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
Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,203 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
 
Replies:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I just checked the claw lenght, SMA 0005 at 7,6m has a 15cm long claw, most likely the 1st manual ungual. The corresponging claw of USNM 4734 (7,4m) is 12cm long.

Scale that up to a 13m Saurophaganax and it has claws 21-26cm in lenght, and we are just talking about the bony core. Does anyone think arms bearing such claws where useless in a fight?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And verdugo, can you explain to me why despite being much more robust and shorter the teeth of allosaurus should be weaker? regardless of that, I think carnosaur teeth in general wouldn´t just shatter once they encounter bone.

I've never said they were weaker, Allosaurus has the typical tooth strength of Carnosaur, there is nothing special about their teeth/tooth strength actually. And you think going by visual would be better than going by actual data from scientists ?
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/k57ead3tt/Theropod_tooth_strength.png
The Allosaurus in the study is ROM 5091
Quote:
 
this is an allosaurus front tooth (presumably premaxillary):
http://www.fossilreproductions.net/images/1329692484809-1961355162.jpeg

this is a lateral tooth:
http://www.fossilreproductions.net/images/132969313076126909620.jpeg

btw note the quote:
"Along the front and back edges of tooth are small serrations for cutting into muscle."

http://www.fossilreproductions.net/Allosaurus-tooth-side-tooth-107.htm

Allosaurs teeth aren´t all the same and at least some where undoubtedly very robust.

http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Dinosaur_Fossils_For_Sale/Allosaurus-Fossils/Allosaurus-Tooth-1/

If you seriously love to go by visual THAT MUCH ! Fine !. Instead of looking at the long root, why don't you look at the crown itself

Allosaurus tooth:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Carcharodontosaurus tooth:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Allosaurus tooth doesn't seem to be more robust than those of Carcharodontosaurus, right ?. Or i say it is actually even less robust ? rolleyes . Going by visual just the way you like , happy now ?
Quote:
 
"Along the front and back edges of tooth are small serrations for cutting into muscle."

Almost every Theropod have serrations, and Carcharodontosaurus and T rex have serrations both back and front while Allosaurus only have the back
Quote:
 
I just checked the claw lenght, SMA 0005 at 7,6m has a 15cm long claw, most likely the 1st manual ungual. The corresponging claw of USNM 4734 (7,4m) is 12cm long.

Scale that up to a 13m Saurophaganax and it has claws 21-26cm in lenght, and we are just talking about the bony core. Does anyone think arms bearing such claws where useless in a fight?

ARE YOU SERIOUS SCALING PROPORTIONALLY WITH THE CLAWS LENGTH ??. CLAWS LENGTH OR TOOTH LENGTH ARE GREATLY VARRIED BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, smaller T rex can have bigger teeth the larger one, smaller Allosaurus can have larger claws than the larger one.

And if you want to scale proportionally, FINE, NO MATTER how big the claws, Allosaurus arms would still be useless in a fight

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/45446ie1t/Deinonychus_Allosaurus_T_rex_arms_movement.png

The motion of Allosaurus shoulder joint is extremely limited, its arms barely pass the shoulder, do you think those arms could touch a taller animal like T rex ??

EDIT:
Quote:
 
The picture is mainly guess based,

Yes, those are from scientists, why your guess "Allosaurus slicing bones" comes DIRECTLY from your guts feeling lol
Edited by Verdugo, Dec 31 2012, 02:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
If you seriously love to go by visual THAT MUCH ! Fine !. Instead of looking at the long root, why don't you look at the crown itself
....
Allosaurus tooth doesn't seem to be more robust than those of Carcharodontosaurus, right ?. Or i say it is actually even less robust ? rolleyes . Going by visual just the way you like , happy now ?

That´s a lateral tooth, some in the front where significantly thicker, ahd you paid attention to the pictures I posted you would know that.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
"Along the front and back edges of tooth are small serrations for cutting into muscle."

Almost every Theropod have serrations, and Carcharodontosaurus and T rex have serrations both back and front while Allosaurus only have the back

Completely wrong, I even showed you pictures of an allosaurus tooth that has serrations on both sides.
Posted Image

But as usual, you don´t look at it. That´s not really important anyway. I have to admitt allosaurus lateral teeth where not unusually robust. Some of the premaxillary ones undoubtedly where tough.

Quote:
 
ARE YOU SERIOUS SCALING PROPORTIONALLY WITH THE CLAWS LENGTH ??. CLAWS LENGTH OR TOOTH LENGTH ARE GREATLY VARRIED BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, smaller T rex can have bigger teeth the larger one, smaller Allosaurus can have larger claws than the larger one.

is there any source or is this just your claim?

Quote:
 
ARE YOU SERIOUS SCALING PROPORTIONALLY WITH THE CLAWS LENGTH ??. CLAWS LENGTH OR TOOTH LENGTH ARE GREATLY VARRIED BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, smaller T rex can have bigger teeth the larger one, smaller Allosaurus can have larger claws than the larger one.

And if you want to scale proportionally, FINE, NO MATTER how big the claws, Allosaurus arms would still be useless in a fight.

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/45446ie1t/Deinonychus_Allosaurus_T_rex_arms_movement.png

The motion of Allosaurus shoulder joint is extremely limited, its arms barely pass the shoulder, do you think those arms could touch a taller animal like T rex ??

And where are these images from?

Allosaurus rears up a bit, flexes the elbow and pulls back its neck->claws puncture opponents skin.
And such big claws already proove that the arms where not useless in a fight, what do you imagine it doing with them, maybe painting?
Quote:
 
EDIT:
Quote:
 
The picture is mainly guess based,

Yes, those are from scientists, why your guess "Allosaurus slicing bones" comes DIRECTLY from your guts feeling lol

It doesn´t make a difference whether a scientist makes the guess or me, guesses are not more reliable just because they are from a scientist, and at least the guess you just cited has a logical base, namely that of other animals doing it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 29 2012, 06:02 AM
sharks don´t really crush bones, they saw through them.
Anyway, their forces are amazing. In the 7th Chapter of the book "The Shark: Splendid Savage of the Sea", they tested the behaviour of sharks when they encounter divers, for that they used a dummy diver and even tough the dummy had a steel scaffolding instead of bones, a shark roughly 2-2,5m long was able to tear off a leg and in another chapter, a oceanic whitetip shark was able to bend the rods of one of the cages they used to protect themselves from sharks (but the cages were old models).

However, according to Grey, sharks are only able to do such things because of their shaking motion, something what an Allosaurus could not do, according to him, a Komodo Dragon would be a better comparision for Carnosaurs, so I won't use sharks sawing trough bones as a comparision.

P.S. Actually a Megalodon could have crushed it's bones rather than sawing trough them, because of it's very thick teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The very thick teeth are still slicing teeth, but ones that can withstand a lot of force. Megalodons main weapon is the cutting power of its teeth, not blunt force like in a crushing bite. where they built to crush they wouldn´t be that sharp, and they would also have a different shape. It is not always the amount of force in the bite or the force the teeth could endure. I think obviously allosaurs had both a very resistant cranium and likely a biting mechanism that allowed them to push their jaws into their prey with a lot of force, but the most important part in theri bite is the sharpness of the teeth.

I think the mechanics of a powerful pushing and pulling motion may well be comparable to the shaking motion of a shark. In any case, your examples show how great the damage that slicing can cause is.
Edited by theropod, Jan 2 2013, 02:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted ImagePosted Image
http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3823033/45167/

as one can see above the jaws and teeth of T. rex do totally put those of a 13m Saurophaganax to shame, I have to agree with verdugo lol
Edited by theropod, Jan 3 2013, 10:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
And when scaled on DINO, the skull of Saurophaganax is ~130cm
EDIT: didn't read you were being specific about a 13m Saurophaganax

... How do you get an skull so big for that ichnotaxon?
Edited by blaze, Jan 2 2013, 04:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
(13m/7,9m)*845

Ok, it is in fact 139cm, sorry.

For the ichnotaxon, of course it is all speculation, it could have been proportioned compeltely differently, but assuming similar proportions it would be that large.

(15m/7,9m)*845

also it is not so common for larger theropods to get smaller skulls, is it?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Once again, Carcharocles megalodon dentition has been compared to Tyrannosaurus, not to carnosaurs.

Never heard of an analogy between the lateral shaking activites performed by sharks and the killing style of Allosaurus. The teeth of Carcharodon carcharias and Carcharodontosaurus has been compared obviosuly, but this is limited to the teeth, not their killing style. Again, I read made up facts around...
Edited by Grey, Jan 2 2013, 04:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
mmm so you were using DINO, but with Mortimer's estimate that is the shortest out there, others put it at ~8.5m, that'll make the skull of a 13m one at 129cm and that of a 15m one at 149cm.

What I meant for the Ichnotaxon is that I've never searched for it, and when I read it in your comment I did, the first thing I found was a blogger post (and cited too) comparing it to a supposedly T. rex track from Hell creek that was 8cm shorter but equally wide, that made me think that, either that T. rex is a giant too or the Moroccan track does not come from a giant but it was actually at the same size range as "mortal" theropods (~12m)
Edited by blaze, Jan 2 2013, 04:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 2 2013, 04:28 AM
Once again, Carcharocles megalodon dentition has been compared to Tyrannosaurus, not to carnosaurs.

Never heard of an analogy between the lateral shaking activites performed by sharks and the killing style of Allosaurus. The teeth of Carcharodon carcharias and Carcharodontosaurus has been compared obviosuly, but this is limited to the teeth, not their killing style. Again, I read made up facts around...

And I read people misinterpreting the anatomy of these animals. That C. megalodon has been compared to T. rex doesn´t mean it wasn´t even more similar (in terms of the dentitions functional morphology) to other animals, which it was, unless you suggest that megalodon was mainly a crusher relying on blunt force which is not indicated at all, I´d regard it as well evidenced that it actually relied on cutting power in cobination with the lateral shaking activities. Greg erickson for example ahs already compared T. rex bite to that of C. carcharias, is it now closer to it than to Carcharodontosaurs?

I guess a komodo dragon is probably the better comparison, but in the end it is still a comparable result, whether the head is pulled back or moved sideways. You don´t have to believe that if you need to have everything confirmed no matter how logical it is.


blaze
Jan 2 2013, 04:32 AM
mmm so you were using DINO, but with Mortimer's estimate that is the shortest out there, others put it at ~8.5m, that'll make the skull of a 13m one at 129cm and that of a 15m one at 149cm.

What I meant for the Ichnotaxon is that I've never searched for it, and when I read it in your comment I did, the first thing I found was a blogger post (and cited too) comparing it to a supposedly T. rex track from Hell creek that was 8cm shorter but equally wide, that make me think that, either that T. rex is a giant too or the Moroccan track does not come from a giant.

Big Al yields 137cm for Saurophaganax and 158cm for a speculative 15m version (assuming it was 7,5m, not 8m, I don´t know which is true however)

I didn´t even know there where Blog entrys on it, could you give me the link? What i have heard of is Tyrannosauripous, but it´s not the same, is it? Sure that was referring to the same footprint? I have never found it noted anywhere except for the paper that described it.

btw Verdugo once noted komodo dragons relied on mechanical advantage and where thus not a good comparison. According to "Estimating maximum bite performance in Tyrannosaurus rex using multi body dynamics", Allosaurus too has an exceptionally high one, to be exact for nearly 0,5 higher than the one of T. rex and by far the highest one in their study.
Posted Image
The yellow one is Allosaurus, the blue one is T. rex. The further posterior it is simulated the stronger the advantage in allosaurus´ jaw gets compared to the other animals.
Edited by theropod, Jan 2 2013, 05:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maybe its a different track, this is the blogger post, it is from an amateur though, so it might not mean much but it did helped me find the papers for the Moroccan track and the Tyrannosaurus track
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, maybe I understood the paper wrong, I read 90cm in the table (maybe the measurement given there was the largest which had a width figure as the largest one only consisted of a legnht figure). Tyrannosauripus was probably even longer than 72cm. There are in fact several footprints from the jurrassic that exceed 80cm. Thanks for the links anyway, I had the paper on the jurrassic footprints but I had forgotten where it was from, and that tyrannosaur is definitely interesting. I would say footprints this size are certainly belonging to animals of exceptional size in any case.

you could have found the name of the paper on my blog btw.
Edited by theropod, Jan 2 2013, 05:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And I read people misinterpreting the anatomy of these animals. That C. megalodon has been compared to T. rex doesn´t mean it wasn´t even more similar (in terms of the dentitions functional morphology) to other animals, which it was, unless you suggest that megalodon was mainly a crusher relying on blunt force which is not indicated at all, I´d regard it as well evidenced that it actually relied on cutting power in cobination with the lateral shaking activities. Greg erickson for example ahs already compared T. rex bite to that of C. carcharias, is it now closer to it than to Carcharodontosaurs?

I guess a komodo dragon is probably the better comparison, but in the end it is still a comparable result, whether the head is pulled back or moved sideways. You don´t have to believe that if you need to have everything confirmed no matter how logical it is.


This is not about people misinterpreting. Jim Farlow was the first to notice on the structural similarities of C.megalodon and T.rex teeth.

Still, I had, through Bretton Kent words (he's a teeth morphologist by training), listed the differences still existing between meg teeth and rex teeth.

Despite this, megalodon has very robust and thick teeth, unlike carnosaurs. It relied on blunt force simply because of the very extreme size of it. The design of its teeth doing the rest.

In simple words, where carnosaurs were not suited to target bones in large preys (we do not speak about Allosaurus biting through Dryosaurus obviously), megalodon was made for this.

Sharks like Carcharodon carcharias are not bone crushers, it has been already specified that the white shark prefer to attack the softer parts. Here too, that a 75 kg surfer was cut in half by a 900 kg great white is irrevelant.
Now, I don't see anywhere that any carnosaur had the teeth morphology and the shaking activities allowing the slice through hard substances proper to the sharks, used at the extreme by the tiger shark.

Indeed, the komodo is the most likely template for giants carnosaurs.
Edited by Grey, Jan 2 2013, 05:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I doubt Big Al would need a maximum stress resistence of 57000 in its cranium just to cut through meat.
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

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.