| 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: |
| Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,201 Views) | |
| DinosaurMichael | Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM Post #1 |
|
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. ![]() 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.
Edited by DinosaurMichael, Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Jan 4 2013, 03:59 AM Post #166 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Verdugo, you noted some time ago that "komodo dragons rely on massive mechanical advantage". I´ve got a question, could it be that you mistook "damage" for "advantage"? this is what Coherentsheaf once wrote about it:
After some further reading I tend to agree with coherentsheaf about komodo dragons having one of the most devastating bites on the planet. Have a look at this: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,133163,00.html Despite biting a bony region the dragon did excessive damage, severing tendons and musculature and causing excessive bleeding. If at all, I presume an allosaurs bite would be even more devastating due to size and morphology related factors, and unlike the dragon it would have a far better stance to choose an area to bite in. If Saurophaganax bit T. rex neck, I´d presume it could likely cause similar injuries to those caused in comodo dragon attacks, sever muscles tendons and blood vessels. Its height, mobility, the longer moment arms for striking, the narrower jaws and the square cube law should likely make it even more effective.
We have a very similar situation in all these regards here, that is: -Allosaurs may have had weak adductor musculature, but that does in no way reflect the potency of their bites -as we see in other animals, a weak bite does neither exclude the possibility of strong forces being excerted, nor great mechanical damage. we can see this both in komodos and in sharks -despite being lightly constructed, the skulls of some animals, most notably allosaurs and komodo dragons, are extremely effective weapons, and if you just go by the look of them being less massively built, i fear you are stubborn I have yet to see any arguments save for "stronger bite" brought up to support the "allosaurs need a 50% weight advantage to match tyrannosaurs"-view. In conclusion it is obvious how biased it is to regard a matchup like this one as a mismatch, or to favour the tyrannosaur by a wide margin at parity like some do-because that is simply not feasible in two animals that both have obviously highly effective weapons. Edited by theropod, Jan 4 2013, 05:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 5 2013, 06:09 AM Post #167 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I´ve asked Scott hartman about what he thinks about sues weight here: http://browse.deviantart.com/#/d21wpi8 This was the response: http://comments.deviantart.com/1/124138016/2888432584 Isn´t it interesting to see not everybody agrees about T. rex being a 9,5t monster? Some people are getting way too enthusiastic about that estimate, making themselves believe it was the one and only one, to be compared to other theropods lower figures... |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Jan 5 2013, 06:23 AM Post #168 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
9.5T figure is not the problem, comparing to other lower figures from other studies is. Neither the air sac system or the thickening of the tail is a problem in that study. They did take lung and air sac volume into account, and an animal doesn't simply go from 6t to 9t because it's tail got twice as thick. I have not seen many figures suggesting 6T is average weight estimate for Sue. It's a very large specimen for a rex. Hartman himself gave a 6400kg estimate years ago. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 5 2013, 07:20 AM Post #169 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
thats the estimate I'm using. it's not just the tail, obviously the reconstruction has excessive tissue around the ribcage. It is obvious why it might be too high. but all I posted this for was demonstrating that regarding this estimate as consensual is BS, and that like with other theropods there are also far more conservative ones |
![]() |
|
| yigit05 | Jan 5 2013, 07:01 PM Post #170 |
![]()
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
trex win stronger bite,speed |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Jan 5 2013, 11:27 PM Post #171 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The excessive tissue around the ribs were already taken into account of so there's no excuse for that, how many times do I have to remind people? The volumetric study simply gave a more accurate and detailed answer, its believability may be hard for some to accept but it is simply the nature of science if you look at it more open mind-idly. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jan 5 2013, 11:33 PM Post #172 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Stating it to be the more correct and accurate estimate is biased... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 5 2013, 11:34 PM Post #173 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What exactly do you mean by "already taken into account"? A volumetric model WOULD give a more accurate and detailed answer-if it would use the same reconstruction as other estimates, which it doesn´t, so there´s no excuse here to say it was more accurate. Like this it is simply a far bulkier model. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jan 5 2013, 11:37 PM Post #174 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unfortunately people do not understand that and they keep sticking to the 9+ tonne model as if it were the only one... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 5 2013, 11:51 PM Post #175 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
there is nothing wrong with using that figure-if you assume theropods in general had chests and tails like this:
AND of course this is not anything like consensual, as it is doubted by several scientists, and would apply to all theropods, because it would naturally mean not jsut T. rey had to be recosnturcted with this amount of tissue. Respective weights would thus remain exactly the same. This estimate is by no means mroe accurate than previous ones, duem to the mere fact that it does assume lots of tissue that is mere guess based. Hartman: 6-6,4t Paul: 6,1t Brochu: 6-7t Mortimer: 5,7t It´s not as if there where no other estimates, it is definitely not an unchallenged replacement for the other figures, it is definitely everyones choice which estimate to favour, and if 9,5t turns out to be true this means T. rex and all other theropods as well had such a huge amount of muscle mass and fat below their ribcages, meaning they all would equally get heavier. This would include Saurophaganax; if T. rex is not 6-7t but 9-10, Saurophaganax wasn´t 5-6t either, but correspondingly heavier because then the respective tissue would also have to be added to it. I have once posted some image manipulations demonstrating this-of course they where mostly ignored under the pretex of some excuses... Edited by theropod, Jan 5 2013, 11:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jan 6 2013, 01:28 AM Post #176 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But you know how wide Sue's chest is. So that was just filling the outline. 9,5t seems indeed a bit bulked up, but IMO, 8t would be possible (see the paper about T-rex growth, it stated a large T-rex to weigh 8t, probably they ment Sue. Mazzetta also claimed a robust morph of Tyrannosaurus to weigh 8t and that was all before the study was made). 6t too, but it sounds a bit very low. Anyway, I'm still convinced an average T-rex would weigh ~6,6t (that was the estimate for Peck's T-rex by Seebacher), but I think Sue could be quite a bit heavier, as you see it was much bulkier than an average T-rex and on skeletal reconstructions, it also seems much bulkier than Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus (bone crusher showed a size scale). But of course 6t is too possible. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 6 2013, 01:43 AM Post #177 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I support 6-7t for sue, and corresponding estimates for others (giganotosaurus holotype approximately equal or sub-equal, c.saharicus neotype and referred giganotosaurus ~20-25% heavier, spinosaurus nearly double the weight, saurophaganax about one ton lighter) |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 6 2013, 01:48 AM Post #178 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
btw jingoferx, did you read my last blog post? It's relevant for this topic. What do you think about it? |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Jan 6 2013, 04:42 AM Post #179 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't know what you mean. It is a volumetric model based on actually scanning of a skeleton, not a drawing. Each body part's density is calculated separately for there's difference in bone/muscle ratio, bone pneumaticity, and in the case of the torso, there's the volume of the lung and air sac with much lower density. What is this "same reconstruction" you are talking about? The point is to attempt to reconstruct a more accurate model based directly on the skeleton. You think a little trimming around the ribcage would reduce the weight by 2500kg?? That's a 26% difference! Edited by MysteryMeat, Jan 6 2013, 04:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 6 2013, 04:51 AM Post #180 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe it would, keep in mind the musculature doesn´t have airsacks and is thus probably a more relevant part than it looks like. What this is about is that the model, despite basing on the scanned skeleton (which isn´t 100% accurate especially in the ribcage), still adds an awful amount of tissue below its ribs. The added musculature certainly adds a considerable amount of additional bulk. As long as there is a part that is mere reconsturction, this is not simply a "more accurate metod", because the difference in the results is probably caused (at least to a large extend) by the parts that where reconstructed bulkier. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:26 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)


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






2:26 AM Jul 14