gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Aug 27, 2013 1:12:12 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus rex © @ Max Bellomio. Suborder: TheropodaFamily: TyrannosauridaeLength: ~10 ( source) to 12.3 meters ( Scott Hartman) Body mass: Published estimates range from ~6-9.1 tonnes (estimates vary in the same specimens) ( Deccechi et al., 2020; Snively et al., 2019; Scott Hartman) Age and Location: Late to end Cretaceous, Canada and United States (possibly Mexico) Diet: Large herbivorous dinosaurs Weapons: Incrassate serrated teeth, pedal claws ( Rothschild, 2013), manual claws ( Rothschild, 2013) Giganotosaurus carolinii © @ RJ Palmer. Suborder: TheropodaFamily: CarcharodontosauridaeLength: Potentially ~12.4 to 13.2 meters ( Scott Hartman) Body mass: Estimated at anywhere between ~6.8-8.2 kg ( Deccechi et al., 2020; Snively et al., 2019; Scott Hartman) Age and Location: Mid Cretaceous, 95 million years ago, Argentina Diet: Large herbivorous dinosaurs Weapons: Ziphodont teeth, manual claws (assumed from relatives), pedal claws (assumed from other theropods)
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 27, 2013 3:02:31 GMT 5
A bite more of rigorous scientific datas would be good. Some numbers do not reflect any published, precise estimates. Giga's bite force has not been properly predicted yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 27, 2013 3:08:42 GMT 5
Isn't T.Rex bigger now?
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Aug 27, 2013 5:00:38 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 27, 2013 5:21:14 GMT 5
Well it seems as of now it's safe to assume T.Rex is bigger based on what he said in the paper if I'm not mistaken. Since he went down from 8% to 6.5% assuming it was just a animal with more robust dentary than the normal? Or did I read it wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Aug 27, 2013 5:23:58 GMT 5
Well it seems as of now it's safe to assume T.Rex is bigger based on what he said in the paper if I'm not mistaken. Since he went down from 8% to 6.5% assuming it was just a animal with more robust dentary than the normal? Or did I read it wrong? well Sue weighs 200 kg more according to this restoration. But the error bars should be so large that this is pretty much irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 27, 2013 5:47:50 GMT 5
Well it seems as of now it's safe to assume T.Rex is bigger based on what he said in the paper if I'm not mistaken. Since he went down from 8% to 6.5% assuming it was just a animal with more robust dentary than the normal? Or did I read it wrong? well Sue weighs 200 kg more according to this restoration. But the error bars should be so large that this is pretty much irrelevant. Well at these multi ton sizes 200kgs should be unimprtant to either. So in any case I would think Tyrannosaurus would normally win. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Aug 27, 2013 6:22:40 GMT 5
Altough they may be similar in size, tyrannosauruses are far more robust than gigantosauruses, and were likely signifgantly more powerful than them as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 27, 2013 6:26:06 GMT 5
Altough they may be similar in size, tyrannosauruses are far more robust than gigantosauruses, and were likely signifgantly more powerful than them as well. I really don't see how they are far more robusts if they weigh near the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Aug 27, 2013 6:31:58 GMT 5
An animal does not neccarisly have to be larger to be more robust than another. Take cheetahs and leopards for example, though they are from the same family and their weights overlap, it is rather obvious that the latter is far bulkier.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 27, 2013 6:40:04 GMT 5
An animal does not neccarisly have to be larger to be more robust than another. Take cheetahs and leopards for example, though they are from the same family and their weights overlap, it is rather obvious that the latter is far bulkier. So how is it that cheetah weigh more than leopard on average then? Shouldn't a more bulky animal be heavier? |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Aug 27, 2013 6:53:29 GMT 5
Probably because their are several species of leopard, ranging from tiny forty pounders to impressive two hundred pound specimens, while their are two or three species of cheetah that still exist. Also it should be noted that cheetahs are taller than leopards which may make up for their gracile build.
Similarly, I belive that gigantosaureses are longer than tyrannosauruses, which would explain why their weights overlap despite the fact a tyrannosaurus is far bulkier than a gigantosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Aug 27, 2013 7:00:44 GMT 5
Probably because their are several species of leopard, ranging from tiny forty pounders to impressive two hundred pound specimens, while their are two or three species of cheetah that still exist. Also it should be noted that cheetahs are taller than leopards which may make up for their gracile build. Similarly, I belive that gigantosaureses are longer than tyrannosauruses, which would explain why their weights overlap despite the fact a tyrannosaurus is far bulkier than a gigantosaurus. Ahhhh I see. It all makes sense now. Thanks. But yes I agree with you tyranno would win more often then not. |
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Aug 27, 2013 15:20:07 GMT 5
A bite more of rigorous scientific datas would be good. Some numbers do not reflect any published, precise estimates. Giga's bite force has not been properly predicted yet. Why not? Length: 10,9 (average length) -12,3 (max know length) meters Heigth (at the hip): 3,4-3,5 (according to Hutchinson) meters Weigth: 5-10 tonnes (Just a guesswork based on robust and gracile morph) Skull: 1,4 meters (according to theropod's graphic) Teeth: 10-30 centimeters long (Wikipedia) Bite force: 5,7 tonnes (5700 newton=5,7 t) Length: 12,2-13 (various estimates from scientific work and skeletals) meters Heigth (at the hip): 3,5-3,7 (according to Hartman's skeletal) meters Weigth: 5-10 tonnes (The same as T.rex) Skull: 1,6 meters (according to Hartman's skeletal) Teeth: 20 centimeters long Bite force: 3,5 tonnes (Just a guesswork, but imo is close to the actual bite force) For this figth, I would say that this is a 50/50 with a sligthy edge for Giganotosaurus. I don't care if T.rex has stronger bite, Gig's bites were made for slicing the meat, not for crushing the bones as T.rex. Giganotosaurus has also a larger skull. |
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Aug 27, 2013 16:15:55 GMT 5
Which is presicely why a tyrannosaurus would have the edge against a gigantosaurus in a face to face confrontation. While the gigantosaurus would be forced to target the tyrannosaurus's neck to seriously injure it, the tyrannosaurus has the second option of directly attacking its opponent's head and jaw.
More like a longer skull.
|
|
