|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 1, 2014 14:46:14 GMT 5
How are tiger/lion teeth not sharp at all?From "Wild Cats of the World"
I don't think you can range on the same level as crocodiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 1, 2014 15:43:58 GMT 5
I think he meant to say that their killing teeth are not sharp (being conical, much like in crocodiles). You are right, cats have sharp-edged carnassials (but I also don’t think you can range those on the same level as varanids’ or sharks’ teeth).
Actually T. rex teeth are somewhat comparable to the carnassial teeth of durophagous carnivorans (canids and hyaenids) in that they utilise their strong bites to produce high shear stresses at their carinae (which do exist, but are relatively blunt), supported by the presence of bite marks on inferrable prey and the presence of pathologies on the teeth.
However T. rex’ teeth are also designed heavily for holding and puncturing (their lenght and curved shape), and they do not form a continous "bolt-cutter"-type blade. Imo they are somewhere in between a hyaena and a crocodile.
Sufficient of course for feeding, but, due to being "pegs with poor cutting ability" (Barrett & Rayfield 2006), with carinae "like a dull smooth blade" (Abler 1992), not even comparable to the efficiency and effectivenessnof animals specifically designed for meat tearing. That's not even mentioning their long-crowned, very thick shape, further contributing to increasing their drag in tissues.
All these clearly suggest (most, considering the considerable overlap between Gorgosaurus and Allosaurus in these regards) tyrannosaurid teeth were not good at tearing, since they do not meet the criteria necessary to be good at it (which would be labiolingual compression, tight spacing, sharp and effectively serrated carinae).
Instead their whole morphology is built for powerful puncturing and shearing, such as their long, thick crowns, deep roots, and robust edges. These two are virtually exclusive, animals with high aptitude at tearing sacrifice crushing power and vice versa.
It is nothing but a myth perpetuated by children’s books that every carnivore has "razor sharp teeth". Some, such as crocodiles, are not sharp at all. Others are indeed very sharp (eg. many sharks, carnosaurs, some monitor lizards, machairodontid canines), but not comparable to a razor, rather a steakknife, and still others (carnivoran carnassials, tyrannosauridae, certain pliosaurs and ichthyosaurs) are somewhere in between "totally blunt" and "extremely sharp".
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 1, 2014 17:03:16 GMT 5
You are right, cats have sharp-edged carnassials (but I also don’t think you can range those on the same level as varanids’ or sharks’ teeth). Of course not, but it isn't like there is only "crocodile level" and "shark/varanid level". |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Feb 4, 2014 9:59:19 GMT 5
How are tiger/lion teeth not sharp at all?From "Wild Cats of the World" I don't think you can range on the same level as crocodiles. Speaking of canines only. Smooth as silk, impossible to cut yourself on. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 8, 2014 23:39:16 GMT 5
Only talking about the canines, I can see your point, but the carnassials seem to be pretty sharp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 30, 2015 22:54:05 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 8:33:03 GMT 5
 Spino could get lucky... |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 5, 2015 10:49:22 GMT 5
Outdated and inaccurate. Try this one, minor the quadrupedal stance and the slightly too much short legs.  Giants carcharodontosaurids are more serious adversaries for rex. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 2:52:45 GMT 5
Is it really that small? I have terrible scaling and estimation skills, but it wouldn't be much bigger than the Tyrannosaurus, due to the relatively similar sizes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 6, 2015 3:20:07 GMT 5
It is clearly longer longer than T. rex but at max, not heavier, and unofficial estimate by the authors of the latest study about Spinosaurus suggests a body mass in the 6-7 tonnes.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 6, 2015 3:39:14 GMT 5
Similar to t.rex. And your right, a giant carnosaur would be a equal match for a t.rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 6, 2015 7:42:18 GMT 5
Hmmn Maganuco said me this estimate of 6-7 tonnes is justly lower than the largest T. rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 6, 2015 12:54:09 GMT 5
You mean "just", or "slightly". Anyway, that isn't a surprise, spinodontosaurus noted shrinkwrapping in the model some time ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 5:05:24 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus wins this one. At this point it should be evident, as the only real advantage Spino has over Rex is size.
|
|
|
|
Post by marsupial on Jun 26, 2018 6:15:36 GMT 5
In my opinion the Trex would win if a fighting scenario happened. The trex has a more robust build and stronger jaw. Although this is only my opinion and my knowledge for spinosaurus is little (my knowledge on Trex is pretty average.)
|
|
