| 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 (4,632 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: | |
|---|---|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 22 2012, 10:58 PM Post #31 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Those are fallacious sources, saying that Tyrannosaurus had the strongest bite of all terrestrial animals that ever lived is a fallacy, one proven wrong by Deinosuchus and Purussaurus, and possibly Torvosaurus and Edmarka. The paper that TheROC has states that megalosauroids have a greater mechanical advantage than tyrannosauroids in their skulls when it comes to biting... |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 22 2012, 11:15 PM Post #32 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Crocodiles are amphibious creatures and I'm not sure about megalosaurids. TheROC has yet to give me the link. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Nov 22 2012, 11:16 PM Post #33 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Amphibious creatures also count as terrestrial ones... |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 22 2012, 11:29 PM Post #34 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In that case, then it's definetely Deinosuchus or Purussaurus. When it came to strongest bite of all animals period, I think it was Megalodon. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 22 2012, 11:59 PM Post #35 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
or livyatan, or a large pliosaur. sharks are slicers, they don´t need a particularly strong bite. if megalodon is carcharodontosaurus livyatan is T. rex (a bit oversimplyfied, yes). T. rex having the strongest bite of any terrestrial animal is sensationalistic BS. There are no estimates for torvosaurus or edmarka, but both have great size, huge and robust skulls and a good mechanical advantage-all this is pointing out to a really strong bite and I don´t understand why many people seem to think it is that ridiculous to assume it would haver rivaled T. rex. Deinosuchus was recently proven to have a (far) stronger bite than T. rex, and basing on the crocodile regressions from the paper purrussaurus has as well. |
![]() |
|
| Makaveli7 | Aug 18 2013, 02:51 PM Post #36 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Torvosaurus should be able to crush armor with its powerful jaws. With greater speed and agility, as well as size, it could dodge the attacks of the nodosaur until it could either flip it over or bite its head. |
![]() |
|
| retic | Aug 18 2013, 03:06 PM Post #37 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
torvosaurus should win since it has a good size advantage. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Aug 18 2013, 06:31 PM Post #38 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
torvosaurus has a nice size advantage so its wins also edmontonia has no real defences |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Aug 19 2013, 04:42 AM Post #39 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wasn't the 12 meter European Torvosaurus proven to be wrong? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Aug 19 2013, 04:51 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would still have the size advantage (using Seebacher's weight for Nodosaurus, I get ~1,6 t for Edmontonia) and I think the Torvosaurus here was anyway supposed to be roughly 10 m long. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Aug 19 2013, 07:38 AM Post #41 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the american torvosaurus is estimated to be 9-11 metres in length |
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Oct 16 2017, 09:05 AM Post #42 |
|
Carnoferox's sex toy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Edmonto can pull this off with medium hard difficulty. Stronger than what many think. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « 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