| 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 (59,204 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: | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temnospondyl | Dec 28 2012, 03:19 AM Post #121 | ||||||
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guessed it's size.
Edited by Temnospondyl, Dec 28 2012, 03:20 AM.
|
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| theropod | Dec 28 2012, 03:59 AM Post #122 | ||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
for the very last time, guessing is no valid way to determine size! you can prefer a certain figure that has a scientific base because of guess, you can make a guesstimate of an animals weight compared to others based on their lenght, and built.but you can not make up absolute size estimates out of thin air! | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| TyrantLizardKing | Dec 29 2012, 02:19 AM Post #123 | ||||||
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
T-rex would win this, even if the Saurophaganax was 14 m - it would only be slightly heavier and allosaurs have much weaker bite forces and PD suggests they used them as axes. This would cause damage but the T-rex would still have a much more lethal bite | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| theropod | Dec 29 2012, 02:39 AM Post #124 | ||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
pd as a source, the claim of T. rex having a much deadlier bite than a 14m allosaur oncluding a supposed axelike movement, all basing solely on a lower adductor driven bite force...so superficial, so predictable...please, at least be more creative with your arguments instead of always claiming the same BS Edited by theropod, Dec 29 2012, 02:42 AM.
|
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Temnospondyl | Dec 29 2012, 03:38 AM Post #125 | ||||||
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Jinfengopteryx | Dec 29 2012, 03:43 AM Post #126 | ||||||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nice comparison, but I don't think T-rex bite is that unique. Most bone crushers too can slice (but not as good as specialized meat slicers) and most meat slicers too can crush (small bones maybe). | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Temnospondyl | Dec 29 2012, 03:49 AM Post #127 | ||||||
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, a bit unique. Rexy's teeth are thick and serrated. Hells bite IMO | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Jinfengopteryx | Dec 29 2012, 03:50 AM Post #128 | ||||||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But the same can be said for Megalodon. | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Temnospondyl | Dec 29 2012, 04:09 AM Post #129 | ||||||
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe. BTW, are Meg's teeth very thick? |
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Jinfengopteryx | Dec 29 2012, 04:14 AM Post #130 | ||||||
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, they're pretty triangular. | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Temnospondyl | Dec 29 2012, 04:18 AM Post #131 | ||||||
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay. Do you think that the shark's bite is not unique? Skarks can rip flesh and crush bones of their prey. Back to the topic, i think it's a draw between Tyrannosaurus and Saurophagonax, leaning to the allosaur. |
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| theropod | Dec 29 2012, 06:02 AM Post #132 | ||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
sharks don´t really crush bones, they saw through them. crushing is when blunt force is applied, while sharks teeth are very sharp. Those of T. rex are ziphodont but not really very sharp, i would still call it a crushing bite, as it is mostly the raw power of the bite that deals the damage, but with the ability to effectively slice meat due to the edges and serrations added to a lot of power behind. There is no clear border between slicing and crushing. allosaurus for example is in many regards a typical slicer, but when you look at its teeth you see they are pretty strong in built nevertheless-imo a clear indication that it didn´t just cut meat but also some occasional bones.
Edited by theropod, Dec 29 2012, 06:14 AM.
|
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Verdugo | Dec 30 2012, 05:42 PM Post #133 | ||||||
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Too much BS for me, why don't you read this ![]() http://s6.postimage.org/w92171mzl/Allosaurus_hatcheted_bite.png Crushing, slicing bones ?? Ridiculous. And i've posted data on teeth strength, Allosaurus doesn't have stronger teeth than other Carnosaurs |
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| Archer250 | Dec 30 2012, 06:48 PM Post #134 | ||||||
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Allosaurus snouts do not in any way look like a shark's jaws... | ||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| theropod | Dec 30 2012, 09:37 PM Post #135 | ||||||
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But they function in a similar way. And verdugo, can you explain to me why despite being much more robust and shorter the teeth of allosaurus should be weaker? regardless of that, I think carnosaur teeth in general wouldn´t just shatter once they encounter bone. The picture is mainly guess based, and also the mechanics of the supposed hatchetting motion and those of a push pull bite as proposed in that paper are not the same in terms of stress on the teeth. this is an allosaurus front tooth (presumably premaxillary): http://www.fossilreproductions.net/images/1329692484809-1961355162.jpeg this is a lateral tooth: http://www.fossilreproductions.net/images/132969313076126909620.jpeg btw note the quote: "Along the front and back edges of tooth are small serrations for cutting into muscle." http://www.fossilreproductions.net/Allosaurus-tooth-side-tooth-107.htm Allosaurs teeth aren´t all the same and at least some where undoubtedly very robust. http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/Dinosaur_Fossils_For_Sale/Allosaurus-Fossils/Allosaurus-Tooth-1/ Allosaurus is a bit of an heterodont actually, the front teeth nare more robust, while the lateral ones seem normal for a carnosaur. Alltogether they have very large roots, not exactly a feature one would expect if they did only encounter tissue they would cut through like a hot knife through butter anyway, and dont forget even laterally compressed teeth can still be pretty strong when facing straight antero-posterior or dorsoventral forces, like for example the ones that where involved in an allosaur bite-estpecially if they where as very sharp. Edited by theropod, Dec 30 2012, 09:40 PM.
|
||||||
![]() |
|
||||||
| 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)




pd as a source, the claim of T. rex having a much deadlier bite than a 14m allosaur oncluding a supposed axelike movement, all basing solely on a lower adductor driven bite force...



2:26 AM Jul 14