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 (59,210 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:
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus is more robust in overall body structure, more muscular, likely heavier. Comparing respective skulls, the skull of Tyrannosaurus gives readily a much greater impression of strength and power.
Not a mismatch though, and the large arms of Saurophaganax could inflict terrible wounds. However this is not Jurassic Park III, arms are not the killing weapon, bite is.

My opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 15 2012, 11:40 PM
I took it as including the ichnotaxa I mentioned for several times, but there is no evidence they are Saurophaganax. I just used them because it´s easier to include them in a related taxon that is the closest in size than to write "huge unnamed ichnotaxa from Morroco and Spain" every single time
Oh, okay, I thought that you were contradicting yourself, but I would have written "Moroccan/Spanish Allosaurid" :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Broly, you're the most predictable member around and not always for the good reasons.


And can someone explains me where does come from that 15 m allosaurid thing ? Another creature made in Dinosauria section ?
Edited by Grey, Dec 16 2012, 01:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Dec 16 2012, 01:11 AM
Broly, you're the most predictable member around
Actually, that title would go to Ursus panthera in any eland-related thread...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
T rex wins 90% imo, almost a mismatch for me

Base on the data i and Blaze posted, 11,5m is a good average size for Saurophaganax, that would make it even shorter than an average T rex.

The much more robust T rex would definitely be much heavier even at length parity

The size difference is too great, how the hell can a smaller Allosauridae beat a larger T rex ??

T rex seems to have all the advantage but agility, i can't see Saurophaganax winning

Allsauridae are GREAT hunters, but poor fighter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 16 2012, 02:15 AM
T rex wins 90% imo, almost a mismatch for me

Base on the data i and Blaze posted, 11,5m is a good average size for Saurophaganax, that would make it even shorter than an average T rex.

The much more robust T rex would definitely be much heavier even at length parity

The size difference is too great, how the hell can a smaller Allosauridae beat a larger T rex ??

T rex seems to have all the advantage but agility, i can't see Saurophaganax winning

Allsauridae are GREAT hunters, but poor fighter
Evidence, anything? "Poor fighters" bases on what exactly?

If you use such conservative figures, use a conservative average for T. rex-that would mean they were at lenght parity then. it would be much more fair however to use a 13m Saurophaganax. While I think in that case T. rex wins, because it would have a weight advantage, 90% is a ridiculous claim.

And there are lots of members, all equally predictable. Grey is also quite predicatable if you ask me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Evidence, anything?

About the 11,5m: you can find on Saurophaganax vs Ankylosaurus thread
Quote:
 
"Poor fighters" bases on what exactly?

Small skull relative to its body, small teeth, unfused nasal bones, small posterior cranium, weak bite force
Quote:
 
If you use such conservative figures, use a conservative average for T. rex-that would mean they were at lenght parity then. it would be much more fair however to use a 13m Saurophaganax. While I think in that case T. rex wins, because it would have a weight advantage, 90% is a ridiculous claim.

13m is maximum for Saurophaganax actually, you clearly haven't seen what Blaze and i posted. 11,5m is a good average size for Saurophaganax, it's no conservation
Quote:
 
And there are lots of members, all equally predictable. Grey is also quite predicatable if you ask me.

Am i predictable ?. Just curious :D

Grey usually voted for shark and Megalodon but he has good reasons, i wouldn't call him biased because of that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
you can be predictable sometimes, on other topics you aren´t tough. For Grey I didn´t only mean that, he has a number of animals he always favours and you can predict that he will always disagree with me.

I actually meant for the "poor fighter thing", I have seen the reasoning for 11,5m saurophaganax,a nd for me there are two major problems:

-it bases on graphical scaling, which is not reliable, firstly because it can be highly difficult to measure accurately and secondly because skeletals nearly always show the animal smaller in total lenght (meaning a skeletal upscale cannot be compared to a published size figure in most cases)

-it assumes Saurophaganax has the proportions of DINO whateveritwas. This point is debateable, but I think it is logical to assume it´s arms wouldn´t be as large, rather like those in big al and the topotype. In several large theropods taxa (all except spinosaurs to be exact) you can see a trend of proportionally decreasing arm size with increasing overall size. So I would at least rather use a small armed allosaurus, not a large armed one. That´s matter of debate and opinion

^obviously 11,5m is conservative.

Quote:
 
Small skull relative to its body, small teeth, unfused nasal bones, small posterior cranium, weak bite force

"Small skull relative to its body"
Not quite as large as in more specialized theropods, but since when does a proportionally smaller head equal being a poor fighter? Bears for example have proportionally not so large skulls...
A smaller skull holds advantages. That of allosaurs is simply less elongated than that of Carcharodontosaurs (and a 13m saurophaganax would still have a skull of 1,4m in lenght, that´s just as long as that of Sue...), meaning less inertial forces and greater robusticity. What can we see from that? the skull is probably less specialized for a specific prey and attack mode (e.g. in the case of carcharodontosaurs biting a sauropod with the maximum possible damage, or in tyrannosaurs crushing the neck or skull of a medium sized herbivore), it had lots of prey species it had to be able to kill, from sauropods, to ornithopods and stegosaurs.

"small teeth"
Honestly, it starts to annoy me. How often do I have to write that tooth size alone is not a factor at all?

"unfused nasal bones"
Help, unfused nasal bones! Tyrannosaurids had fused ones, that tells us all animals lacking them were bad fighters!

"small posterior cranium"
not that small, and it is the anterior cranium that is used to kill things

"weak bite force"
I suspect the last points actually break down to this one, and two major things:

-allosaurids didn´t have a strong bite, but not a particularly low one either (800kg for Allosaurus, but I don´t know for which specimen it was estimated). I can name a few other animals with relatively unimpressive bite forces, namely sharks, monitor lizards, most large theropods, dromaeosaurs...
I would rate most of them as pretty good fighters actually, and none of them as a abd one because of its bite.

it is not bite force and some traits of the nasals that make an animal a bad fighter. That´s like saying "T. rex was a bad fighter-why?-because it had tiny little arms and a very heavy skull with a bone crushing bite that could ahve been used to scavenge and it was slow and it had bad balance..."

For the points suggesting allosaurs to be good fighters:
-compact (and very robust) skull allowing a very fast slashing and pulling bite
-neck muscle adaptions for giving additional strenght to the bite
-short solid teeth with sharp slicing edges enabling them to withstand a lot of stress
-relatively large and strong arms with impressive claws, used for hooking into prey
-appearant ability to prey on a wide variety of prey species and to thrive on several continents
-agile built


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dino-ken
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Personally I thinking that the Tyrant King would have win this battle.

Saurophagnax was likely longer(about 13 meters), had longer arms, & sharper claws. But T.rex has sharper senses, was more massive(by about 1.5-2 metric tons), and had a massive(nearly 6 tons psi) Bone-crushing bite. Saurophagnax may have been able to wound T.rex, but one well place hard bite by the Rex to the back of Saurophagnax's neck and the fight would be over. T.rex for the win 70/30.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
psi? Is it so difficult to see that´s not a unit of force?

it has a total bite force of up to ~5700N equaling 5,7t-in its whole mouth, or better, that´s the force the jaw msucles were able to excert in total, not on a square inch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dino-ken
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 16 2012, 04:29 AM

it has a total bite force of up to ~5700N equaling 5,7t-in its whole mouth, or better, that´s the force the jaw msucles were able to excert in total, not on a square inch.
Actually the most recent estimate of T.rex bite force is up to 57,000 Newtons - or about 12,800 pounds/square inch. Note that some scientific articles still use psi to refer to pounds/square inch.

Bite Force
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
 
theropod
 
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...


blaze has:
http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8425263&t=9782364
The paper that Palaeocritti gives as further reading and that I have is this one:
Chure, Daniel J. (1995). "A reassessment of the gigantic theropod Saurophagus maximus from the Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic) of Oklahoma, USA". in A. Sun and Y. Wang (eds.). Sixth Symposium on Mesozoic Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biota, Short Papers. Beijing: China Ocean Press. pp. 103–106.
theropod
 
I wonder were he got it from. It doesn´t seem to be available anywhere on the web, and all the data are contradictory

The one I have I got it from a nice Argentinian forum, and while it is true that no one here has Ray's magazine article, Chure certainly does as he references it on the paper that I have.

Posted Image
Edited by blaze, Dec 16 2012, 05:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coherentsheaf
Member Avatar
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dino-ken
Dec 16 2012, 05:10 AM
theropod
Dec 16 2012, 04:29 AM

it has a total bite force of up to ~5700N equaling 5,7t-in its whole mouth, or better, that´s the force the jaw msucles were able to excert in total, not on a square inch.
Actually the most recent estimate of T.rex bite force is up to 57,000 Newtons - or about 12,800 pounds/square inch. Note that some scientific articles still use psi to refer to pounds/square inch.

Bite Force
psi is not a unit of force.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
ok, I was referring to Rays paper, "big for his day" or how it was called. I have Chures paper as well, I got it sent by a helpful member here. That he does calculate 14m and then confirm that Ray was approximately correct doesn´t say the latter didn´t estimate 15m, 14m and 15m is still in the rough range of "very very large".

Dino-Ken: I just forgot one 0, sorry. What I mean is that 5,7t per square inch are totally unrealistic, that´s the total bite force. How much it is per square inch depends on the surface area.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Dec 16 2012, 05:19 AM
Quote:
 
Base on the data i and Blaze posted, 11,5m is a good average size for Saurophaganax, that would make it even shorter than an average T rex.

And where is that?

He took a meridian:
http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8425264&t=9782364
Dark allosaurus
Dec 16 2012, 05:19 AM
Quote:
 
The size difference is too great, how the hell can a smaller Allosauridae beat a larger T rex ??

The size difference is not that significant.

Around of 10% would already be quite a huge size difference (according to the Illiterate Sholar, an average T-rex was at the same size as the Giganotosaurus Holotype).
Dark allosaurus
Dec 16 2012, 05:19 AM
Quote:
 
T rex seems to have all the advantage but agility, i can't see Saurophaganax winning

Saurophaganax also has bigger claws and a much wider gape. T.rex don't have every advantage.

I don't think the claws would help that much, their main weapon is going to be the bite and gape isn't a much better advantage than B-vision.
Dark allosaurus
Dec 16 2012, 05:19 AM
Bite force does not matter, their jaws are not MADE for crushing, and they don't even NEED a strong bite. That would be saying tiger sharks are not that good fighters, but they are, their teeth tell the thing.


Bite force doesn't matter at all? When tooth types aren't compareable, bite force won't be very important, but here their tooth are compareable (both are similar in shape and rely on serrations). Also, using comparisions, I could say gape is unimportant, because Tigers don't need an as wide gape as sharks, or claws are unimportant, because hyena don't need them.

Sure, bite force isn't absolutely needed, but it is an advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.