|
|
Post by Runic on Jul 29, 2013 6:56:32 GMT 5
I thought for you that title would be triceratops vs tyrannosaurus lol. But yes when it comes to animals I like variety of weaponry more than size! I mean just imagine the kinda epicness you would get from two deinonychus ripping eachother apart with grappling, sickle claws and teeth and all the jumping around etc compared to two mega tonne theropods just trying to get eachother in a jaw headlock and knock eachother over with size. But yes I'm still interested in larger theropod anatomy and all that, I just don't get the same type of excitement about them fighting  |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jul 29, 2013 6:59:18 GMT 5
One question I just can't seem to understand myself though. If charchara is the larger of the two why is it giga has a longer skull? I understand they are virtually the same animals and that skull size is not always relevant to size but really? Does a more lengthy skull offer any mechanical advantage?
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 29, 2013 12:13:56 GMT 5
One question I just can't seem to understand myself though. If charchara is the larger of the two why is it giga has a longer skull? I understand they are virtually the same animals and that skull size is not always relevant to size but really? Does a more lengthy skull offer any mechanical advantage? We don't really know who is bigger. If Carchy was longer, is because it has a small head proportionate to the body. This would rapresent a ~ 14 m animal. Carchy is smaller only if it was a big headed animal. So: Giganotosaurus: 13,2 m Carcharodontosaurus (small headed): 14 m Carcharodontosaurus (big headed): ~ 13 m. Spinosaurus win this. A 8 t Carch has no chance against a 12-14 t Spino |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jul 29, 2013 12:55:21 GMT 5
One question I just can't seem to understand myself though. If charchara is the larger of the two why is it giga has a longer skull? I understand they are virtually the same animals and that skull size is not always relevant to size but really? Does a more lengthy skull offer any mechanical advantage? We don't really know who is bigger. If Carchy was longer, is because it has a small head proportionate to the body. This would rapresent a ~ 14 m animal. Carchy is smaller only if it was a big headed animal. So: Giganotosaurus: 13,2 m Carcharodontosaurus (small headed): 14 m Carcharodontosaurus (big headed): ~ 13 m. Spinosaurus win this. A 8 t Carch has no chance against a 12-14 t Spino But wouldn't a longer skull add to the length? Could you please elaborate why a small headed one should be bigger than a large headed one? I understand the estimates generally range from 13.7 meters to 48ft and all. But yes I agree spinosaurus is too big. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 29, 2013 14:43:52 GMT 5
It's true, we don't really know. But a small-headed animal can be larger, given it's skull was also proportionally smaller. If carcharodontosaurus was proportioned like Acrocanthosaurus, it was 14m or more. If it was proportioned like Giganotosaurus, it was closer to 13m.
The skull lenght of Giganotosaurus itself is problematic and could be anything from 1,5-1,6m for the holotype or so. This will greatly affect the results and makes Giganotosaurus difficult to base on. Also, it appears Giganotosaurus and perhaps also Mapusaurus were particularly big (or long)-skulled theropods, arguably a sign of specialization in their clade, since the majority of carnosaurs has proportionally and absolutely much smaller skulls (eg. Acrocanthosaurus, Concavenator, Allosaurus, Neovenator, etc.), but seemingly more prominent ventroflexive neck-muscle attachments in exchange. Also when talking about phylogeny peoplend to forget being slightly closer related to one in several similar animals doesn't automatically mean being proportioned the same way, and that, as variance among studies demonstrates, detailed cladograms tend to be highly variable and not strongly correlated with morphology. In fact, characters or proportions that are plesiomorphic to a higher-level group might be more relevant than animals sharing a somewhat more recent common ancestor-that is unless morphological evidence for the same peculiarities (eg. in this case a very long cranium would have to be indicated) exists.
Anyway a good size range to give would be 13-14m. When deciding to go with the conservative end, consider there likely is only this one adult individual known, and even if this one didn't reach the upper bound it would likely still be a better representation of the species' size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jul 29, 2013 14:58:35 GMT 5
It's true, we don't really know. But a small-headed animal can be larger, given it's skull was also proportionally smaller. If carcharodontosaurus was proportioned like Acrocanthosaurus, it was 14m or more. If it was proportioned like Giganotosaurus, it was closer to 13m. The skull lenght of Giganotosaurus itself is problematic and could be anything from 1,5-1,6m for the holotype or so. This will greatly affect the results and makes Giganotosaurus difficult to base on. Also, it appears Giganotosaurus and perhaps also Mapusaurus were particularly big (or long)-skulled theropods, maybe a sign of specialization in their clade, since the majority of carnosaurs has proportionally and absolutely smaller skulls (eg. Acrocanthosaurus, Concavenator, Allosaurus, Neovenator, etc.), but more prominent ventroflexive neck-muscle attachments in exchange. Ah that makes more sense now thank you. I think the long skulled giga and mapu are adaptions though and most likely didn't apply to charchara or the majority of other carnosaurs tbh |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 29, 2013 15:08:41 GMT 5
It appears so. Many prefer to be cautious with the sizes, that's the reason you will find Giganotosaurus used frequently. There's also the femur-lenght issue with the holotype, which likely was quite a leggy animal (126cm femur). paleo.square7.ch/IMG/Carcharodontosaurus_skulls.jpgBut this is also hard to say for certain, the scaling between the two is difficult. But it if was that leggy, it would indicate comparable proportions to Acrocanthosaurus, even if the femur would have gotten a bit shorter relative to the skull because the holotype wasn't fully mature yet. It appears femur/skull ratio isn't affected significantly by ontogeny (compare FMNH PR 2081 to Jane to check), but primarily femur/body. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jul 29, 2013 15:52:43 GMT 5
Wouldn't long bone geometry based on the the femur be enough?
^ scratch that I was mistaken (I was researching deinonychus limb bone strength sorry) I'll likely be able to give a answer after doing my homework on charchara as the I've only been up to date recently in T.rex & spinosaurus sizes lately.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Jul 29, 2013 22:38:02 GMT 5
It's true, we don't really know. But a small-headed animal can be larger, given it's skull was also proportionally smaller. If carcharodontosaurus was proportioned like Acrocanthosaurus, it was 14m or more. If it was proportioned like Giganotosaurus, it was closer to 13m. The skull lenght of Giganotosaurus itself is problematic and could be anything from 1,5-1,6m for the holotype or so. This will greatly affect the results and makes Giganotosaurus difficult to base on. Also, it appears Giganotosaurus and perhaps also Mapusaurus were particularly big (or long)-skulled theropods, maybe a sign of specialization in their clade, since the majority of carnosaurs has proportionally and absolutely smaller skulls (eg. Acrocanthosaurus, Concavenator, Allosaurus, Neovenator, etc.), but more prominent ventroflexive neck-muscle attachments in exchange. Ah that makes more sense now thank you. I think the long skulled giga and mapu are adaptions though and most likely didn't apply to charchara or the majority of other carnosaurs tbh I prefer to use Giggy because it's more related (this would make Carchy about the same size as Giggy or eventually slighty smaller) |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 3, 2013 20:15:01 GMT 5
^I agree with you. I have shown my estimates on my blog on CF.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 13, 2013 19:12:09 GMT 5
Does anybody have a GOOD size comparison between spinosaurus and carcharodontosaurus? I can find a few, but I am not sure if they are accurate or not. However, if they ARE credible sources, spinosaurus would have a huge size advantage over the allosauroid. This would make it much easier for it to kill its opponent.
The jaws of spinosaurus were actually a lot more powerful than many may think. They were much more similar in morphology to those of a false gharial rather than an Indian gharial to say the least, and they indicate heavy reliance and predation on large and powerful fish (I'm talking rounding 10 feet or more) through gripping. The snout of spinosaurus was far better adapted for resisting these impressive pressures experienced by gripping these large fish without breaking than that of carcharodontosaurus; that is the bottom line. I have explained this previously (really, this is an edit. Look farther into the discussion to see why I think so)
Of course, though, allosaurs were very well adapted for taking down larger animals, as evidenced by their morphology, which includes knife-like teeth and wide gapes. Because of this, I would say 70/30 here, with spinosaurus representing the former number.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 13, 2013 21:43:02 GMT 5
It does have a huge size advantage, it's a 15-17m theropod vs a 13-14m theropod, the former on top of that being quite massively built.
It's size and strenght, the huge arms and it's sheer bulk and durability are all factors clearly favouring the spinosaurid. I would not say C. saharicus had no chances, but Spinosaurus should take this, unless it gets magically downsized.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Oct 13, 2013 22:08:48 GMT 5
I'd hazard to say that Carcharodontosaurus is the theropod with the best chances of taking Spinosaurus down, but even with that I think it is outmatched. It is a ~16+ meter theropod, vs a ~13-14 meter theropod. Someone said they used Hartman's 15.6 meter Spino and their GDI gave a ~15.2-15.9 ton range! Not sure how accurate they are, but it implies quite the weight advantage. Hartman NEEDS to post that Spino GDI!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Oct 13, 2013 22:16:19 GMT 5
Does anybody have a GOOD size comparison between spinosaurus and carcharodontosaurus? I can find a few, but I am not sure if they are accurate or not. However, if they ARE credible sources, spinosaurus would have a huge size advantage over the allosauroid. This would make it much easier for it to kill its opponent. The jaws of spinosaurids were actually a lot more powerful than some may think. They were much more similar in morphology to those of a false gharial rather than an Indian gharial, which means spinosaurids were probably generalist predators as opposed to specialized piscivores. This is again proven in the fossil record; the remains of a young iguanodon have been found in the stomach cavity of a baryonyx, and a tooth impression of irritator (a spinosaurine) has been found in the remains of a South American pterosaur. I see spinosaurus coming out victorious here if it manages to land a good enough bite on the neck of the carcharodontosaurus. Of course, though, allosaurs were very well adapted for taking down large animals, as evidenced by their morphology, which includes knife-like teeth and wide gapes. Because of this, I would say 70/30 here, with spinosaurus representing the latter number. Charcharadontosaurus is not an allosaurid |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 13, 2013 23:07:08 GMT 5
He didn't say allosaurid, he said "allosaurs" and that could refer to allosauroid.
|
|
