|
Post by theropod on Oct 18, 2013 2:10:38 GMT 5
Yeah, that's because it has a robust femur for it's lenght. But since even relatively large specimens such as MOR 555 and stan have ended up at merely little over 4t, I think it's save to say really small ones would end up that small with that method. And that's a method exagerating the sizes of thick-femured animals compared to ones with more gracile tighbones.
I also recall the femur-lenght equation used on the paleobiology database yielded ~3.5t for the average T. rex (average being excessively large because they pretty much only have the 5 largest known femora in their list but none of the smaller ones).
The point of the whole thing is that these estimations based on generalized formulas and single-bone measurements are alltogether terribly inaccurate and accounting for them is redundant. Volumetric/isometric methods should be preferred.
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 22, 2013 20:46:14 GMT 5
Giganotosaurus had a longer and deeper skull, but not a more heavily-built skull.
Even for an animal that could easily damage the carnosaur's jaws? Tyrannosaurus had a very thick and robust skull which was very well resistant to force. It is unlikely that a bite from an animal that had a lighter-built skull (despite having a larger skull, wider gape, and sharper teeth) would do as much damage as you are implying to a predator whose killing style was built around crushing and force.
As for the fight, I am still going to go for the allosaur, as it grew to larger sizes than the tyrannosaurus.
|
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Dec 26, 2013 8:08:05 GMT 5
This is roughly a 50/50 imo, who ever gets the first bite wins.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 13, 2015 9:34:35 GMT 5
Clearly Giganotosaurus' bite will be lethal to Tyrannosaurus.
But I've been meaning to ask something. Tyrannosaurus was proposed to have killed via a puncture-pull method and I'm wondering how well that can be applied here. Right now I'm imagining Tyrannosaurus biting its opponent with the dentition puncturing the skin and flesh (that should be easy). The teeth will have a pretty good grip on the flesh and will serve as holdfasts (I think I used that term correctly; note that the teeth will not be slicing or cutting) for when the powerful neck pulls back/rips off a chunk of flesh. I also think the curved morphology of the anterior end of the snout and the incisiforms with D-shaped cross sections will give it a "cookie-cutter bite" when it's employing the puncture-pull method (the latest thing I posted in Tyrannosaurus' profile mentioned a "puncture-pull, cookie-cutter bite" as well).
How accurate does this sound?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 13, 2015 16:19:27 GMT 5
Accurate as far as powerful pulling is concerned, but it does not seem to be the primary specialization of the animal’s neck. imo this was also primarily a strategy for feeding, not attacking (in which the emphasis would not be on extracting flesh, but on breaking bones), otherwise the teeth would be sharper to facilitate it, as they are in animals that use "cookie-cutter bites" or pulling to cause flesh wounds.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 13, 2015 17:28:18 GMT 5
And it should be able to break bones (eg. the cervical vertebrae) and injure its opponent severely without too much effort, correct (as in, at most a few bites)? Not merely end up with some teeth puncturing flesh (and nothing much more, really) only for the opponent to still be alive and struggling and taking numerous bites and a considerable sum of time to achieve the desired effect (breaking bone)?
Edit: please forgive me if I'm being naïve, but couldn't sheer force make up for the comparatively dull dentition?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 14, 2015 16:42:21 GMT 5
And shouldn’t a comparatively sharp dentition make up for the lack thereof? The answer is; to some extent.
A dull dentition in combination with large force is well-suited for damaging materials with high resistance to stress but low elasticity, i.e. rigid materials, such as bone, mollusk shells, or nuts. The part in question does not deform much, allowing for a large force to be excerted without just pushing it out of the way. Sharper teeth could generate a high pressure too, but they would be at higher risks of fracture when hitting something with a greater mechanical strenght than themselves.
A sharp dentition in combination with a weaker bite force is adapted for damaging elastic materials (e.g. muscle, fascia, blood vessels), it doesn’t have to produce large forces to rupture them (difficult because it is hard to excert large forces on something soft) but can sever them with little effort.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 14, 2015 18:02:36 GMT 5
It will/should and I never denied that. I fully acknowledged this as well.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 14, 2015 19:17:48 GMT 5
Well, then there you have it. Obviously it should be able to crush bones rather well, although how quickly depends on how thick the bone is. For example, I don’t see it chewing through an Alamosaurus’ leg quickly, but I can see it crushing another large theropod’s spine with a bit of twisting or shaking. The teeth would have no problem puncturing the flesh and reaching the bone underneath (that’s probably what they are so long for, because if they were shorter the secondary palate would hinder deep biting), they just wouldn’t do extensive damage to the flesh in such a situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 4:58:28 GMT 5
Huh.. this thread is kind of dead..
ill go with Tyrannosaurus on this one.
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Sept 1, 2017 14:39:26 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus is more robust, and have bone-crushing bite, and Giganotosaurus have longer forelimbs and is equipped with slicing teeth that can easily cause fatal soft-tissue damage and blood loss, so at parity around 50/50 is reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2017 11:03:37 GMT 5
Rex with a slight margin.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 22:03:23 GMT 5
EDIT: scratch what I said earlier. Contrary to what many T rex fanboys say, MUCPv-95 would win 52-55 percent to Sue and Scotty, and MUCPv-Ch1 60-65 percent to more average specimens. It has a just as deadly bite, but usable arms and a proportionally much bigger head and wider gape (therefore, bigger bite) to complement it EDIT 2: arethousleepy, scratch what I said in the Giganotosaurus vs Tarbosaurus thread. Giganotosaurus wins to Tyrannosaurus as well.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 14, 2019 3:16:14 GMT 5
sharkboy101Why did you vote for T rex? I am curious to hear your reasoning
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 14, 2019 3:29:01 GMT 5
Minor thing, but I remember editing the OP with RJ Palmer's Giganotosaurus reconstruction. I think it was changed but I'm not sure why.
|
|