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
  • 8
  • 28
Saurophaganax maximus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Dec 15 2012, 10:02 PM (59,205 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:
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
@Verdugo

1. I think the meter bar is a little too short. Sue is probably 12 meter flat in that Hartman walking pose, and 12.5 meterish long.
2. Sauro is longer, probably pushing 13 meter.

That's how I got my 11-13 meter length speculation.
Edited by MysteryMeat, Dec 18 2012, 09:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Admantus
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 16 2012, 10:52 PM
12-meter Tyrannosaurus and 14-meter Saurophaganax
Posted Image
click image for a full-sized version
*coughheightbiascough*

Broly. This is like a joke that went stale years ago. Stop with the unneeded tyrannosaur hate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Admantus
Dec 18 2012, 09:56 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 16 2012, 10:52 PM
12-meter Tyrannosaurus and 14-meter Saurophaganax
Posted Image
click image for a full-sized version
*coughheightbiascough*

Broly. This is like a joke that went stale years ago. Stop with the unneeded tyrannosaur hate.
There is no bias in that scale, I only scaled them based on how long they're stated to be and that's how they ended up

And I don't hate Tyrannosaurus anymore
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bone crusher
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Dark allosaurus
Dec 18 2012, 06:58 AM
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.
Actually you don't understand what pound for pound means. A jaguar at the same weight as a leopard will be pound for pound stronger due to proportionally more heavily built and robust. An allosaurus at the same weight as t rex would be much longer and slender looking thus weaker pound for pound.
Its teeth and skull by itself are decent sized if viewed by a human, but compared to a t rex it's simply a joke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You mean a skull larger than that of T. rex is a joke? Because that´s the size it would be (lenghtwise of course) at the same weigths. In terms of width t. rex skull is larger of course, but that rather meatters for prey restrainment. the damage a jaw can do ought to be mainly correlated with the jaw durability, tooth morphology and the size of the toothrow.

Mystery meat, your comparison reflects pretty well what I think about the sizes myself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 19 2012, 04:15 AM
Verdugo
Dec 18 2012, 11:55 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Dec 18 2012, 10:14 PM
Verdugo
 
Allsauridae are GREAT hunters, but poor fighter

Allosaurids, poor fighters? They have sharp carnosaurian teeth + decent bite force + axe head, yet they're poor fighters? rolleyes
No matter what you said, i have facts to prove my opinion which is far different from you, who make up facts base on his own biased, baseless scale and opinion.

You're coward, you are NOT even brave enough to go for a debate with me on other thread lol

_ Sharp teeth, but small in size, puny when compare to Carcharodontosauridae
_ Bite force: the weak mandible, cranium and unfused nasal don't support this
_ Axe head: this hypothesis has already been criticized, and again, the weak cranium and unfused nasal don't support it

What makes Allosaurus a poor fighter ?

_ Weak cranium, small teeth, teeth are not exceptionally strong like people thinks
_ Lightly built body

What makes Allosaurus a great hunter ?

_ Agile
_ Large, powerful claws and arms for holding prey
_ Somewhat smarter and more advanced than other Theropod at its age
_ Quite generalized hunter, capable of hunting a wide range of preys, from small ornithopod to gigantic Sauropod to well-armed Stegosaurids

Allosaurus is not the kind go for frontal combat like you see in later Carcharodontosauridae or Tyrannosauridae

You clearly show your incapability of distinguishing the difference between hunters and fighters
the only theropods made for this "frontal combat" are actually bone crushers like megalosaurs, tyrannosaurs or abelisaurs.

Allosaurus didn´t have weak crania as you claim, nearly all theropods had unfused nasals, and small teeth are not necessarily a disadvantage-actually they are an advantage for allosaurus feeding style. The mixture of features corresponds to its lifestyle as a versatile hunter, it was a capable slicer with a relatively wide gape and a potent functional bite force (that is including the neck muscular force).

Sánchez et al did list lots of features suggesting a great role of the neck muscles in an Allosaurus bite (basitubera, paroccipital processes, etc.)-this already totally invalidates the point of a weak adductor driven bite force being a disadvantage that made it a poor fighter. Bring a better explanation than a neck msucle reinforced bite of some sort

Rayfield et al used a finite element analysis and found the cranium of Allosaurus was highly resistant to vertical stresses. It is also cited in "the muscle powered bite of Allosaurus".
Quote:
 
Such strength of the
skull means forces in the region of 55,000Nmay be withstood by the
skull (Fig. 2a, b). It appears that the skull is designed to be extremely
strong when biting at the central maxillary teeth.
Third, tensile stresses ventrally and compressive ones dorsally
re¯ect the bending moments acting on the skull during loading
(Fig. 3a, b). However, the skull of Allosaurus seems to be designed to
resist large vertically directed forces applied along the tooth row.


I tend to trust this study as it has a very detailed model and a detailed explanation on the materials and cavities. Also you can see it is referring to the central maxillary teeth, it might look differently with others, even tough i have problems believing that alone could explain the difference between the two stdies. from this it definitely loos like allosaurus had a very strong skull at least for this kind of stress. if it is less sturdy for example in the premaxillary teeth that isn´t really tragic for the animal, its teeth would slice through meat effordlessly. The extreme durability of the skull definitely shows to me that it was meant to also endure these stresses, in other words be able to withstand bone and be able to attack various regions of an animal, not being limited to soft parts.

The study you used (I don´t remember the name but I have read it. I actually tought I had downloaded it once again. Can you give me the name please, so that I can have a look at it again?), is just one study, contradicting others (and my gut feeling and logical consideration on these poitns as well, not only as Allosaurs have really deep and compact skulls but also a dentition that seems adapted for withstanding far greater force than that expierienced in mere flesh cutting and the laterally flattened narrow jaw shape-just about all features point out to a rather resistant structure).


theropod
Dec 21 2012, 02:40 AM
Verdugo
Dec 20 2012, 10:59 PM
My mistake, i would criticize myself. The study i posted is in 2006, the one from yours is in 2001, both studies are correct, there is NO contradictory here. It is TRUE, that Allosaurus skull is strong, YES it can withstand a force of 55000N, but the BIG PROBLEM is here, it is weak in COMPARISON to other Theropod (it doesn't mean that Allo skull was weak and fragile like i thought, it is just weak when you compare to other Theropod)

And please don't misinterpret me ! I wasn't wrong nor the studies posted, i would repeat again, Allosaurus does have strong skull, but it is weak when you compare to other Theropod
Quote:
 
the only theropods made for this "frontal combat" are actually bone crushers like megalosaurs, tyrannosaurs or abelisaurs.

Abelisaur is powerful and muscular in built but it is not a bone crusher, i have disproven this myth many times. And where is your proof for Megalosaurs being bone crushers ???
Quote:
 
Allosaurus didn´t have weak crania as you claim, nearly all theropods had unfused nasals, and small teeth are not necessarily a disadvantage-actually they are an advantage for allosaurus feeding style. The mixture of features corresponds to its lifestyle as a versatile hunter, it was a capable slicer with a relatively wide gape and a potent functional bite force (that is including the neck muscular force).

even tough i have problems believing that alone could explain the difference between the two stdies

As i stated, no data is wrong, it is just a bit misleading, that's my mistake, i didn't read carefully

This is what the 2006 study says on Carnosaur skull strength

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/okr71qv1d/Skull_strength02.png

Get what i mean now. The later data didn't refuse the former one, despite Allosaurus's low scores in skull strength compare to other Theropod, Allo's skull is still exceptionally strong by carnivores standard

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/3p4wqhyu9/skull_strength03.png
Quote:
 
The study you used (I don´t remember the name but I have read it. I actually tought I had downloaded it once again. Can you give me the name please, so that I can have a look at it again?),

Here
Quote:
 
You clearly are limited to a very small world in which you find a study suggesting one Allosaurus had a rather weak skull (even weaker as it was a rather small specimen), and despite other studies having other results, even suggesting exceptional cranial strenght, conclude it was a bad fighter.

In short, when you combine both studies you will have one summary: Allosaurus skull is very strong by carnivores standard but it is also very weak by Theropod standard, Allosaurus skull is actually proportionally weaker than those of Carcharodontosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus. Allosaurus skull strength has has long times being overrated while Carcharodontosauridae underrated. The study would help people to change their mind
7Alx
 
Allosaurus teeth are in medium-sized for theropod standart. And they are not that thin.
http://www.lvmnh.org/images/Mesozoic/Jurassic/Allosaurus%20tooth.jpg
Maybe that this tooth from this picture is actually small (however that tooth would be new), but its thickness isn't that bad.
http://www.fossilreproductions.net/images/Allo%20toothm%20front%20ZOOM.jpg
Also roots doesn't look bad.

Also who say its skull is weak? Hatched like jaw couldn't be weak and fragile.

Hatcheted bite is actually just a hypothesis and it has already been criticized in the paper "The muscles powered bite of Allosaurus"

And you shouldn't go by the look actually, it is not the best way to judge something strength
Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/k57ead3tt/Theropod_tooth_strength.png

This data clearly shows that Allosaurus doesn't have exceptionally strong teeth, yes it is true that their teeth aren't weak either. Allosaurus teeth is actually quite typical for Carnosaur standard, they aren't strong nor weak, they are just NORMAL, there's nothing special about Allosaurus teeth strength

And this data also criticized one thing, Ceratosaurus does NOT have weak teeth either, their teeth are actually (proportionally) similar in strength to Allosaurus
Quote:
 
And where is your proof for Megalosaurs being bone crushers ???

There is no proof, but most Megalosaurs have damn robust bulky skulls with large and strong teeth very similar to tyrannosaurs
Quote:
 
it is weak in COMPARISON to other Theropod

You mean a typical 7-8m theropod has a skull capable of withstanding the force of 55 KN in a vertical direction? Nah, it seems like these two studies are not talking about the exact same thing and the resulats also vary. Allosaurus definitely isn´t far weaker than other theropods, using the study you posted, when viewed with regards to size (look at the graphs), and big al is a specimen with a rather long snout. No way this skull strenght isn´t still enourmous when compared to similar sized animals, and that´s what the skull shape suggests.
Quote:
 

This is what the 2006 study says on Carnosaur skull strength

Posted Image
http://s6.postimage.org/okr71qv1d/Skull_strength02.png

Get what I mean now. The later data didn't refuse the former one, despite Allosaurus's low scores in skull strength compare to other Theropod, Allo's skull is still exceptionally strong by carnivores standard

You are implying it was normal for a medium sized carnosaur to be able to endure the stress of a T. rex bite in vertical direction.

Quote:
 

thanks a lot!

Quote:
 
Hatcheted bite is actually just a hypothesis and it has already been criticized in the paper "The muscles powered bite of Allosaurus"

the paper in question nevertheless doens´t deny a neck muscle powerted bite, it just doesn´t agree with the skull used like a hatchet.

Quote:
 
And you shouldn't go by the look actually, it is not the best way to judge something strength

sometimes it is the best way to do.

Quote:
 
This data clearly shows that Allosaurus doesn't have exceptionally strong teeth, yes it is true that their teeth aren't weak either. Allosaurus teeth is actually quite typical for Carnosaur standard, they aren't strong nor weak, they are just NORMAL, there's nothing special about Allosaurus teeth strength

And this data also criticized one thing, Ceratosaurus does NOT have weak teeth either, their teeth are actually (proportionally) similar in strength to Allosaurus

it simply doesn´t seem logical that shorter and thicker teeth shouldn´t be less fragile than longer and thinner ones.


theropod
Dec 21 2012, 04:56 AM
Have a try scaling up the cranium resistance of Big al from Rayfield et al, 2001 to a possible 1,4m Saurophaganax skull, the same lenght as sue´s. You´ll be surprised, it is definitely not weaker in a dorsoventral direction, the figures are actually absolutely astronomical.
It is absolutely logical that carnosaur crania were much weaker than those of tyrannosaurs in torsional or mediolateral directions, but it doesn´t seem as if that´s the case in a dorsoventral plane.

Carnosaur, specifically allosaur skulls simply have the built to endure stresses in this direction:
The skull is narrow, with near parallel bones, it is also deep and not too elongated.

Not all studies test things the same way and Rayfields did focus on the stresses on the mid maxillary theeth, not the tip of the snout. As Big al has a longer snout than other allosauruses (I know Rayfield also tested Big al, I just mean that factor would be less notable in other specimens) that might explain why it is somewhat weaker than the other tested animals in the 2006 study.
What I mean is that firstly the figures don´t reflect the same thing. Rayfield is specifically referring to the mid maxillary teeth, the 2006 paper likely has a different metod. Then, other specimens of Allosaurus have shorter and blunter skulls, which should affect the bending moment if measured with stresses applied near the tip of the skull.

To sum it up, the resistence of allosaurid skulls in a vertical plane is exceptional, they are not less robust than that of most other theropods and likely about on par with similar sized tyrannosaurs in vertical stress resistence at the mid maxillary teeth. Rayfield left little doubt the skull is specifically designed for that purpose. The figure including muscular and condylar force is 18,747 N- that´s a force of nearly 1,9t for an animal only 1-1,5t in weight. The maximum figure is even 5,5t, I guess that likely means it doesn´t take into account the strenght of the condyle and the muscles...


Also have a try with the approximate 8000N bite force later calculated for Big al. At equal skull lenght to T. rex it yields ~2,5t, I don´t know what weight they used but it seems like the estimates they based that on were simply inconsistent, in reality that´s still a good deal less than the bite of T. rex at ~3,7-5,5t.

PS: For anyone who wants to read the Rayfield paper, I can e-mail it to you if you want. I once found it somewhere for free but I don´t remember where I got it from.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I´d be interested in Emperor T. ´s opinion on this, thus far I think he portrayed a very objective approach to these scenarios.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Only the most liberal Saurophaganax has a good chance against a large Tyrannosaurus. A more average 12m, 5 ton Sauro would get stomped by Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Rayfield2011
 
Three-dimensional FEA of stress in Allosaurus fragilis
showed that the skull of this animal appeared extremely
overbuilt with regard to accommodating feeding-related
forces (Rayfield et al. 2001).


There are also plots in there showing the stress is particularly low in Allosaurus (=it is very resistant). Also an interesting thing to note is that the two megalosaurs in there have also particularly low stresses when going by the models. however it is just 2 dimensional fea while that on allosaurus is 3D.

1. STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF TETANURAN
THEROPOD SKULLS, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE
MEGALOSAURIDAE, SPINOSAURIDAE AND
CARCHARODONTOSAURIDAE: http://www.academia.edu/1812192/Structural_performance_of_tetanuran_theropod_skulls_with_emphasis_on_the_Megalosauridae_Spinosauridae_and_Carcharodontosauridae

EDIT: Sorry, my mistake, I mistook the Af for Allosaurus fragilis while in fact it was Afrovenator. Allosaurus wasn´t in the plots, till the paper clearly states allosaurus to have had exceptional cranial strenght, terming the skull as "overbuilt"-in a study that dealt with other theropods, so it wouldn´t have done that if it was "weak when compared to other theropods". as the models in there are 2D there might be a slight bias against animals with a mroe laterally expanded skull, but that is by far more relevant for the lateral strenght, torsional strenght and bite force than for the vertical strenght, so it appears likely that the skull of allosaurus was indeed extremely resistant in a dorsoventral direction.
Edited by theropod, Dec 27 2012, 04:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
saurophagonax - 14,45 m. long. Trex - 12,2 m. long.
Sauro is too large
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think you should do better research lopho, haven´t I already told you that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm doing it. In this debate there's no Lophostropheus. It's trex vs saurophagonax where I favor the allosaurid.
Edited by Temnospondyl, Dec 27 2012, 04:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
But your size figures are wrong, that doens´t ahve anything to do with whether there are coelophysids involved or not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temnospondyl
Stegocephalia specialist.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think that 12.2 meters are wrong length for Sue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
well, its 10cm too low, that´s maybe ignorable, but 14,5m is too much for Saurophaganax, it is not indicated by anything and it wasn´t ever published. I really don´t know where you got it from. Ray once published 15m which was likely exagerated, Chure published 14m, while based on a flawed metod it could be probably achieved by using the Humerus and taking into account some allometry, and estimates by Mortimer and Holtz put it at 13m. basing on the DINO specimen it could have been smaller than 12m. where on earth do you take a 14,5m figure from?
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
  • 8
  • 28

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.