| 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 (59,191 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: | |
|---|---|
| DarkGricer | Jun 1 2013, 04:34 AM Post #316 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
False. T.rex's teeth where made to crush, and not much else. They where blunt and rather thick, poor for slicing. Serrations alone cannot make something razor sharp. Saurophaganax slices, Tyrannosaurus crushes. Which one is better depends on the situation. In this case, neither realy stands out. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Jun 1 2013, 04:35 AM Post #317 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not consider estimates of Celeste's length to be reliable, I merely used it on the chart for comparative purposes. Even so, using it, UCMP 137538 or a speculative 'grown up' UCMP 118742 is no worse than Broly's selective gigantism bias towards Saurophaganax, except some of those Tyrannosaurus specimens are actually based on more than an incorrect scale bar and poor base models. |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 04:43 AM Post #318 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, you do not think that Tyrannosaurus was 13 meters? Edited by Teratophoneus, Jun 1 2013, 04:44 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 1 2013, 04:45 AM Post #319 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
His hypothethis is not impossible: Tyrannosaurus rex and other tyrannosaurid theropods exerted high bite forces, and large muscle attachments suggest that the tyrannosaurid neck was a concomitantly powerful component of the feeding apparatus. We examine accelerative and work-generating capacity (WGC) of neck muscles in adult Tyrannosaurus rex, using a 3-D vector-based method that incorporates aspects of muscle force generation, reconstruction of muscle morphology and moment arms, and rotational inertias of the head and neck. Under conservative assumptions, radial accelerations of the head by large superficial muscles (M. transversospinalis capitis, M. complexus, and M. longissimus capitis superficialis) enabled rapid gaze shifts and imparted high tangential velocities to food sufficient for inertial feeding. High WGC by these and deeper muscles under eccentric contraction indicate high efficacy for tearing flesh, especially with the head and neck in an extended posture. Sensitivity analyses suggest that assigned density of the antorbital region has substantial effects on calculated rotational inertia, and hence on the accuracy of results. However, even with high latitude for es- timation errors, the results indicate that adult T. rex could strike rapidly at prey and engage in complexly modulated inertial feeding, as seen in extant archosaurs. http://www.bio.ucalgary.ca/contact/faculty/pdf/russell/305.pdf |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 1 2013, 08:13 PM Post #320 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, just stop the debate. The largest known Saurophaganax was 11-13m, T. rex was 12,3m. At upper end Saurophaganax would likely still weigh less than T. rex. Useless to talk about the lower end. Some people here are really exagerating just about everything, whether it be how large Saurophaganax is or how unlikely that size is. Taking T. rex at 13m is too much. Taking Saurophaganax at 13m is possible but not certain. Which one would win at parity is not such a sure thing as some claim. |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Jun 1 2013, 08:18 PM Post #321 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The debate is already finished ... |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 08:54 PM Post #322 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let's just put this one at mass parity to stop the size debate... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 1 2013, 10:29 PM Post #323 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At mass parity; slight edge for the allosaur However I don't think even at upper estimate Saurophaganax would have been as heavy as a large specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex, tough possibly larger than every other tyrannosaur. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jun 1 2013, 11:24 PM Post #324 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But tyrannosaurus was built more for using direct force to kill prey. I don't see how that couldn't be a determining factor in this matchup. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 1 2013, 11:35 PM Post #325 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Using direct force"? Can you explain how exactly that is the deciding factor? You would favour it just because it has a stronger bite force? The force production in allosaurid bites may have been tremendous too, just not the adductor force. otherwise, Allosaurus' cranium wouldn't be so strong. We are not just talking about two similar animals, but one with a weaker bite. We are talkign about animals that kill differently. One has teeth built to slice, together with powerful head-depressor musculature and attachments making it function efficiently. Arguably a strike-and-pull-bite would have done huge damage. You cannot measure how effective a bite is solely by looking at the force generation between mandible and cranium. All the evidence points out to the Allosaurid having a bite every bit as formidable at parity. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 11:35 PM Post #326 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why not? Scaling from Big Al yields mass estimates above ~7 tonnes, and considering that larger theropods are generally more robust(do I have to list examples?), Saurophaganax would have reached truly massive sizes. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 11:38 PM Post #327 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
UCMP 118742 is already grown up and is just an average adult no larger than AMNH 5027, and don't even get started on the "mythical" UCMP 137538... And poor base models? You're getting desperate. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 1 2013, 11:43 PM Post #328 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By poor base models, he was referring to some Tyrannosaurus specimen. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 1 2013, 11:43 PM Post #329 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is definitely not heavier than sue, that's apparent from comparing them. And larger theropods may get bulkier, but also less dense, sue itself is a great example of that. Sauro gets to 7,24t directly based on Big Al (7,5m/1,4t) and a 55cm humerus (5t with a 488mm one). I suppose the basis for assuming it would be significantly bulkier is pretty weak, on the other hand it would save weight wherever possible. I would rather suggest Saurophaganax would be a bit lighter, otherwise sue would be heavier, it's as easy as that. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Jun 1 2013, 11:54 PM Post #330 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you actually think that it would simply be a scaled-up Allosaurus? Or even that it would be less massive than a scaled-up Allosaurus? Isn't that a bit...well...wrong?(No offense intended) Also it would still be less massive than Carcharodontosaurus saharicus, which isn't really disadvantaged by it's mass, no need for extreme weight-saving... |
![]() |
|
| 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