| 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 (59,192 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: | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 03:30 AM Post #301 | ||
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You took the highest estimates because Tyrannosaurus' living form is unknown? Really? Also, the ~6-tonne estimate for Saurophaganax wasn't meant to be compared to the liberal Tyrannosaurus estimates, it was meant to be compared with the ~5.8-tonne Sue. Also both(the ~6-tonne Saurophaganax and the ~5.8-tonne Sue) were made when the general figure for dinosaur life restorations assumed a GSP-like shrinkwrapped form. Let's move on and leave the shrinkwrapped era behind. Let's scale Big Al(~1.5 tonnes in mass) to ~13 meters, we get ~8 tonnes for Saurophaganax... |
||
![]() |
|
||
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 03:35 AM Post #302 | ||
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You may not know. We have many complete skeletons of Tyrannosaurus, but you can not know how he was alive. However, one would weigh 8 tons Saurophaganax though less although I doubt Saurophaganax weighed as Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus. |
||
![]() |
|
||
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 03:38 AM Post #303 | ||
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You may doubt it, but it's what the scaling indicates. Although Carcharodontosaurus saharicus reached even larger sizes! Saurophaganax was among the largest big-game-hunter theropods ever!
|
||
![]() |
|
||
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 03:41 AM Post #304 | ||
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were both longer and bit heavily built. |
||
![]() |
|
||
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 03:48 AM Post #305 | ||
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not looking good for Giganotosaurus apparently, the holotype is ~12.4 meters long and the second specimen is likely ~13.2 meters. The mean would be ~12.8 meters! And assuming Saurophaganax was simply a scaled-up Allosaurus is a bit wrong, larger animals are typically more robust! Examples are Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, Baryonyx and Spinosaurus, Coelophysis and Dilophosaurus, etc. With that in mind, we can possibly push Saurophaganax into the ~8-9 tonne range! But I won't make that leap of faith just yet, and go with ~8 tonnes for a ~13-meter Saurophaganax. Carcharodontosaurus saharicus may be able to reach ~13.7 meters and 8.5+ tonnes though, so it's still both longer and more massive!
|
||
![]() |
|
||
| MysteryMeat | Jun 1 2013, 03:48 AM Post #306 | ||
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Paul's estimates are 3 tonnes for Sauro, and 6 tonnes for Tyrannosaurus, too "shrinkwrapped" for ya? I can't see Sauro outweighing Sue unless it's 13m long or more. Even upscaling from big AL, you won't get to 13 meters.
None of which pairs you listed is as closely related as Sauro to Allosaurus; some consider it a species of Allosaurus. Coelophysis is not even in the same family as Dilophosaurus. Allosaurus is not that gracile to begin with, it's chest is pretty barrel, more so than Giga mounts out there. Edited by MysteryMeat, Jun 1 2013, 03:59 AM.
|
||
![]() |
|
||
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 03:50 AM Post #307 | ||
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
However, if you want to do the average, you should also do with Saurophaganax (11 +13 / 2 = 12 m). Giganotosaurus was bigger than Saurophaganax. |
||
![]() |
|
||
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 03:51 AM Post #308 | ||
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually you can get ~13 meters if you use the ~545-mm humerus |
||
![]() |
|
||
| MysteryMeat | Jun 1 2013, 04:03 AM Post #309 | ||
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's true that Broly is a sauro fanboy. He rejects everything that challenges his believe of 13m+ Saurophaganax. He disregards all the info blaze posted and repeats the same post over and over again. Sometimes when you tell yourself the same thing for a thousand times, it becomes truth. An average would be (10.5+12.5)/2=11.5m, about as big as a smaller rex. |
||
![]() |
|
||
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 1 2013, 04:07 AM Post #310 | ||
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Broly I do hope you realise that a 6 tonne Saurophaganax Is not comparable to a '5.8 tonne' Tyrannosaurus? If we scaled Big Al to be 12.3 meters, it would be ~7.2 tonnes, heavier than what you claim for Sue. I shouldn't even need to point out the obvious error in this. You are seemingly interchanging results from different methods and directly comparing them. 1.5 tonne Big Al seems more or less comparable with 9 tonne Sue. BTW scaling results from Bates et al. (2009) and Seebacher (2001) (for Stan and AMNH 5027 respectively) also back up the 'fat sausage' Tyrannosaurus you oh so loathe. Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Jun 1 2013, 04:08 AM.
|
||
![]() |
|
||
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 04:14 AM Post #311 | ||
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, as I said before, Tyrannosaurus was up to 13 meters, Saurophaganax would be about the same way, maybe a little less, it would also be lighter.
Tyrannosaurus has an advantage of mass large enough. Tyrannosaurus takes this. Edited by Teratophoneus, Jun 1 2013, 04:32 AM.
|
||
![]() |
|
||
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 04:20 AM Post #312 | ||
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus was NOT 13 meters long and there is no easy win for Tyrannosaurus. And why did you include the smaller estimate for Saurophaganax, but use only ~13 meters for Tyrannosaurus? And I must say this again, the largest confirmed Tyrannosaurus was only ~12.3 meters long. And I keep telling you, please don't compare ~6-tonne Saurophaganax to ~8+ tonne Tyrannosaurus, that's the kind of bias I've seen from youtubers. |
||
![]() |
|
||
| Sheroo | Jun 1 2013, 04:22 AM Post #313 | ||
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus was more robust, evolved, "stronger", bit harder, has better dentition (for slicing AND crushing), somewhat larger. | ||
![]() |
|
||
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 04:26 AM Post #314 | ||
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannosaurus was 13 meters, in the graph of Spinodontosaurus is Celeste, who had to be about 13 meters. Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were only a meter longer. I do not trust the 8 tons of Saurophaganax, because Spinodontosaurus said you used wrong data. Edited by Teratophoneus, Jun 1 2013, 04:28 AM.
|
||
![]() |
|
||
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 1 2013, 04:29 AM Post #315 | ||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Broly, please stop debating about the size of Saurophaganax! You know that this is way to uncertain, as it should be obvious that the scale bars are not reliable. I am quite sure text evidence is better in this particular, because it sometimes happens that scientists choose false scale bars, but I don't see a reason why Smith's measurement of Saurophaganax humerus should be wrong (he measured the actual bones and not a figure). It is pretty much everything what was actually stated. Therefore I doubt Saurophaganax was longer than an average T-rex, IMO, it is safe to assume that they had a similar length. At a similar length, you know who would be heavier. |
||
![]() |
|
||
| 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