Carcharodontosaurus saharicus vs Giganotosaurus carolinii

[gigadino96]

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus was one of the largest Theropod every lived. It lived in Africa in the late Cretaceous, between 100 to 93 milion years ago. The largest know specimen measured about 12.8-14 meters long with a mass estimated of 8 tons. His skull, estimated up to 1.56 meters, was one of the largest skull among the Theropods know.

Giganotosaurus carolinii
Giganotosaurus carolinii was one of the largest Theropod. It lived in South America between 104 to 97 milion years ago. The largest know specimen measured about 13.2-14 meters long, with a mass estimated of 8 tons. The skull of this dinnosaur is recently estimated up to 1.66 meters by Hartman, make it, with the possible exception of Mapusaurus and Spinosaurus, the Theropod with the largest skull.

[theropod]

Just a short note on the size figures: The 12,8m for Carcharodontosaurus are the absolute lowest figure ever proposed, so is 13,2m Giganotosaurus. They go up to at least 14m (frequently quoted for carcharodontosauridae), which is not unreasonable based on Acrocanthosaurus. Even based on Giganotosaurus 12,8m is rather conservative.

[gigadino96]

Jul 1, 2013 17:46:41 GMT 5 theropod said:

Just a short note on the size figures: The 12,8m for Carcharodontosaurus are the absolute lowest figure ever proposed, so is 13,2m Giganotosaurus. They go up to at least 14m (frequently quoted for carcharodontosauridae), which is not unreasonable based on Acrocanthosaurus. Even based on Giganotosaurus 12,8m is rather conservative.

But the length doesn't matter in a fight, the weight is generally more important, and both were 8 tons.

[theropod]

Lenght and dimensions would certainly matter one way or another, but the point is that weight also has to do with it, and underestimating one animals lenght would have consequences for the weight or general size.

[gigadino96]

Jul 1, 2013 18:24:12 GMT 5 theropod said:

Lenght and dimensions would certainly matter one way or another, but the point is that weight also has to do with it, and underestimating one animals lenght would have consequences for the weight or general size.

I put 14m for both. Now, what do you think about this figth?

[Grey]

Jul 1, 2013 17:46:41 GMT 5 theropod said:

Just a short note on the size figures: The 12,8m for Carcharodontosaurus are the absolute lowest figure ever proposed, so is 13,2m Giganotosaurus. They go up to at least 14m (frequently quoted for carcharodontosauridae), which is not unreasonable based on Acrocanthosaurus. Even based on Giganotosaurus 12,8m is rather conservative.

What about use Hartman proposition for the sizes ?
I have no problem with 14 m but I've yet to see this estimate being published.

[Dakotaraptor]

14 m... I wouldn't say it's impossible, but rather doubtful due guessing in most cases.
There is not evidence that 13.2 m must be conservative or very minimal estimate for MUCPv-95. Not even MUCPv-Ch1's dentary seems to be complete. The same situations with Carcharodontosaurus neotype's size compared to holotype. Around 15 % bigger may sounds too small (for example assuming holotype's nasal had the same proportions as of neotype) or it might not.

[creature386]

The size of both animals is very difficult. I believe both were roughly 13 m long. As there is no solid evidence of Carcharodontosaurus being more slender (except for the femur thing, which is not very reliable), I also believe both had a similar mass. So, I say 50/50.

[gigadino96]

Jul 1, 2013 19:15:45 GMT 5 creature386 said:

The size of both animals is very difficult. I believe both were roughly 13 m long. As there is no solid evidence of Carcharodontosaurus being more slender (except for the femur thing, which is not very reliable), I also believe both had a similar mass. So, I say 50/50.

I agree with this statement, and even I think that this is 50/50. Both were virtually the same animal.

[Dakotaraptor]

At least there is option 50/50. So i choose this one. Probably similar size (despite i have doubtfulls about liberal estimates), similar weapons, strength etc.

[theropod]

14m is a frequently cited size for the giant carcharodontosaurs, you stumble across it quite often. Sereno gives a figure of 13,7m for Carcharodontosaurus. And Greg Paul's Giganotosaurus skeletal seems significantly longer than Hartman's. Hartman is not overly conservative, but rather cautious, and as explained earlier I think being cautious is not always what will ultimately be closest to reality.

There are indications of a different body shape in these two, but at the moment we lack further confirmation. I consider it fairly unlikely the neotype is merely 15% bigger than the holotype. paleo.square7.ch/IMG/Carcharodontosaurus_skulls.jpg

[Grey]

I don't think that Hartman is quite conservative or cautious. More likely he updates year after year his reconstitutions and estimates so I would more rely on him, even though, 14 m quite possible.

[creature386]

Jul 1, 2013 21:16:20 GMT 5 theropod said:

14m is a frequently cited size for the giant carcharodontosaurs, you stumble across it quite often.

Do you mean in literature? Because Sereno said this on his website.

[theropod]

Also in the literature I read it from time to time, tough I mostly don't remember the papers and it is rather general. Since Greg Paul also shows such a long Giganotosaurus, it is everything but impossible. For Carcharodontosaurus, even more likely imo since the skull/femur proportions are indicating longer legs, which usually also means a longer animal.

[creature386]

I failed to find a paper stating Carcharodontosaurus to be 14 m long (I searched a bit in google scholar).