Allosaurus fragilis vs Torvosaurus tanneri

[gigadino96]

Allosaurus fragilis (Marsh, 1877)

Lenght: 8,5-12 m 
Weight: 2-5 t 
Skull: 1,29 m
Location: North America (Morrison formation)
Period: Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian and Titonian)
Bite force: over 2 t 




Torvosaurus tanneri

Lenght: 11-12 m
Weight: 4-5 t
Skull: 1,36 m
Location: North America (Morrison formation)
Period: Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian and Titonian)
Bite force: ?

[theropod]

This belongs into the sympatric section, both species very likely coexisted.

The cited bite force estimate was for a 7.6m Allosaurus (Big Al Two). A large 12m specimen should comfortably exceed 2t based on the same figure.

On the scenario; Edmarka/Torvosaurus rex seems to be larger than the vast majority of A. fragilis (which are below 9m) specimens, even tough a few large ones rival it and the "Epanterias"-specimen may or may not even be bigger (but that depends on the size of E. rex which is problematic). I would hence usually favour the torvosaurine. It also seems to have a really hugelarge skull, according to Bakker 1360mm which is bigger than what would be predicted for even the biggest Allosaurus (large A. fragilis would be ~90-100cm and very large ones 100-125cm).

I'd appreciate if blaze posted what he has found out, he seemed to have done quite extensive research and mentioned (if I remember correctly) some lenght figures for the referred material on CF.
I can share Bakker's description of the animal if someone is interested, Blaze sent it to me some time ago.

[Runic]

That pic of allosaurus - no thank you -.-

[gigadino96]

Sept 26, 2013 2:27:46 GMT 5 Runic said:

That pic of allosaurus - no thank you -.-

Why? Is a nice speculation!

[creature386]

Blaze said Torvosaurus sp. and Edmarka would both be a little bit larger than the European Torvosaurus, so even the largest Allosaurus specimen would have some problems, but it would be close there. On average, Edmarka would win this.

[Runic]

Sept 26, 2013 18:51:00 GMT 5 gigadino96 said:

Sept 26, 2013 2:27:46 GMT 5 Runic said:

That pic of allosaurus - no thank you -.-

Why? Is a nice speculation!

It looks like a retarded turkey. This imo is better

[theropod]

Sept 26, 2013 19:12:16 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Blaze said Torvosaurus sp. and Edmarka would both be a little bit larger than the European Torvosaurus, so even the largest Allosaurus specimen would have some problems, but it would be close there. On average, Edmarka would win this.

What Torvosaurus sp. do you mean? The only unnamed species I'm aware of is the european form.

[creature386]

That's the one I was referring to.

[Dakotaraptor]

***Comment removed*** 

[blaze]

Sorry for answering late.

Here's an edited post I made on cf about Edmarka's size:

CPS 1002 is actually a scapulocorocoid and the 950mm figure is not only the scapula but the restored length of the whole thing, according to figure 5 of Bakker et al (1992) though it is true that later in the paper this same fossil is said to be CPS 1005 and be an scapula but this is a mistake. Basing it on Hartman's Torvosaurus (which is apparently scaled to the size of the subadult holotype, at 8.3m long with a ~1m long skull) it's only 20% bigger thus assuming isometry, it gives a 10m long individual, the jugual (CPS 1005) is only 5% bigger than the adult from dry mesa, which is in turn ~18% bigger than the subadult individual following the proportions of Hartman's skeletal (24% bigger in total) which gives us an estimate of 10.3m long, the first caudal is only 17% bigger from the ones from Dry Mesa, I don't know if they're supposed to come from the adult or the subadult, Hartman's Torvosaurus seems to follow it being from the subadult (since he incorporates unpublished material I think he would have a better idea of those things) thus it leads again to an individual around the 10m mark, slightly bigger than the Dry Mesa adult.

Now, the pubic elements do give high estimates as they are 56% (CPS 1010) and 43% (TATE) bigger than the one in Hartman's Torvosaurus (so 12.9 and 11.9m) but that is if:

One, they grow isometrically with ontogeny. This seems to not be the case as they (at least CPS 1010) have a different shape than those known from Torvosaurus, so going by single measure doesn't seem reasonable. Bakker et al. argued that the pubic elements belonged to the same individual as the scapulocorocoid.

Two, they are indeed Tarvosaurus/Edmarka and not something else. In fact CPS 1010 was originally identified as a sauropod pubis (and it looks a lot like a Barosaurus pubis to me) but Bakker et al gave some features of why its referable to a megalosaur and in turn to "Edmarka" but Carrano et al. (2012) doesn't include it in the hypodigm of Torvosaurus, maybe it did belong to Barosaurus after all.

[Dakotaraptor]

I thought 950 mm figure is alone scapula, but i guess i was wrong.

Thanks for correcting though.

[creature386]

Sept 26, 2013 1:51:24 GMT 5 theropod said:

This belongs into the sympatric section, both species very likely coexisted.

For some reason, I can't move the thread (I only can move single posts). Maybe Life can move it.

[Deleted]

What happened to the pictures?

[creature386]

While the picture links may be different, none of them works. Thus, it is possible that it is not the problem of WoA, but that something happened to the pictures themselves.

[dinosauria101]

Emarkra wins, it's much bigger