|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 22, 2014 23:33:56 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 23, 2014 2:38:08 GMT 5
ThatÂ’s indeed funny!
The typical "breaking-back-theory":
And of course T. rexÂ’ famous razor-sharp flesh-tearing teeth...
(particularly funny considering how thatÂ’s often the argument for non-tyrannosaurines not being able to kill quickly)
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 23, 2014 2:59:42 GMT 5
LOL, it looks like this wasn't made up by MR. Anyway, as for your last sentence, it is indeed ironic, but I have never seen a T. rex fanboy using this as a source.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinokid202 on Jan 23, 2014 4:51:35 GMT 5
ThatÂ’s indeed funny! The typical "breaking-back-theory": And of course T. rexÂ’ famous razor-sharp flesh-tearing teeth... (particularly funny considering how thatÂ’s often the argument for non-tyrannosaurines not being able to kill quickly) but trex did have razor sharp flesh tearing teeth to go with its large bite force: earthlingnature.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tyrannasaurus-teeth-fossil.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jan 23, 2014 4:58:55 GMT 5
Umm, no. Tyrannosaurus did not have "razor sharp teeth". They were actually relatively dull and they were more-so well designed for puncturing deeply into the spine (for example) of a prey animal in conjunction with its powerful bite. It most likely did not kill by ripping, like allosaurs. It instead would have killed by crushing, where "razor-sharp teeth" are not much of a necessity but instead strong and spike-like dentition
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 23, 2014 16:49:06 GMT 5
T. rex has relatively dull, thick teeth designed for puncturing bone. Biomechanical analyses have suggested its serrations were not effective at cutting flesh, but rather designed for holding.
This is just logical, as "to go with its large bite force" it needed very robust teeth and carninae, not very sharp ones, which would have become blunt or broken quickly if used in conjunction with bone-crushing behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinokid202 on Jan 25, 2014 5:05:33 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 25, 2014 5:46:56 GMT 5
Yeah from lateral (side) view. Look at how thick they are, they wouldn't look so similar then. Obviously T. rex could tear and cause serious soft tissue damage with its teeth, but the teeth are more like war hammer spikes than knives. 
This went from a battle between two giant apex predators to...a battle between two apex predators, one of which turned out to be a freakin' weirdo that we still have questions to ask about. I can at least say that on land, Tyrannosaurus wins, hands down. It is significantly more powerful in many respects (the jaws, probably the neck, body, hip and legs), is armed with more potent and more applicable weaponry, and is more mobile on land. Spinosaurus could potentially deal serious, if not mortal damage with its huge hooked claws powered by its beefy arms. The problem is, its forelimbs are not as easily applicable as the jaws of Tyrannosaurus, and the kind of damage the tyrannosaur could deal with its jaws is even greater. Maybe a bite can cause a serious puncture wound if it bites the right place ( Spinosaurus also has very large, thick, deeply-rooted teeth shaped like spikes), but obviously the T. rex can much more easily do the same thing and be far more vigorous with its skull. Spinosaurus' exact ecology, i.e. whether it was an aquatic pursuit predator or a wading predator, is still not clear. In any case, though, Spinosaurus looks better adapted for aquatic locomotion than T. rex, and should win in reasonably deep water. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 25, 2014 16:19:35 GMT 5
T. rex teeth are not knife-like, they arebanana-like. They are blunt, curved spikes, built for puncturing, holding and crushing, and accordingly have relatively blunt edges and an almost round cross-section. Knives, meant for cutting, are narrow (though often anteroposteriorly deep)-bladed and sharp-edged.
If you don’t believe me, I have posted (and can repost) scientific works that suggest the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Jan 25, 2014 17:17:20 GMT 5
Funfact: That 9.5 ton sue digital model estimate is pretty accurate and it wouldn't even be fat. Because that 9.5 ton estimate is in SHORT tons. In metric units that sue would be 8600 kg(8.6 metric tons and 19000 pounds) which is only 200kg heavier than Hartman's sue estimate.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 25, 2014 17:23:14 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 25, 2014 17:54:13 GMT 5
The figures in the paper are alltogether in metric units...
|
|
|
|
Post by dinokid202 on Feb 1, 2014 5:53:16 GMT 5
T. rex teeth are not knife-like, they arebanana-like. They are blunt, curved spikes, built for puncturing, holding and crushing, and accordingly have relatively blunt edges and an almost round cross-section. Knives, meant for cutting, are narrow (though often anteroposteriorly deep)-bladed and sharp-edged. If you don’t believe me, I have posted (and can repost) scientific works that suggest the same. but carnivores need to have sharp teeth. why would it not have sharp teeth if it was an effective predator? |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 1, 2014 7:43:41 GMT 5
The huge bite force of T.rex allowed it to drive its superficially sharp teeth into prey items.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Feb 1, 2014 7:55:25 GMT 5
T. rex teeth are not knife-like, they arebanana-like. They are blunt, curved spikes, built for puncturing, holding and crushing, and accordingly have relatively blunt edges and an almost round cross-section. Knives, meant for cutting, are narrow (though often anteroposteriorly deep)-bladed and sharp-edged. If you don’t believe me, I have posted (and can repost) scientific works that suggest the same. but carnivores need to have sharp teeth. why would it not have sharp teeth if it was an effective predator? Ask crocodiles! Their teeth are not sharp at all, and they are amazing predators, same with lions, tigers, ect... They all have a point, but the edges are not sharp at all. |
|
