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
  • 2
Allosaurus fragilis v Megalosaurus bucklandii
Topic Started: Jun 28 2013, 03:59 PM (6,234 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Allosaurus fragilis
Allosaurus (play /ˌælɵˈsɔrəs/) is a genus of large theropod dinosaur that lived 155 to 150 million years ago during the late Jurassic period (Kimmeridgian to early Tithonian). Allosaurus was a large bipedal predator. Its skull was large and equipped with dozens of large, sharp teeth. It averaged 8.5 meters (28 ft) in length, though fragmentary remains suggest it could have reached over 12 meters (39 ft). Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, its three-fingered forelimbs were small, and the body was balanced by a long, heavy tail. As the most abundant large predator in the Morrison Formation, Allosaurus was at the top of the food chain, probably preying on contemporaneous large herbivorous dinosaurs and perhaps even other predators (e.g. Ceratosaurus). Potential prey included ornithopods, stegosaurids, and sauropods. Allosaurus was a typical large theropod, having a massive skull on a short neck, a long tail and reduced forelimbs. Allosaurus fragilis, the best-known species, had an average length of 8.5 meters (28 ft), with the largest definitive Allosaurus specimen (AMNH 680) estimated at 9.7 meters long (32 ft), and an estimated weight of 2.3 metric tons (2.5 short tons). In his 1976 monograph on Allosaurus, James Madsen mentioned a range of bone sizes which he interpreted to show a maximum length of 12 to 13 meters (40 to 43 ft). As with dinosaurs in general, weight estimates are debatable, and since 1980 have ranged between 1500 kilograms (3300 lb), 1000 to 4000 kilograms (2200 to 8800 lb), and 1010 kilograms (2230 lb) for modal adult weight (not maximum). John Foster, a specialist on the Morrison Formation, suggests that 1000 kg (2200 lb) is reasonable for large adults of A. fragilis, but that 700 kg (1500 lb) is a closer estimate for individuals represented by the average-sized thigh bones he has measured. Using the subadult specimen nicknamed "Big Al", researchers using computer modelling arrived at a best estimate of 1,500 kilograms (3,300 lb) for the individual, but by varying parameters they found a range from approximately 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb) to approximately 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb).

Posted Image

Megalosaurus bucklandii
Megalosaurus (meaning "Great Lizard", from Greek, μεγαλο-/megalo- meaning 'big', 'tall' or 'great' and σαυρος/sauros meaning 'lizard') is a genus of large meat-eating theropod dinosaurs of the Middle Jurassic period (Bathonian stage, 166 million years ago) of Europe (Southern England, France, Portugal). It is significant as the first genus of dinosaur (outside of birds) to be described and named. n many ways, Megalosaurus was your garden-variety theropod dinosaur, indistinguishable from a host of other big-headed, large-toothed carnivores of the late Jurassic period. What really sets this predator apart is the fact that it was the first dinosaur ever to be discovered and named: a fossilized femur of Megalosaurus was dug up in England in 1676, but it wasn't until 150 years later--after further discoveries--that it was given its name, Greek for "great lizard," by the early paleontologist William Buckland. Size about 30 feet long with weight estimates varying from 700 kg (1,500 lbs) to 1,100 kg (2,400 lbs).

Posted Image
________________________________________________________________________________
Edited by Taipan, Dec 27 2016, 10:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Dec 7 2014, 04:40 AM
The Reptile
Dec 6 2014, 08:44 AM
they still possessed some rather allosaur-like characteristics (despite being unrelated) including a rather gracile skull construction and sharply-serrated dentition adapted for cutting.
With such a vague 'characteristic' you could just as easily say that baryonychine theropods possessed some 'allosaur-like characteristics'.

Posted Image
Full size version.

They aren't alike.
I think that without Spinodontosaurus' wonderful comparisons, nobody would vote the fighter wich would win.

Allosaurus takes this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Teratophoneus
Dec 7 2014, 04:49 AM
Spinodontosaurus
Dec 7 2014, 04:40 AM
The Reptile
Dec 6 2014, 08:44 AM
they still possessed some rather allosaur-like characteristics (despite being unrelated) including a rather gracile skull construction and sharply-serrated dentition adapted for cutting.
With such a vague 'characteristic' you could just as easily say that baryonychine theropods possessed some 'allosaur-like characteristics'.

Posted Image
Full size version.

They aren't alike.
I think that without Spinodontosaurus' wonderful comparisons, nobody would vote the fighter wich would win.

Allosaurus takes this.
This is average v average, Not largest v average.
That silhouette is if S. maximus is synonymous with A. fragilis.Whcih, from the material, isn't diagnostic atm.

Based on that comparison, Megalosaurus wins 60% of the time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The large specimen depicted there is referred to Allosaurus, not Saurophaganax, although it is indeed only slightly smaller than known Saurophaganax specimens (they are ~4% larger than that Allosaurus).

And really, all I do is put a bunch of images together. It's Scott Hartman who deserves the credit really - he's the one who puts all the work into making the skeletals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Dec 7 2014, 08:46 PM
The large specimen depicted there is referred to Allosaurus, not Saurophaganax, although it is indeed only slightly smaller than known Saurophaganax specimens (they are ~4% larger than that Allosaurus).

And really, all I do is put a bunch of images together. It's Scott Hartman who deserves the credit really - he's the one who puts all the work into making the skeletals.
Yes, but sometimes you even modify his skeletal (such as your Carcharodontosaurus, even though it's a bit outdated) when there is no skeletal of the dinosaur you want. And, while some comparisons may be biased yours are always the most reliable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
They aren't alike.

That right there is a vague comparison too... That is like saying that cats did not share a single morphological similarity with dogs or bears just because "they look different"; it simply has no meaning because you are judging the anatomical similarities of two unrelated animals simply on skeletal comparisons as opposed to more specific aspects (eg- tooth shape, skull proportions).

Quote:
 
This is average v average, Not largest v average.
That silhouette is if S. maximus is synonymous with A. fragilis.Whcih, from the material, isn't diagnostic atm.

Based on that comparison, Megalosaurus wins 60% of the time

So the megalosaurus specimen was an average? Whereas the allosaurus specimen NMMNH was a maximum?

Well in any case, I definitely agree with you that these fights should be based on either/both max vs max and avg vs avg as opposed to avg vs max or avg vs min. I hate when people judge matches that way!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why is having a crushing bite an advantage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Yes, but sometimes you even modify his skeletal (such as your Carcharodontosaurus, even though it's a bit outdated) when there is no skeletal of the dinosaur you want. And, while some comparisons may be biased yours are always the most reliable.

Irrelevant to the actual discussion, but you first discredited him and his comparisons (as Spinodontosaurus said himself, the actual skeletals were authored by non-other than Hartman himself) saying that they are sometimes deliberately modified to "fit" into a certain viewpoint and then proceeded to claim that they were the most reliable 100% of the time
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Dec 7 2014, 08:46 PM
The large specimen depicted there is referred to Allosaurus, not Saurophaganax, although it is indeed only slightly smaller than known Saurophaganax specimens (they are ~4% larger than that Allosaurus).

And really, all I do is put a bunch of images together. It's Scott Hartman who deserves the credit really - he's the one who puts all the work into making the skeletals.
Wasn't NMMNH P-26083 reffered to saurophaganax, though?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Dec 8 2014, 07:20 AM
Quote:
 
Yes, but sometimes you even modify his skeletal (such as your Carcharodontosaurus, even though it's a bit outdated) when there is no skeletal of the dinosaur you want. And, while some comparisons may be biased yours are always the most reliable.

Irrelevant to the actual discussion, but you first discredited him and his comparisons (as Spinodontosaurus said himself, the actual skeletals were authored by non-other than Hartman himself) saying that they are sometimes deliberately modified to "fit" into a certain viewpoint and then proceeded to claim that they were the most reliable 100% of the time
I haven't discredited anything, I only said that his Carch's skeletal is outdated simply because when he made it, in this forum we didn't know it was outdated.

I've never claimed the other things you said either.

It's incredible how a compliment easily turn into an insult.
/OT
Edited by Teratophoneus, Dec 8 2014, 11:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
You just said that Spinodontosaurus modified skeletals even when there was little related fossil evidence and illustrations to back up his reasoning....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Dec 9 2014, 08:23 AM
You just said that Spinodontosaurus modified skeletals even when there was little related fossil evidence and illustrations to back up his reasoning....
Tell me where did I claim it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matando Gueros
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Dec 8 2014, 07:18 AM
Why is having a crushing bite an advantage?
In my opinion, crushing bites are better than slicing bites. In my opinion, it kills faster and is deadlier. Note that I am not talking about the crushing bite of an animal like an alligator, who can't use it's very high bite force to eficiently kill big animals. I am talking about the bite of animals like tyrannosaurs and maybe the biggest crocodilians (Purussaurus, Deinosuchus and maybe Sarcosuchus's bite force should be enough to easily crush most animals around their size range, even with relatively bad dentition for said task).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
It CAN kill faster. That is the correct way to put it. Really, the effectiveness of any bite depends on the type of prey that it is being used to feed on.

Smaller animals can be dispatched rather easily through crushing bites, which is why crocodilians are very effective hunters of small creatures (and in some species, turtles can even be crushed), but not quite as much larger terrestrial animals.

Quote:
 
I am talking about the bite of animals like tyrannosaurs and maybe the biggest crocodilians (Purussaurus, Deinosuchus and maybe Sarcosuchus's bite force should be enough to easily crush most animals around their size range, even with relatively bad dentition for said task).

Tyrannosaurus would be hunting hadrosaurs and ceratopsians (animals with no actual body armor) primarily (with ankylosaurs, which were heavily-armored), so its bite in general would need to be very effective at fatally-puncturing bones and such. And the thing is, tyrannosaurid feeding apparata WERE, in fact, designed perfectly for this.

Crocodylomorphs like sarcosuchus and deinosuchus are like modern crocodilians in that they would be much more effective at hunting smaller animals, and they clearly were morphologically. Their teeth were actually VERY well adapted for crushing smaller animals (< or = their own size); they were thick and relatively blunt. Whereas tyrannosaurid teeth were built like knife-spike hybrids with clear serrations and adaptations for killing, large crocodylomorphs possessed conical teeth that were not adapted for the same kind of killing.

Did that make sense? If not, I can change the explanation
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, I don't think crushing bites are advantageous for this type of scenario.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think you can call tyrannosaurid teeth knife-spike hybrids.
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
  • 2

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.