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
  • 3
Who wins?
Ekrixinatosaurus novasi 1 (20%)
Tarbosaurus bataar 4 (80%)
Total Votes: 5
Ekrixinatosaurus novasi v Tarbosaurus bataar
Topic Started: Oct 20 2013, 07:20 PM (5,880 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Ekrixinatosaurus novasi
Ekrixinatosaurus (Explosion-Born Reptile) is a genus of dinosaur which lived during the Late Cretaceous. It was a theropod believed to be one of the abelisaurs. Its fossils have been found in Argentina. The type species, Ekrixinatosaurus novasi, was first described in 2004 by Argentinian paleontologist Jorge Calvo, and Chilean paleontologists David Rubilar-Rogers and Karen Moreno. Ekrixinatosaurus is perhaps the largest abelisaurid known to date, estimated as 10 to 11 metres (33 to 36 ft) long. It was also particularly robust and had a relatively large head, suggesting that it was a powerful predator or scavenger, able to scare other predators away from their kills.

Posted Image

Tarbosaurus bataar
Tarbosaurus belongs in the subfamily Tyrannosaurinae within the family Tyrannosauridae, along with the earlier Daspletosaurus, the more recent Tyrannosaurus and possibly Alioramus. Animals in this subfamily are more closely related to Tyrannosaurus than to Albertosaurus and are known for their robust build with proportionally larger skulls and longer femurs than in the other subfamily, the Albertosaurinae. Although many specimens of this genus have been found, little definite data was confirmed on the dinosaur as of 1986, though it was presumed to share many characteristics with other tyrannosaurids. The close similarities have prompted some scientists to suggest a possible link between the North American and Eurasian continents at that time, perhaps in the form of a land bridge. As with most dinosaurs, Tarbosaurus size estimates have varied through recent years. It could have been 10 meters long, with a weight of 4 to 5 - 7 tons.

Posted Image




Daspletosaurus
Oct 20 2013, 08:55 AM
Tarbosaurus vs. Ekrixinatosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mismatch in favor of tarbosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Pretty even fight in my opinion. Seeing as both are heavily built and roughly the same weight, and length the only advantage either would have comes down to who has the more effective bite and who can last the longest. But I would favor Ekrixinatosaurus slightly. 51% Ekrixinatosaurus to 49% Tarbosaurus
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think there was some talk about Ekrixinatosaurus probably more around 8-9 meters long. Then again, Tarbosaurus probably wasn't that huge either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah, it looks like on average, Tarbosaurus was comparable to the large Daspletosaurus/Albertosaurus specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tarbosaurus win at hsi max size, but 50-50 and his average size.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A big daspletosaurus-sized tarbosaurus would still be bigger and would still win easily, and considering abelisaurids had rather relatively weak bites and small teeth for their size....
Edited by Carcharadon, Oct 21 2013, 01:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ekrixinatosaurus is 7-9 metres while Tarbosaurus is 9.5-10 metres long. Tarbosaurus destroys the abelisaurid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tarbosaurus is bigger, even tough itself not as huge as commonly portrayed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharadon
Oct 21 2013, 12:50 AM
A big daspletosaurus-sized tarbosaurus would still be bigger and would still win easily, and considering abelisaurids had rather relatively weak bites and small teeth for their size....
Why would it be bigger? It would be roughly 9 m long then too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
9 m is liberal for ekrixinatosaurus, and a tyrannosaur would imo be bigger than an abelisaurid if they were at length parity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is not liberal (at least not according to the definition of liberal, liberal requires extra assumptions), just the upper bound, but I can see your point.
I personally believe Ekrixinatosaurus to be 8,5 m long, based on Spino's calculations, using a 6 m Skorpiovenator.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Well I still support the 10 m to 11 m estimate for Ekrixinatosaurus, and if it is smaller then there was no point in requesting this match-up. And as for Abelisaurids having a weak bit, I'll quote what I said in the Aucasaurus vs. Ceratosaurus fight...
"Abelisaurids didn't need the same power as Tyrannosaurids did in there bite. Take Spinosaurus. It clearly had power to its bit, and because its teeth were straight and conical, it only needed enough force to hold onto its struggling pray. It didn't need 60,000 newtons of force to crush and kill with its bite."
So for 'Ekrixinatosaurus', -biting and holding struggling prey- it wouldn't need the same kind of bit force as a Tyrannosaurid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Makaveli7
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Assuming we are using the 10-11 m figure for Ekrixinatosaurus here, this is 50/50. Both have powerful bites and are at length parity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Daspletosaurus
Oct 21 2013, 06:48 AM
Well I still support the 10 m to 11 m estimate for Ekrixinatosaurus, and if it is smaller then there was no point in requesting this match-up.
You support it on what basis?
You could bring both at 9 m, then it would as fair as putting both at 10-11 m.
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
  • 3

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.