| 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: |
| Alioramus remotus v Dilophosaurus wetherilli | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 24 2013, 09:20 PM (5,208 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jun 24 2013, 09:20 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Alioramus remotus Alioramus is one of the least known Asian tyrannosaurids. It was a stretch-snouted tyrannosaurid with a very rugose (bumpy) nose. In fact, there seem to be 6 prominent bumps on the nose. Otherwise, it probably looked very much like a T. rex. It has a very high tooth count (for a tyrannosaur, at 18 maxillary teeth), which lends credence to it being a primitive tyrannosaurid. Alioramus is known from an incomplete skull and some foot bones collected from Nogon-Tsav in Mongolia.. As the name says, it is not a well known tyrannosaurid. It may have been an early version of the Asian tyrannosaur family as it has a braincase very similar to Tarbosaurus bataar. Like Albertosaurus in North America, this early tyrannosaur was not as large as its later cousins. So little is known of this dinosaur that the there is even an argument as to whether it belongs as a tyrannosaurid. Dr. Phillip Curie wrote that the taxonomic status of Alioramus is uncertain because of the incompleteness and immature nature of the specimen. ![]() Dilophosaurus wetherilli Dilophosaurus (play /daɪˌlɒfɵˈsɔrəs/ dy-lof-o-sawr-əs or /daɪˌloʊfɵˈsɔrəs/; Greek: di for "two", lophos "crest", and sauros "lizard") was a theropod dinosaur from the Sinemurian stage of the Early Jurassic Period, about 193 million years ago. The first specimens were described in 1954, but it was not until over a decade later that the genus received its current name. It is one of the earliest known Jurassic theropods and one of the least understood. Dilophosaurus measured around six meters (20 ft) long and may have weighed half a ton. The most distinctive characteristic of Dilophosaurus is the pair of rounded crests on its skull, possibly used for display. Studies by Robert Gay show no indication that sexual dimorphism was present in the skeleton of Dilophosaurus, but says nothing about crest variation. The teeth of Dilophosaurus are long, but have a fairly small base and expand basally. Another skull feature was a notch behind the first row of teeth, giving Dilophosaurus an almost crocodile-like appearance, similar to the putatively piscivorous spinosaurid dinosaurs. This "notch" existed by virtue of a weak connection between the premaxillary and maxillary bones of the skull. This conformation led to the early hypothesis that Dilophosaurus scavenged off dead carcasses, with the front teeth being too weak to bring down and hold large prey.
Edited by Taipan, Aug 1 2013, 09:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Big G | Jun 27 2013, 05:45 AM Post #16 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alioramus "The skull of A. remotus was approximately 45 centimetres (18 in) long." |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Jun 27 2013, 05:55 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Theropodomorpha "The skull of A. remotus was approximately 45 centimetres (18 in) long" The reference is "Theropods from the Cretaceous of Mongolia". The Age of Dinosaurs in Russia and Mongolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press." I though that there was reference from media... But someone was smart enough to use that references and put to wikipedia. Edited by 7Alx, Jun 27 2013, 05:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| NeoNotoungulata | Jun 27 2013, 04:50 PM Post #18 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Alioramus Remotus wins this bout! |
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Jun 27 2013, 04:56 PM Post #19 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just said what I seen, comparing the skeletals posted by Theropod. |
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Jun 27 2013, 04:57 PM Post #20 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Any reasons? Looks like BS |
![]() |
|
| Temnospondyl | Jun 27 2013, 05:05 PM Post #21 |
|
Stegocephalia specialist.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Deadlier? Seems like only stronger, because THIS skull can inflict some bloody wounds, as the long teeth can slice very deep. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 27 2013, 10:34 PM Post #22 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Equally deadly (if not deadlier) weaponry, more robust, possible size advantage, possibility that it was as big as Albertosaurus when fully grown (since it is probably only known from juveniles). Though, you don't have to take the last one into account. Edited by Ausar, Jun 27 2013, 11:05 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jun 27 2013, 10:53 PM Post #23 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I really don't consider tyrannosaur teeth to be THAT deadly. I think so because they were designed more like thick spikes, which were used for crushing. Now don't get me wrong, they were still deadly nonetheless, but they were designed for crushing as opposed to slicing and causing blood loss. Edited by Godzillasaurus, Jun 27 2013, 10:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 27 2013, 11:07 PM Post #24 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you think slicing is better than crushing? Edited by Ausar, Jun 27 2013, 11:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 28 2013, 12:04 AM Post #25 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Temnospondyl: the teeth appear to have fallen out of their sockets, making them longer. Long teeth allow for a deeper bite without additional compressing or slicing forces being applied, but they are also fragile, limiting the gape and perhaps places it could attack effectively. That's why you usually do not see exceptionally long, thin teeth in animals that use them as a weapon for fighting. They are a sign of specialization towards a killing style that is not necessarily beneficial for a fight. On the other hand, Alioramus certainly has far blunter teeth requiring greater force to deal damage, however its overall jaw and tooth structure is also more robust and probably more beneficial in this fight, especially considering it is far more robust in built than its opponent. This is just my interpretation and doesn't base on in-depth study of this animal, but I think it is a specialist for some specific prey or killing style that has to be relatively careful in a fight because of its long, thin teeth and not built for fighting as much as this opponent is. It would be more vulnerable to Alioramus than vice versa imo, because of size deficiency, highly elongate teeth and gracile jaws and its very light built. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jun 28 2013, 12:13 AM Post #26 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, just deadlier. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 28 2013, 12:21 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can understand that tyrannosaurids had the blunt teeth for theropod standards, but judging from comparisons with teeth belonging to equally sized theropods (like Tyrannosaurus/Carcharodontosaurus), I don't see how they are FAR blunter. P.S. It seems like smaller tyrannosaurids had sharper teeth than their bigger cousins. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Jun 28 2013, 12:53 AM Post #28 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which pretty much implies they are "better". I don't consider slicing to be any more dangerous than crushing. I don't want this turning into a crushing vs. slicing debate. |
![]() |
|
| retic | Jun 28 2013, 03:17 AM Post #29 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
like theropod said those teeth look fragile and dilo doesn't look like it would have a strong bite. for comparison here is an alioramus skull.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 28 2013, 03:18 AM Post #30 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oops, forgot about that. I was including the slenderness ratio etc., everything regarding how easily the teeth can slice, not just the edges. But it is true, smaller, more basal tyrannosaurs don't have the same tooth design as tyrannosaurines. It was noted there were similarities between those of gorgosaurus and Allosaurus actually. I retract that statement, the tyrannosaur may have rather sharp teeth as well, tough tis tooth design is different still (shorter, less fragile). It probably isn't a crusher int he sense of T. rex, rather in between. |
![]() |
|
| 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 |
2:27 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)








![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



2:27 AM Jul 14