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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 28
Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,208 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:
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 16 2012, 12:23 PM
UCMP 137538 is not a Tyrannosaur? Really? What it is then?
I never said that it wasn't a tyrannosaur, it's a tyrannosaurid but not a Tyrannosaurus and not as large as the Tyrannosaurus fans think it is...

imo, UCMP 137538 is a tyrannosaurid around ~13.5 meters long and something like 8 tonnes in mass...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 16 2012, 12:23 PM
How the hell do you get a 15 meter Saurophaganax? Based on what?
Limb proportions indicate 11m individuals
11 meters is overconservative and I originally made that scale to show how large the Das Monster von Minden is compared to Tyrannosaurus, but I reused it to show how large a 15-meter allosaur is compared to a 12-meter Tyrannosaurus, to prove bone crusher wrong...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
11m might or might not be conservative for the big humerus but all the other remains of which we have measurements don't show anything bigger than 11m.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Hey Broly, I think the UCMP specimen is a triceratops just with an outlandish toe and Saurophaganax is 14 tons of an Allosaurus, I hope this completes your day. /s
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Dec 16 2012, 05:15 AM
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
This paper concludes all the discussion.

Of course, that makes some geniuses unhappy...

And to date, there is no freaking 15 m allosaur and theropod, except for perhaps Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Dream is over for Broly then, RIP fantasy 15m Saurophaganax.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Firstly guys, say goodbye tho greg pauls hypotetical robust morph drawing, use the skeletal of the most robust KNOWN T. rex-and that´s sue. If you want to use a bulky T. rex, use a more impressive allosaurus specimen at least, I know for certain there is one that you can use to extrapolate skull size yielding 1,6m for a 15m version...
And this one mainly consists of tail.

Secondly, Verdugo, it was proven for several times that Allosaurus cranium could endure a huge amount of force. You know the dentary is NOT part of the cranium, do you? The same study you guys all use because it published the thus far highest bite force for T. rex did also publish a bite force estimate for allosaurus, and it was far higher than some of you would like it to be. As allosaurs don´t primarily relied on their mandibular musculature, it is only logical that their mandibles and bite forces wheren´t that strong.

Rayfield stated the mandible was able to withstand a really huge amount of force. As far as I know that´s not quite the same as bending moments (and in this case allosaurus skull partially has such a low one because it is among the smallest skulls there).

And Allosaurus may have a proportionally shorter skull, but that doesn´t mean it isn´t still large in absolute terms. a 13m Saurophaganax skull would likely be the same lenght as sues. a 15m ones would be 1,6m.

Agility is an enourmous factor in a fight, even tough its importance can vary depending on various enviromental and physiological factors. if one animal is agile enough to outmaneuver and fatally injure another animal without being caught, guess who wins the fight...

Let´s use the same metodology as bony does: go for the graphical comparison. you can quite easily see that allosaurus teeth are short and robust. he does the same, he says a 12m T. rex would be heavier than a 15m allosaur. And this is not only contradicting published estimates (the one for big al and the one for sue) but basing on a speculative "robust-morph-recontruction" and a particularly long tailed, small headed allosaurus.

Guess which claim is still more likely...
At least we have no idea which teeth were used. we know for sure big al is rather gracile and small and estimated at 1,5t. Assume this was about as liberal as a 9,5t sue (it is likely less liberal, look at the models), you get a 15m allosaur absolutely dwarfing T. rex in body mass. And you guys tell me not to go by visuals when it is about tooth strenght and real photos, while Bone crusher goes by visuals, using skeletals that clearly give you a biased image?

PPS: verdugo, it´s "I have, you have he/she/it HAS", just for the case you wanted to know. Not meant as an offence, I myself would want people to tell me such things.

PPS: I´m quite sure using some liberal allometzric metods you could push an estimate for Saurophaganax to 15m, for example like those for Megalodon, but I´m not doing so. For me theropod footprints (in wich it would be obvious if they where distorted!) int he 80-90cm range from various locations are more than enough. Of course not everyone likes size estimates based on footprints, but have a look at an allosaurus skeleton and its feet, you will see 15m is everything but exagerated in that case.
At the moment I don´t understand why people are yelling at me, I´m favouring T. rex against a 13m saurophaganax, but I don´t think it´s a mismatch and it is totally valid to have the opinion an allosaur would have an adge agaisnt T. rex at weight parity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Dec 16 2012, 06:08 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 16 2012, 05:40 AM
gape isn't a much better advantage than B-vision.

Oh please, binocular vision is absolutely no relevant advantage in a fight. Rhinos have poor vision but arent they good fighters? Gape often helps, sometimes it allows you to open your jaws wide enough to sink them into thick flesh thats too wide for other predators to bite into.

Of course it's unimportant, but here both here have the gape to kill each other (somehow T-rex managed to kill Triceratops or Hadrosaurs), so gape also would basically only help not to miss that much and for an easier grip.
And if we use the "this animal doesn't need it" tactic, most carnivorans don't have a gape as good as meat slicers, yet they can fight quite well.
I guess in this fight, gape won't be that important, because T-rex will basically target the face or the neck.
Dark allosaurus
Dec 16 2012, 06:08 AM
Jinfengopteryx
Dec 16 2012, 05:40 AM
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.
I didn't say bite force doesn't matter at all. did you even read my post?


I remember you said in the Tarbosaurus vs Saurophaganax therad, bite force doesn't matter at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 16 2012, 07:20 PM
Quote:
 
Inaccurate and biased size comparison, use Scott Hartman's skeletals instead...

Greg Pauls' robust Tyrannosaurus is too robust, compare it with Hartman's Tyrannosaurus and you'll see...

Robust is different from biased and inaccurate. That skeleton is in 2010 vs 2011 of Hartman !!. One year is not enough to consider it outdated.

Broly, you have just proven how biased you are again, you would easily except a 15m Saurophaganax from the 1990s (which is not even exist) but a T rex skeleton from 2010 would be considered to be outdated and inaccurate. I would ignore your post from now
You use a reconstruction that is much bulkier than Sue for Tyrannosaurus...and you use the most gracile Allosaurus reconstruction...and I'm the one biased!? What is this world getting into!?

Seems like you guys are intending on making me hate Tyrannosaurus again!!!

Why should I care if you ignore me or not?
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Dec 16 2012, 09:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Thanks Verdugo for the new allosaurus drawing. This is done according to Hartman's Sue in 2012 and Greg Paul's Saurophaganax 2010 scaled up from Allosaurus. 12.5m Sue vs 14m Sauro all measured from the curve.
Posted Image
Just about everything in t rex's skeleton bar the arms are much much more bulkier and heavily built than even a 14m sauro, and remember the top view would show a much wider t rex as well. T Rex wins 80/20.
Edited by bone crusher, Dec 16 2012, 10:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Of course it's unimportant, but here both here have the gape to kill each other (somehow T-rex managed to kill Triceratops or Hadrosaurs), so gape also would basically only help not to miss that much and for an easier grip.
And if we use the "this animal doesn't need it" tactic, most carnivorans don't have a gape as good as meat slicers, yet they can fight quite well.
I guess in this fight, gape won't be that important, because T-rex will basically target the face or the neck.

it can be quite an advantage to be able to target more or lesss every region of the opponents body. T. rex is limited to head, neck and limbs, the carnosaur can bite the whole postcranial body. T. rex was a highly specialized animal, it must have killed with a single bite to a vital region whenever possible. This means it usually went for the neck or skull.

Allosaurs had a completely different fighting and hunting style, they were animals that did hunt various types of prey, all requiring different killing metods. I think it is most lilely that an Allosaurus or Saurophaganax would ahve tried to inflict as much damage as possible somewhere on the body in order to send its opponent into shock, severing its muscles, tendons and blood vessels. The result is the same, but the way a wide gaped meat slicing carnosaur would attack is compeltely different and imo more versatile and thus maybe a bit more useful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
bone crusher
Dec 16 2012, 10:15 PM
This is done according to Hartman's Sue in 2012 and Greg Paul's Saurophaganax scaled up from Allosaurus. 12.5m Sue vs 14m Sauro all measured from the curve.
Posted Image
Just about everything in t rex's skeleton bar the arms are much much more bulkier and heavily built than even a 14m sauro, and remember the top view would show a much wider t rex as well. T Rex wins 80/20.
It doesn´t surprise me that you think so, but why don´t you use some of Hartmans allosauruses, which are not as extremely unimpressive, long tailed and small skulled as this one?

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/238/9/6/allosaur_comparison_by_shartman-d2v74v9.jpg
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/156/e/4/Big_Al_by_shartman.jpg
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/083/d/8/allosaurus_muscle_study_by_shartman-d3ceebp.jpg
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
here a link for the people who defend the 9,5t estimate for sue:

http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action;jsessionid=A4B3A67BAAF3C002C8E0FE574D1F1ACA?root=16371
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
there even is someone agreeing with me that the ribs in sues mount are not correct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Same story, in fact Hartman's allosaurus is even more slender. Any more questions?
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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 28

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.