Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Giganotosaurus carolinii

[Runic]

I always just assume they are the same size to avoid all this back and forth size debate stuff. It gets quite tedious sometimes (which is why I prefer smaller dinosaur)

[Grey]

And you're right, they are actually the same size (200 kg in more for Sue represents only a 2% difference) and there is no mean to know if one or the other was absolutely larger as a species at least for now. This is rational and clear.

They claim "Sue is a large individual, Gigas are necessarily not as large in their own species"
I say "Sue is large but probably not the absolute upper size, nor a freak specimen, whereas these Gigas can as well represent decent sized individuals in their species and that even the second specimen is not so certainly larger than the first one"

That's a lot of uncertainties which do not allow oversimplified speculations. And when this comes from notorious subjective tyrannosaurs dislikers I naturally get upset.

Just seeing at the scale comparisons where they necessarily oppose a Rex against a much larger sauropod, in the goal to ridicule it. They never ridicule another large theropod in such comparisons. So childish, pathetic and at the end discrediting their arguments when they discuss T. rex.

They are quite equal in size and IMO quite equal in lethality.

[Runic]

Sept 20, 2013 7:00:15 GMT 5 Grey said:

And you're right, they are actually the same size (200 kg in more for Sue represents only a 2% difference) and there is no mean to know if one or the other was absolutely larger as a species at least for now. This is rational and clear.

They claim "Sue is a large individual, Gigas are necessarily not as large in their own species"
I say "Sue is large but probably not the absolute upper size, nor a freak specimen, whereas these Gigas can as well represent decent sized individuals in their species and that even the second specimen is not so certainly larger than the first one"

That's a lot of uncertainties which do not allow oversimplified speculations. And when this comes from notorious subjective tyrannosaurs dislikers I naturally get upset.

Just seeing at the scale comparisons where they necessarily oppose a Rex against a much larger sauropod, in the goal to ridicule it. They never ridicule another large theropod in such comparisons. So childish, pathetic and at the end discrediting their arguments when they discuss T. rex.

They are quite equal in size and IMO quite equal in lethality.

I actually made a case back on CF supporting you in saying there's no proof sue was an above average specimen etc. But nobody agreed so I do understand your frustration with the matter.

[Grey]

Well I wouldn't say Sue is not above average in size, it represents the largest individual we have from not-anecdotical fragments but nothing says it is unusually large. And there are hints of specimens rivaling it, unlike in Giga where no hints or more isolated remains are reported.

Still I don't consider Tyrannosaurus larger, nor vice versa. Whereas others absolutely want Giga to be larger, more like a political idea than a rational scientific reasoning.

[Runic]

Sept 20, 2013 8:02:30 GMT 5 Grey said:

Well I wouldn't say Sue is not above average in size, it represents the largest individual we have from not-anecdotical fragments but nothing says it is unusually large. And there are hints of specimens rivaling it, unlike in Giga where no hints or more isolated remains are reported.

Still I don't consider Tyrannosaurus larger, nor vice versa. Whereas others absolutely want Giga to be larger, more like a political idea than a rational scientific reasoning.

lol well that's debating for you. 50% truth and logic & 50% bullshit.

[wiffle]

Sept 19, 2013 16:22:56 GMT 5 theropod said:

wiffle: You can say just the same about the tyrannosaur even more easily, can´t you?

What?

But there are some differences that are important to consider, which are the probability of one species being larger

A few hundred pounds here and there isn't going to matter. Heck, it probably won't make much of a difference if either combatant were 4 tons instead. Height is much more important than weight, considering the latter has few practical applications in this fight.

the evidence for one species being taller and longer

Which brings us to another point: Any height difference is negligible at best.

having more usable arms,

Neither dinosaur is going to be able to use its arms effectively in this fight, or likely even at all for that matter.

a bulkier body.

Doesn't matter.

Here is an image comparison made by Spinodonotsaurus. The difference is miniscule.

I´m trying to keep out of hypothetical who-wins-scenarios

This is a versus thread, you know that right?

but saying there isn´t anything that would make a difference is a bit simplistic.

I said weight wouldn't make much of a difference. As long as they are heavy enough not to get toppled at the slightest bump or fall upon stepping on a rock, it's not really all that important.

AFAIC, Tyrannosaurus has the edge in:

1. Bite force
2. Speed
3. Vision
4. Intelligence (?)
5. Possibly experience in fighting other theropods and similarly sized, heavily armed animals with faster reflexes

And Giganotosaurus has:

1. Mouth gape

Given that Giganotosaurus' advantage isn't significant enough to trump Tyrannosaurus' 3-5, I'd say there's a pretty clear winner.

[theropod]

Sept 20, 2013 9:59:25 GMT 5 wiffle said:

What?

That it had basically no notable advantages.

Height is much more important than weight

You realise size is perhaps the most important factor in any fight? Height could certainly be useful depending on the situation, but it is not always advantageous.

Neither dinosaur is going to be able to use its arms effectively

Is there any evidence for that? I have discussed this on many occasions, the usual point people come up with is "theropods have limited range of motion in their arms, so they are useless alltogether". usually that causes me to question whether they are even aware of them, or just parroting other people who have said that before. The built of those arms tells a very different story from "they are useless".

This is a versus thread, you know that right?

That's why I have been discussing the sizes, completely independant from a fighting scenario that will never happen. At least until now/before you posted , but I'll stop discussing this matter.

I said weight wouldn't make much of a difference. As long as they are heavy enough not to get toppled at the slightest bump or fall upon stepping on a rock, it's not really all that important.

Toppling gets more dangerous with increasing weight, so I don't see the relevance of this observation. But obviously, weight is almost always related to strenght and durability.


While the first and third of your points are undoubtedly and likely respectively in it's favour, numbers 1, 2, and 4 would hardly matter at all, 3 is indeed miniscule by your own words and there is no evidence for 5, which could just as well be the other way around.
Why people always assume fighting smaller prey makes an animal superior/inferior (even the same by the same person, depending on the animal!) doesn't cease to astonish me. Experience an animal has in hunting a Triceratops helps as little with fighting another theropod as experience with hunting a sauropod, experience with hunting in general has limited impact since hunting is very different from fighting. It's the physical characteristics that are much more important.

There would be several more points that you omitted, which are hopefully widely known. eg. I've the already discussed weight point, when listing bite force you also have to list tooth-sharpness, and striking speed, which are just as important, and considering you regard even differences (arms) some you yourself said were usually important as miniscule and irrelevant (height), you probably shouldn't even list any of these points you did list.
Add those and suddenly your lists will look much more balanced.

Black Ice: Be careful, when assuming similar size in uncertain situations you can be called a fanboy by some people.
Funny enough those same people then often want to do the same as you did in other scenarios where it's not probable at all. And funny enough, then they want to assume other disparities, such as with regards to their killing apparata, virtually out of nowhere.

[theropod]

Sept 20, 2013 8:02:30 GMT 5 Grey said:

Well I wouldn't say Sue is not above average in size, it represents the largest individual we have from not-anecdotical fragments but nothing says it is unusually large. And there are hints of specimens rivaling it, unlike in Giga where no hints or more isolated remains are reported.

Still I don't consider Tyrannosaurus larger, nor vice versa. Whereas others absolutely want Giga to be larger, more like a political idea than a rational scientific reasoning.

Sue is an individual whose chances of occurrence for what we know lie at about 1/20. That's a big individual. Anecdotal evidence for perhaps one more individual of comparable size may exist (and that's already included)

An the other hand those of MUCPv-95 are at 1/2. Everything else is mere speculation ("Those MIGHT be big individuals"=/="Those MIGHT be small ones" etc.).

You just don't even consider this because the first time you saw it you already adopted the conviction that it was "irrational and unscientific".

[creature386]

Sept 20, 2013 16:14:19 GMT 5 theropod said:

Is there any evidence for that? I have discussed this on many occasions, the usual point people come up with is "theropods have limited range of motion in their arms, so they are useless alltogether". usually that causes me to question whether they are even aware of them, or just parroting other people who have said that before. The built of those arms tells a very different story from "they are useless".

But the paper you usually used to back up your Claims said that carnosaurs first needed to apprehend their prey with their jaws, in order to use the arms. As this fight will be decided after the first bite, I doubt this would make a difference. The arms maybe were used against prey items like sauropods which don't die after the first bite.

[theropod]

It suggested it probably did so, which doesn't mean it could not have used the arms in some situations of hunting or fighting. That's absolutely plausible based on the described movement ranges approaching a right angle at the elbow and the potential of the humerus to swing at least as far anteriorly as the glenoid.
It's true it probably wouldn't come to bear much in many cases (assuming a fight with a similar-sized opponent, for a sauropod may take comparatively long to succumb and make hanging onto it with the arms come in handy), but there were far less important/less well supported points listed (eg. Wiffle's points 2, 4 and 5).

[creature386]

They are nevertheless quite short, so even if they were very moveable, it would be very hard to hit the face of Tyrannosaurus with them.

[theropod]

I didn't mean they were actively used as weapons, but as grappling hooks. And they are certainly not very moveable, but obviously built to be used as predatory tools, at least in Acrocanthosaurus and Allosaurus.

[creature386]

But because they were used as predatory tools in Acrocanthosaurus, that doesn't mean they were used so in Giganotosaurus. Remember that Mapusaurus had shorter arms than Acrocanthosaurus (read it's description), Giganotosaurus then likely had shorter ones too.

[Deleted]

Sept 20, 2013 9:59:25 GMT 5 wiffle said:

AFAIC, Tyrannosaurus has the edge in:

1. Bite force
2. Speed
3. Vision
4. Intelligence (?)
5. Possibly experience in fighting other theropods and similarly sized, heavily armed animals with faster reflexes

And Giganotosaurus has:

1. Mouth gape

Given that Giganotosaurus' advantage isn't significant enough to trump Tyrannosaurus' 3-5, I'd say there's a pretty clear winner.

1. Bite force isn't an advantage by itself, unless both animals have the same dentition type, which is not the case here.
Dentition matters more than bite force, and a crushing bite is not deadlier than a slicing one. Sharks have a slicing dentition and a relatively low bite force, yet this is the kind of damage they can do:



Specialized slicing teeth combined with large gapes are quite devastating

Also, komodo dragons have quite low bite forces, but their bites still cause severe damage due to dentition and mechanical advantage

You can ask coherentsheaf for the capability of the komodo dragon's bite

Bite force is severely overrated as a factor. Teeth and mechanical advantage in the jaws, are far more important


2. Speed goes to Giganotosaurus, not Tyrannosaurus, based on the known scientific information

Giganotosaurus: app.pan.pl/archive/published/app46/app46-193.pdf
14 meters/second * 3600 seconds = 50,400 meters/hour or 50.4 kilometers/hour

Tyrannosaurus: www.livescience.com/1574-terrible-rex-slowpoke.html
25 miles/hour = 40 kilometers/hour

Nonetheless, this is a fight, not a race, and they aren't gonna chase each other. Agility is far more important


3. Vision is not really an advantage in a face-to-face fight unless one combatant is blind


4. Intelligence isn't really relevant in these kind of fights. Animals generally fight with instincts, not intelligence, they aren't gonna strategize or something.


There is no clear winner. This fight is pretty much a draw.

[creature386]

Sept 20, 2013 18:34:04 GMT 5 @brolyeuphyfusion said:

2. Speed goes to Giganotosaurus, not Tyrannosaurus, based on the known scientific information

Giganotosaurus: app.pan.pl/archive/published/app46/app46-193.pdf
14 meters/second * 3600 seconds = 50,400 meters/hour or 50.4 kilometers/hour

You know that this paper only tried to calculate the maximum speed where Giganotosaurus would not fall?

This problem is out of the scope of this paper, and we will focus on whether the animal will fall or not, assuming that falling will represent a real danger.
In this predictive kinematic model of the cursorial capacity of bipedal animals we assert that the principle limitation for cursorial capacity is the maximum speed at which the biped is capable of recovering body equilibrium.

That doesn't mean this was it's actual speed, just the maximum speed where it wouldn't fall.
50 km/h for such a large biped is unlikely.