than itself, an Edmontonia might have crouched down on the ground to minimize the possibility of attack to its defenseless underbelly. Edited by Vodmeister, Sep 13 2012, 08:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Ausar | Nov 20 2012, 06:29 AM Post #16 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Second request by me that was actually accepted. First was Great Auk vs Hesperornis regalis. Thank you DinosaurMicheal! As for the fight, I would favor Edmontonia 65% |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 20 2012, 06:31 AM Post #17 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The only way I see Torvosaurus winning is by flipping the ankylosaurid over and biting the soft underbelly. Unless that happens, I don't really see Torvosaurus winning. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 21 2012, 01:44 AM Post #18 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Torvosaurus could crush the head, it was a very potent bone crusher, possibly the most potent terrestrial bone crusher ever... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 21 2012, 01:51 AM Post #19 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
broly, cannot you stop claiming that BS? Even if it was a better crusher than T. rex (which there is no evidence for, just maybe roughtly similar), there is ABSOLUTELY NO way it would be a more potent crusher than deinosuchus or purussaurus, animals entirely specialised on crushing, with incredibly huge jaw muscles, incredibly massive jaws and conical teeth. compared to these the ziphodont teeth of Tyrannosaurus rex or Torvosaurus rex look thin and fragile. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 21 2012, 01:52 AM Post #20 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It could crush the skull tough, and the armour probably as well, seeing that it is even possible to slice through armour without particularly strong bite forces. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 21 2012, 03:17 AM Post #21 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not so sure, ankylosaurid armor is pretty tough. The shoulder spikes could also be used. So if Torvosaurus tried to bite the head, Edmontonia could pivot slightly and the spikes would deflect Torvosaurus' aim. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 21 2012, 05:54 AM Post #22 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The spikes are a different thing. How much damage edmontonia can do does actually totally depend on the size. What I mean is that Torvosaurus could bite through the armour, not that the ankylosaur wouldn´t be able to prevent it. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 21 2012, 10:50 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
T rex teeth are not fragile, Erickson has stated that T rex teeth are as strong as those of croc and gator, you should have source to prove that Rex teeth are more fragile than croc teeth. Even by Tyrannosaurids standard, T rex still has the strongest teeth |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 22 2012, 12:51 AM Post #24 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
would you mind reading what I wrote instead of just reading some of the keywords and jumping to conclusions? and btw its indeed conical theeth that are built entirely to endure strong pressures, while ziphodont teeth serve more than just that one purpose. if a crocodile could jsut as well have T. rex teeth, and the jaw would be just as strong, why doesn´t it have them? Anyway, back to what I originally stated, a conical tooth does simply have a far more massive LOOK to begin with. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Nov 22 2012, 01:05 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Look can be decisive, evidence show that T rex teeth can crush bones very well, it doesn't look to be anywhere weaker than croc teeth, also Erickson has claimed... T rex probably has the strongest maxillary teeth of all Tyrannosaurid, as well as strongest bite force T rex seems to be the No.1 crusher of its kind |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 22 2012, 02:06 AM Post #26 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Appearantly deinosuchus was estimated to have a twice stronger bite force tough, and there is a reason why animals develope conical teeth. Can You give me a quote of what exactly Erickson did claim? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 22 2012, 01:17 PM Post #27 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, Tyrannosaurus is the most powerful crusher of all tyrannosaurids, but nothing more...it is not the No. 1 crusher of all dinosaurs and/or all terrestrial animals... |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 22 2012, 01:18 PM Post #28 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That would mean that Deinosuchus had a bite force of around ~100,000-120,000 newtons...can you give us a link to that paper? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 22 2012, 07:26 PM Post #29 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think it´s from here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0031781 |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 22 2012, 10:36 PM Post #30 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you have any proof that Torvosaurus had a stronger bite? Every source that I've been on says Tyrannosaurus has the strongest recorded bite of any terrestrial animal alive or extinct. I asked TheRoc for the link about this and he hasn't replied back yet to my knowledge. |
![]() |
|
| 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 |
2:27 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






2:27 AM Jul 14