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
  • 7
  • 28
Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,206 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:
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Based on DINO it becomes Acroncanthosaurus sized, based on Big Al it becomes Sue sized (hindlimbs might be too long for an adult carnosaur)

EDIT: I meant hindlimbs.
Edited by blaze, Dec 17 2012, 05:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Here's Hartman's UUVP 6000 and UUVP 6000 scaled to have a 545mm humerus, representing Saurophaganax, per blaze' suggestion.
It's about 11.2 meters long measuring along the curve.

All credits and copyright goes to Scott Hartman.
Edited by MysteryMeat, Dec 17 2012, 05:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How do you measure along the curves?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I use the ruler tool in photoshop to measure the length of the vertebra that are in straight line then I add up the numbers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
I scaled both articulated pelvis to the same proportion then matched the drawings to the fossil.

Paul's robust rex drawing is not very accurate, and it certainly does not follow the proportion of Sue. I appears to me that he might have used Sue's left ilium, but drew the pubis too big. I don't know if any other rex specimen has a proportionally larger pubis, but sue sure doesn't. If anything, Paul drew his rex too short and fat.

Hartman's drawing is pretty spot on, on the other hand. He used Sue's right ilium, which appears to be the more complete one(?) It's surprising to me how different the ilia are.

Posted Image
And here is the comparison, from left to right:

OMNH 1935 based on UUVP 6000
FMNH PR 2081
OMNH 1935 based on MOR 693, this one is actually longer than Sue, but still considerably smaller.

Both Allosaurus skeletals are from Scott Hartman.
Edited by MysteryMeat, Dec 17 2012, 07:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It seems my method to measure along the curves, taking some shortcuts here and there was giving me lengths slightly longer than it actually was, you got 11.2m and I got 11.4m. I guess I'll start measuring them with the same attention to detail as you from now on.

Incredible work MysteryMeat!

EDIT: Is it right that the result is pretty much the same as from tip to tail? I wouldn't have expected that
EDIT 2: I think its a problem of the ruler tool (or probably I just suck at using it haha) it works to measure straight lines but it acts weird if they're diagonal, measuring along the curve with the ruler tool was giving me lengths matching the tip to tip length and around 0.2m less on the two Ceratosaurus skeletals and ~0.7m less on Sue's than the (arguable unorthodox) method I was using before even if I make sure not to miss vertebrae.
Edited by blaze, Dec 17 2012, 10:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Thanks blaze!
I think if the vetebral column is straightened out it should always be longer. I don't know if theropods can completely straighten out their necks so it might not matter much in the end.
I took some shortcuts too; too lazy to measure each vert centrum lol.
I think based on these two reconstructions we can have a good ballpark of how big Sarurophaganax is. About 11-13, 4000-7000kg.
I will put my money on the 12.5 meter, 8000-9000kg rex.
Edited by MysteryMeat, Dec 17 2012, 12:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 17 2012, 12:13 PM
8000-9000kg rex.
Can people stop using that biased Tyrannosaurus estimate? It adds too much tissue into the skeleton and assumes that Tyrannosaurus was a fat sausage!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
That doesn't change the fact that Saurophaganax is probably significantly smaller.

Read the paper yourself:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026037&imageURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026037.t003

I think the min model looks pretty good. It is perhaps even a little light on tail and leg muscles, and the model gives an estimate of 9500 kg. So my 8000-9000kg is more conservative compare to what the paper states. Sue could have weight 9500-10000kg in real life.
Edited by MysteryMeat, Dec 17 2012, 02:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Dec 17 2012, 02:40 PM
I think the min model looks pretty good. It is perhaps even a little light on tail and leg muscles, and the model gives an estimate of 9500 kg. So my 8000-9000kg is more conservative compare to what the paper states.
It may be a bit light on the tail and the legs but the torso is just a fat sausage, and most other estimates centered around 6 tonnes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 17 2012, 02:43 PM
MysteryMeat
Dec 17 2012, 02:40 PM
I think the min model looks pretty good. It is perhaps even a little light on tail and leg muscles, and the model gives an estimate of 9500 kg. So my 8000-9000kg is more conservative compare to what the paper states.
It may be a bit light on the tail and the legs but the torso is just a fat sausage, and most other estimates centered around 6 tonnes
Posted Image
Posted Image

It basically follows the skeletal outline.

Posted Image
Sue has a barrel chest, what do you expect?

The min estimate is 9502kg. I give you 8000-9000kg estimate. I think the 500-1000kg decrease could have well covered a bit over sizing of the torso.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

Greg Paul T rex is actually not much more robust than those of Hartman

And i use Paul T rex because it has the top view, which is useful for determining bulk, do you think that Hartman T rex would have smaller ribcage ?. The ribcage width of Paul T rex matchs perfectly with the mounted skeleton
Quote:
 
Secondly, Verdugo, it was proven for several times that Allosaurus cranium could endure a huge amount of force.

Why don't you read my data ?? Is it so hard for you to read ?. If you are too lazy reading, i would give some emphasis

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/6dca0g4gx/Skull_strength01.png

Is it easier to read now ? Don't you see Allosaurus skull strength scores very low compare to other Theropod, Allosaurus skull strength is 1,5 times lower than Gorgosaurus despite having slight larger skull

Yes, i know it is not a very large Allosaurus specimen, but it is not the smaller either. Big Al is almost an adult specimen, he should represent the skull strength for adult specimen. Do you think that Allosaurus skull would be that MUCH stronger if it grew a little bit more ?

This is the latest study on skull strength (2006), if you can't find any later study, those studies from the 1900s should be considered to be outdated now

Allosaurus skull is actually opposite to strong
Quote:
 
You know the dentary is NOT part of the cranium, do you?

It's clearly that you didn't even spend seconds reading my data

I posted TWO different pics, one shows cranium strength, the other shows dentary strength in vertical bending
Quote:
 
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.

I afraid that bite force study might overestimate some animals bite force while underestimate some others

The scale-up Allosaurus (scale up Allosaurus to T rex size) bite force is actually almost as powerful as T rex !!. What does it mean ?. Allosaurus and T rex at size parity would have almost the same bite force, while is almost definitely that Allosaurus doesn't have the adaptation to bite that strong, the data on skull and mandible strength clearly refuse that

Another thing implausible is the gator bite force, the gator bite force in that study is actually FAR lower than real life experience

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/roefigbz5/Theropod_bite_force.png

T rex bite force in this study is actually not far from implausible like other animals. Sakamoto has estimated T rex bite force to be 50kN-80kN which is even higher than this study
Quote:
 
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.

Yes, but it is dimensionally much smaller than T rex skull
Quote:
 
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...

Unless the difference in agility is very great, i'm afraid agility wouldn't help much (see Tyrant posts for that)

A cougar would never beat a jaguar because it is more agile, more agile ?
Quote:
 
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.

Oh, i didn't even notice to correct my grammar, you know it would waste you a lot of time typing than reading back to correct your grammar, i'm quite lazy doing that. Thanks for correct me then, hope i could improve it :P
Quote:
 
@Verdugo
Maybe allosaurids did not have powerful built and bite force, but it doesn't that it can't fight. Do you think Allosaurus fragilis would loose against smaller carnivores like Ceratosaurus or Marshosaurus? If allosaurids and its close relatives are poor fighters, carcharodontosaurids and neovenatorids wouldn't exist. You should give more credit for these carnosaurs.

Actually, Carcharodontosauridae are my favorite dinosaurs (of course only after Tyrannosauridae), but Allosaurus isn't as formidable as later generations, of course it would still beat smaller carnivores, but lb 4 lb Allosaurus isn't a very formidable Theropod imo
Quote:
 
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.

The tiny teeth and weak skull of Allosaurus would never been able to sever T rex massively thick muscles and hide
MysteryMeat
 
Posted Image
I scaled both articulated pelvis to the same proportion then matched the drawings to the fossil.

Paul's robust rex drawing is not very accurate, and it certainly does not follow the proportion of Sue. I appears to me that he might have used Sue's left ilium, but drew the pubis too big. I don't know if any other rex specimen has a proportionally larger pubis, but sue sure doesn't. If anything, Paul drew his rex too short and fat.

Hartman's drawing is pretty spot on, on the other hand. He used Sue's right ilium, which appears to be the more complete one(?) It's surprising to me how different the ilia are.

Posted Image
And here is the comparison, from left to right:

OMNH 1935 based on UUVP 6000
FMNH PR 2081
OMNH 1935 based on MOR 693, this one is actually longer than Sue, but still considerably smaller.

Both Allosaurus skeletals are from Scott Hartman.

Great work dude !. Really nice ! :)

Two questions:
1/ How long is Sue in your scale measured by the curve ? Did you scale Sue by Hartman scale bar ?
2/ How long is your Saurophaganx scaled up from Big Al (measured by the curve) ?

Base on MysteryMeat scale:
_ 11,2m Saurophaganax base on DINO proportion would be a massive MISMATCH, it is like putting a cougar against a male tiger, no chance for the cougar. T rex wins 100%
_ ?m Saurophaganax base on Big Al proportion would be closer. I image it would like putting a cougar against a much more massively built jaguar, the cougar would manage to inflict some damages, but in the end it would still be destroyed. T rex wins 80%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
For more on T rex mass estimate

Thomas Holtz stated that T rex would have weighed 8+ tonnes (2011)
Thomas Holtz
 
Tyrannosaurid feet are awesome: The other end of the hind limb is also very derived in tyrannosaurids. Tyrants differ from typical large-bodied theropods in the possession of an arctometatarsus (“compressed metatarsus”), where the middle long bone of the foot is compressed between the other two main weight-bearing bones. As described by me some time ago, and subsequently explored in greater detail by Eric Snively and colleagues, this adaptation seems to represent a functional adaptation towards enhanced cursorial (running) ability. While this does not mean that a fully grown 8 ton (or more) Tyrannosaurus rex was as fast as a racehorse, it does suggest that it was faster and more agile than other similar-sized animals (such as hadrosaurids and ceratopsids) that lack comparable speed adaptations. Furthermore, a juvenile T. rex might have been a very swift animal indeed.

The debate on T rex mass is actually over Broly, although you could dream happily in your fantasy world that any Theropod is larger and more powerful than T rex but don't poisoned people minds with your ridiculous, superficial, illogical, unreasonable, implausible, baseless, STUPID claims, you should be shamed of yourself

I would definitely ignore you from now
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo, i read your data, but I think it should ahve been clear for sou that dentary strenght isn´t relevant here.

you should have a look at:

Cranial design and function in a large theropod dinosaur
Emily J. Rayfield*, David B. Norman, Celeste C. Horner,
John R. Horner, Paula May Smith, Jeffrey J. Thomason
& Paul Upchurch

It uses FEA analysis and states allosaurus had tremendous cranial strenght.

For the rest, this "tiny teeth and weak skull" BS is bias, it is really starting to sound palaeosaurus-like, and I have never claimed an animal could beat a significantly alrger and more well armed one because of agility-it can be a decisive advantage nevertheless. also it is funny how you are picky even about estimates for the same study. of course you totally support T. rex bite force in there, but why on earth should that for allosaurus be correct, it is far too high! Just for your info, an allosaurus the weight of T. rex can mean many things depending on the weight estimate, if you are very conservative it could be an animal well above 14m, and it isn´t surprising at all that such a large animal might not have been that far behind the mighty king.
I guess by dimensinally smaller you mean narrower-that´s true, and as already explained it also holds advantages, and regardless of that it has a deadly bite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Dec 17 2012, 11:39 PM
but Allosaurus isn't as formidable as later generations, of course it would still beat smaller carnivores, but lb 4 lb Allosaurus isn't a very formidable Theropod imo

are you fucking kidding? of course allosaurus is VERY formidable lb for lb. Deadly cutting bite, claws, agility, etc.

Quote:
 
The tiny teeth and weak skull of Allosaurus would never been able to sever T rex massively thick muscles and hide

tiny teeth? lol tell me how these teeth are "tiny"
Posted Image

And it does not have a weak skull, it is actually really strong and is built to withstand huge forces. Relatively weak biting strength don't mean weak skull.
Edited by Carcharadon, Dec 18 2012, 12:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 28

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.