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
  • 28
Who wins?
Saurophaganax maximus 4 (23.5%)
Tyrannosaurus rex 13 (76.5%)
Total Votes: 17
Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,183 Views)
DinosaurMichael
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Saurophaganax maximus
Saurophaganax ("lizard-eating master") is a genus of allosaurid dinosaur from the Morrison Formation of Late Jurassic Oklahoma (latest Kimmeridgian age, about 151 million years ago). Some paleontologists consider it to be a species of Allosaurus (A. maximus). Saurophaganax represents a very large (13 metres (43 ft) long). Saurophaganax was one of the largest carnivores of Late Jurassic North America. Ray even gave an estimate of the body length of fifteen metres and Chure of fourteen, though later estimations have been lower. The fossils known of Saurophaganax (both the possible New Mexican material and the Oklahoma material) are known from the latest part of the Morrison formation, suggesting that they were either always uncommon or appeared rather late in the fossil record. Saurophaganax was large for an allosaurid, and bigger than both its contemporaries Torvosaurus tanneri and Allosaurus fragilis. Being much rarer than its contemporaries, making up one percent or less of the Morrison theropod fauna, not much about its behavior is known. Stovall in Oklahoma also unearthed a considerable number of Apatosaurus specimens, a possible prey for a large theropod.

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image
Edited by DinosaurMichael, Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I go with Tyrannosaurus, like Giganotosaurus it is heavier and has longer+at both sides serrated teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Dec 15 2012, 10:30 PM
@Jinfeng, sauro also has serrated teeth, who said it doesn't?
Yes, but only at the back, but the teeth of T-rex and Carcharodontosaurids are serrated at both sides.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Saurophaganax is about the same size as Tyrannosaurus or even larger
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@jingoferx: that once more is a trait that isn´t necessarily beneficial, it´s just different. Longer teeth simply correspond to a different biting mechanism. If one gives Saurophaganax longer teeth they would be a disadvantage, so would be shorter teeth in the mouth of a carcharodontosuar or tyrannosaur.

In this case, using 13m saurophaganax I think T. rex wins. imho a good weight estimate for an allosaur that lenght would be ~5,5t, thus it is nearly 1t lighter than T. rex and of course more vulnerable and inferior in body strenght. On the other hand it has speed and agility on its side due to the lower inertial forces, but if the weights aren´t about even that isn´t enough to win.

At weight parity I´d favour Saurophaganax tough. I think the relatively unspecialised built makes it a more versatile predator ad fighter than forms such as Tyrannosaurs and Carcharodontosaurs. It has a compact skull with a wide gape (tough not as wide as that of carcharodontosaurs) able to inflict lots of damage, and it has a more slender built making it more agile.
Edited by theropod, Dec 15 2012, 10:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 15 2012, 10:33 PM
Saurophaganax is about the same size as Tyrannosaurus or even larger
I ment by weight. You've once given a source what stated Saurophaganax to weigh 6t:
http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Aug/msg00194.html
T-rex conservative estimates are already above 6t. An average T-rex is believed to weigh as much as the Giganotosaurus Holotype, which likely weighed ~6,5t. Mazzetta stated an average T-rex to weigh 6,3t. In the T-rex groth paper they gave 5-8t as average, so 6,5t seems to be the meridian.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 15 2012, 10:36 PM
@jingoferx: that once more is a trait that isn´t necessarily beneficial, it´s just different. Longer teeth simply correspond to a different biting mechanism. If one gives Saurophaganax longer teeth they would be a disadvantage, so would be shorter teeth in the mouth of a carcharodontosuar or tyrannosaur.
But longer teeth allow deeper bite marks, while shorter ones allow a wider gape, however in my opinion bite damage helps more than gape.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kunfuzzled
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
In my opinion:
10.5m(conservative) Saurophaganax vs 12m Tyrannosaurus rex 65/35 in favour of Tyrannosaurus, considerable size difference towards rex (1.5-2.5tonnes)
13m(liberal) Saurophaganax vs 12m Tyrannosaurus rex 50/50 perhaps very slight edge towards Tyrannosaurus due to "slight" weight (0.5-1tonnes) advantage at these lengths
15m(speculative) Saurophaganax vs 12m Tyrannosaurus rex 65/35 in favour of Saurophaganax due to considerable size advantage and agile (comparatively lighter) build trade off is compensated for
Edited by Kunfuzzled, Dec 15 2012, 10:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hmm, usual max estimates are between 6 and 7t. Hyperliberal or hyperconservative ones are above or below it. T. rex being on average the same weight as the giganotosaurus holotype is already rather liberal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 15 2012, 10:40 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 15 2012, 10:33 PM
Saurophaganax is about the same size as Tyrannosaurus or even larger
I ment by weight. You've once given a source what stated Saurophaganax to weigh 6t:
http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Aug/msg00194.html
imo, an average Tyrannosaurus is also 6 tonnes, Tyrannosaurus is a birdlike theropod that is lighter than it looks

And Saurophaganax can reach 14 meters and probably even 15 meters in length
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kunfuzzled
Dec 15 2012, 10:41 PM
10.5m(conservative) Saurophaganax vs 12m Tyrannosaurus rex 35/65 in favour of Tyrannosaurus, considerable size difference towards rex
Don't you mean 65/35?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kunfuzzled
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 15 2012, 10:43 PM
Kunfuzzled
Dec 15 2012, 10:41 PM
10.5m(conservative) Saurophaganax vs 12m Tyrannosaurus rex 35/65 in favour of Tyrannosaurus, considerable size difference towards rex
Don't you mean 65/35?
Ahh crap you're right, woops my mistake
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 15 2012, 10:41 PM
theropod
Dec 15 2012, 10:36 PM
@jingoferx: that once more is a trait that isn´t necessarily beneficial, it´s just different. Longer teeth simply correspond to a different biting mechanism. If one gives Saurophaganax longer teeth they would be a disadvantage, so would be shorter teeth in the mouth of a carcharodontosuar or tyrannosaur.
But longer teeth allow deeper bite marks, while shorter ones allow a wider gape, however in my opinion bite damage helps more than gape.
That´s a bit too simplyfied. Shorter teeth are more robust, because of the leverage and bending moments. Longer ones might be more effective for slicing* as they can puncture deeper, but when the shorter ones can endure greater stress that makes up for it. Gape is a different thing, of course very long teeth make the funktional gape smaller (e.g smilodon), but in this case the difference is not that great.

*That´s why I think Carcharodontosaurids built points out to strong specialisation, particularly in sauropod hunting. The teeth are optimized for what they did, buit that can also have disadvantages. In T. rex it´s the same, but of course the funktional anatomy is once more different, T. rex teeth had to be as good as possible in crushing-which requires different adaptions.
Edited by theropod, Dec 15 2012, 10:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 15 2012, 10:42 PM
imo, an average Tyrannosaurus is also 6 tonnes, Tyrannosaurus is a birdlike theropod that is lighter than it looks

And Saurophaganax can reach 14 meters and probably even 15 meters in length
All theropods have hollow bones, not just T-rex. The 14-15m is too liberal, if you want to use this, you also have to use liberal stuff for T.rex and in his Genus list, Holtz didn't bother to give any higher figure than 13m.
Also, in the paper palaeocritti gave, 15m weren't mentioned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
no-one here has access to the paper as far as I know, it´s from 1941 and was published in some sort of magazine...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 28

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.