| 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: |
| Ekrixinatosaurus novasi v Tarbosaurus bataar | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 20 2013, 07:20 PM (5,879 Views) | |
| Taipan | Oct 20 2013, 07:20 PM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| theropod | Oct 27 2013, 08:08 AM Post #31 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, Tarbosaurus definitely has a longer skull, it's 1.1m (average, maximum is ~1.26) vs 0.85 (and shouldn't it be 76cm when based on Skorpiovenator? My memory isn't the best and I'm too lazy to search through posts right now, but I might do a reconstruction and see myself soon.) But as I noted, a short skull is not always a disadvantage, it is a combination of features that gives a bite its potency. eg. -Tyrannosaurines typically have a massive, mid-lenght skull and bite force and large teeth especially for puncturing deep and crushing, in combination with a neck musculature allowing for strong lateral and dorsal movements to cause devastating internal damage -Carcharodontosaurids have a long jaw with rows of sawlike, very sharp teeth and likely used pulling motions to give immense cutting power and chunk-size/wound lenght to the bite -Allosaurids have strong but narrow, relatively short skulls and dentitions on longish necks, specialized for depressing the skull to drive the dentition deep into the bitten part and rip through tissue by pulling it backwards -and, as I presume, at least some Abelisaurs used powerful bite forces and torsionally resistant, very short skulls and teeth and shaking as well as possibly pulling while hanging onto a prey item. All these are very different in their features and often complete opposites, but all (and also combinations or intermediate states) could potentially serve the purpose of causing great amounts of damage to a large prey item (where large as in "a notable precentage of the predators size" whether it's as big as the predator or 5 times that size is not that important here), and can achieve comparable amounts of optimization, all with their respective strenghts and weaknesses. I hope this wasn't an overdose of my usual "jaw philosophing" and sorry if I bored you ![]() btw where I think Tarbosaurus is in there? Somewhere between the typical tyrannosaurines and the carnosaurs, probably together with many other tyrannosauroids and some other macrophagous coelurosaurs. Edited by theropod, Oct 27 2013, 08:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 27 2013, 08:42 AM Post #32 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
About the kinetics of abelisaurids skulls, my source is this: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2009/04/ad-ognuno-il-suo-morso-i-giunti.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 It is quite technical, I hope google traslate wont make it too impossible to understand. It clearly says that abelisaurids, at least generally, had the most kinetic jaws. Anyway, I don't want to say that a more rigid skull, with a strong bite, is necessarily the best to fight. Bites are not just stronger or weaker, they are different among species, and so require different strategies. As I said, here I back Ekrixinatosaurus, basing on the description in Juarez's article. Edited by Vobby, Oct 27 2013, 08:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Daspletosaurus | Oct 27 2013, 11:53 AM Post #33 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you I'm glade to know that there are people on this site that are willing to help (and as far as I've seen that's pretty much everyone ) others understand things when questions like mine are posed. I think what you said in the above quote here makes sence, and I'm inclined to agree with you and others that comparing every newly discovered genus to T.Rex is shear stupidity. Nope was not at all boring, I appreciate you explaining it, again thank you.
Edited by Daspletosaurus, Oct 27 2013, 11:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 27 2013, 09:57 PM Post #34 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks vobby! That one is actually quite easy to understand, despite the google translator. One note; he is merely talking about the mandibles, not the crania, and as far as I know the intramandibular joint was movable in the vast majority of theropods. The analogy to snakes is also quite a stretch imo (considering the different morphology in the upper jaws of both), but I can understand what he is talking about. The morphology of the upper jaw is vastly different tough. Either way most of it makes sense and fits what I would presume, the hypothesis of shaking and holding onto prey, the only variable is the question of bite force. |
![]() |
|
| Taipan | Jun 28 2014, 01:29 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Yes. Topic closed. Try this!
Edited by Taipan, Jun 28 2014, 02:27 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Jun 28 2014, 02:25 PM Post #36 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I was writing this the other topic got closed haha @palaeogirl ![]() It's fairly complete, actually, but actual photos of the postcranium are pretty much non existent on the web, there's only the drawings of the femur, a neck and tail vertebrae, each in a single view, in Calvo et al. (2004) and photos of a neck vertebrae in Novas et al. (2013), this time in two views and that's all. The skeletal in Calvo et al. (2004) (which I modified a bit above) is all we have. The pelvis appears similar to that of Aucasaurus and Carnotaurus, albeit more similar to that of the former, the tail vertebrae has those crazy transverse processes like Carnotaurus/Aucasaurus/Skorpiovenator so it had strong leg retractor muscles, the cnemial crest of the tibia, however, doesn't look as developed as that of Carnotaurus/Aucasaurus/Majungasaurus, being closer to what is seen in Skorpiovenator, so it had weaker calve muscles, the neck vertebrae appears more compact (in length) than those of the aforementioned abelisaurids. The size of the legs compared to the body looks similar to that of Carnotaurus/Aucasaurus/Skorpiovenator, and the length of the tibia compared to the femur is also about the same, this is corroborated in Juarez-Valieri et al. (2010). About the head, the known bones are very similar to those of Skorpiovenator but its size in proportion to the body is greater than in all the previously mentioned abelisaurids but if Greg Paul is right, Ekrixinatosaurus wasn't alone in that, Indosuchus also had a big head for an abelisaurid. Edited by blaze, Jun 28 2014, 02:35 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Jun 28 2014, 04:41 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've heard that both are believed to have had a maximum length of 12 meters. If this is true then it would be a draw but if Tarbosaurus was 10 meters at maximum and Ekrixinatosaurus 11 meters at maximum, then maybe Ekrixinatosaurus would win this battle. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Jun 28 2014, 05:22 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
11 m for Ekrixinatosaurus is rather unlikely, you have a post about that above of yours. However, 10 m for Tarbosaurus is pretty likely and shall give it the upper hand. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jun 28 2014, 07:03 PM Post #39 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tarbosaurus would have been between 2 and 4 times the body mass of Ekrixinatosaurus. I don”t think that aside from the obvious effects of size Ekrixinatosaurus was more agile, but I could be wrong. However that wouldn’t really help it anyway when faced with a much larger opponent We are talking about a tyrannosaur averaging between 9 and 10m, with a skull over a metre long, and an abelisaur between 7 and 8m, with a skull between 70 and 80cm. Needless to say the largest tarbosaurus at closer to 11m would thrash any known Ekrixinatosaurus, but I’m not even taking it into consideration. The forelimbs of both are neglegible, agility never outweighs size, especially if it is a result of size. The most important factors are size, strenght, durability and weaponery (even if the latter three are all resulting from size), all on the Tarbosaurus’ side. Edited by theropod, Jun 28 2014, 07:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Daspletosaurus | Jul 28 2014, 01:29 PM Post #40 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Going back over this match up one thing I think we have to remember is that with Tarbosaurus we have dozens of specimens and a vastly superior data base of knowledge, where as with Ekrixinatosaurus we have one specimen and to my knowledge very little in the way of data. So on the first hand I agree with Theropod that all the advantages that matter are on Tarbosaurusus side in the matchup. But on the other hand until we find more specimens of Ekrixinatosaurus we can assume very little or a whole lot about its potensial size and weight. My point being that yes as things sit now Tarbosaurus wins hands down but in the future the scales could tip in Ekrixinatosaurus favor as new specimens are recovered and new data becomes available. |
![]() |
|
| Megasaurus | Dec 4 2016, 05:42 AM Post #41 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
11 m Ekrixinatosaurus vs tarbosaurus 50/50 8-9 m Exkrixinatosaurus vs Tarbosaurus-Tarbosaurus wins very easy |
![]() |
|
| Carnotaur | Dec 4 2016, 05:48 AM Post #42 |
![]()
Saprotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to Grillo and Delcourt(2016),Ekrixinatosaurus' specimen was "only" around 7.4 meters in length,so this is a size mismatch.
Edited by Carnotaur, Dec 4 2016, 09:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Dec 4 2016, 09:51 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
11 m. Ekrixinatosaurus probably never existed. By the way, guys, if you want you can just delete the Tyrannosaurus VS Ekrixinatosaurus thread. http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/10116002/1/#new And you can remake it if you want, but it will be a mismatch. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Dec 4 2016, 09:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Oct 16 2017, 09:04 AM Post #44 |
|
Carnoferox's sex toy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tarbo wins unless they're the same size, in that case I'm not sure. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « 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)

) others understand things when questions like mine are posed. 



2:27 AM Jul 14