|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 14:00:24 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus rex Tyrannosaurus rex is considered to be the heaviest carnivorous land animal of all time, possessing an extremely powerful bite backed with railroad-spike teeth. Length: 10-12.3 meters Weight: 7.3-8.4 tonnes
Diet: Meat Area and age: Late Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) North America, from Canada to Texas. Weapons: Crushing jaws, claws, bulk
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus is one of the largest theropod dinosaurs in terms of length and weight. Its massive head possessed knife-like teeth for slicing into flesh.
Length: 12.95 meters
Weight: 6.4-7.5 tonnes
Diet: Meat Area and age: Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian) of North Africa,
Weapons: Slicing teeth, claws, bulk
image sources:
Surprisingly this has not been done yet.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 17:59:00 GMT 5
Carcharodontosaurus would probably win here. It's a good bit larger than most T rex specimens at up to 9 tonnes, it has a larger skull, larger forearms, and larger mouth gape. There's also the density issue; the 8.4 to 8.8 tonne mass figures for the largest Tyrannosaurus are produced using a density of 0.915, which is almost certainly too high for a giant, robust coelurosaur. Theropod has made a good point (I think it was on Rex vs Giga) that 0.8 is better, and this gives us about 7.3 tonnes for Sue and Scotty. And at the other end of the spectrum, there's USNM 6183, which would just be a huge mismatch. Overall, I'd give this to the carnosaur easily against something like USNM 6183, about 7/10 against an average rex (119 cm femur), and 6-6.5-10 against Sue or Scotty, but the fight will be brutal for sure and T rex stands a good chance too.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 22:45:45 GMT 5
Carcharodontosaurus would probably win here. It's a good bit larger than most T rex specimens at up to 9 tonnes, it has a larger skull, larger forearms, and larger mouth gape. There's also the density issue; the 8.4 to 8.8 tonne mass figures for the largest Tyrannosaurus are produced using a density of 0.915, which is almost certainly too high for a giant, robust coelurosaur. Theropod has made a good point (I think it was on Rex vs Giga) that 0.8 is better, and this gives us about 7.3 tonnes for Sue and Scotty. And at the other end of the spectrum, there's USNM 6183, which would just be a huge mismatch. Overall, I'd give this to the carnosaur easily against something like USNM 6183, about 7/10 against an average rex (119 cm femur), and 6-6.5-10 against Sue or Scotty, but the fight will be brutal for sure and T rex stands a good chance too. Is that true? Is there a source for why T.rex is not 8.5-9 tons and Carch is? I see no reason NOT to have them at least at parity.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 23:28:24 GMT 5
Carcharodontosaurus would probably win here. It's a good bit larger than most T rex specimens at up to 9 tonnes, it has a larger skull, larger forearms, and larger mouth gape. There's also the density issue; the 8.4 to 8.8 tonne mass figures for the largest Tyrannosaurus are produced using a density of 0.915, which is almost certainly too high for a giant, robust coelurosaur. Theropod has made a good point (I think it was on Rex vs Giga) that 0.8 is better, and this gives us about 7.3 tonnes for Sue and Scotty. And at the other end of the spectrum, there's USNM 6183, which would just be a huge mismatch. Overall, I'd give this to the carnosaur easily against something like USNM 6183, about 7/10 against an average rex (119 cm femur), and 6-6.5-10 against Sue or Scotty, but the fight will be brutal for sure and T rex stands a good chance too. Is that true? Is there a source for why T.rex is not 8.5-9 tons and Carch is? I see no reason NOT to have them at least at parity. Here's the source for the 9 tonne Carcharodontosaurus: www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/art/Carcharodontosaurus-saharicus-skeletals-678747482As for T rex being that size, specimens that could (potentially, depending on density) be in that size range, such as Sue or Scotty, are not freaks. However, they are by no means average either; there are plenty of smaller Tyrannosaurus adults such as Bucky, B-rex, USNM 6183, and Wy-rex that lower the average, and the Theropod Database gives 119 cm femur length as average, which gives around 6 tonnes scaled from larger specimens.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 0:04:15 GMT 5
Is that true? Is there a source for why T.rex is not 8.5-9 tons and Carch is? I see no reason NOT to have them at least at parity. Here's the source for the 9 tonne Carcharodontosaurus: www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/art/Carcharodontosaurus-saharicus-skeletals-678747482As for T rex being that size, specimens that could (potentially, depending on density) be in that size range, such as Sue or Scotty, are not freaks. However, they are by no means average either; there are plenty of smaller Tyrannosaurus adults such as Bucky, B-rex, USNM 6183, and Wy-rex that lower the average, and the Theropod Database gives 119 cm femur length as average, which gives around 6 tonnes scaled from larger specimens. Is that scale up to date? Spino says that the neotype is "Possibly" 9 tonnes, and he guessed it: "I currently don't have a rigorous mass estimate for those two, but if I had to guess, IPHG 1922 would probably have massed about ~5 or so tonnes while SGM-Din 1 could possibly reach the ~9 tonne region, based on these reconstructions."
If T.rex can have its weight differ "depending on density", then why not Carcharodontosaurus? I also did not put T.rex at the potential maximum weight of 8.5 tons listed for Scotty, and I see no actual reason NOT to include potential lower weight for Carcharodontosaurus either.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 0:13:28 GMT 5
Here's the source for the 9 tonne Carcharodontosaurus: www.deviantart.com/spinoinwonderland/art/Carcharodontosaurus-saharicus-skeletals-678747482As for T rex being that size, specimens that could (potentially, depending on density) be in that size range, such as Sue or Scotty, are not freaks. However, they are by no means average either; there are plenty of smaller Tyrannosaurus adults such as Bucky, B-rex, USNM 6183, and Wy-rex that lower the average, and the Theropod Database gives 119 cm femur length as average, which gives around 6 tonnes scaled from larger specimens. Is that scale up to date? Spino says that the neotype is "Possibly" 9 tonnes, and he guessed it: "I currently don't have a rigorous mass estimate for those two, but if I had to guess, IPHG 1922 would probably have massed about ~5 or so tonnes while SGM-Din 1 could possibly reach the ~9 tonne region, based on these reconstructions."
If T.rex can have its weight differ "depending on density", then why not Carcharodontosaurus? I also did not put T.rex at the potential maximum weight of 8.5 tons listed for Scotty, and I see no actual reason NOT to include potential lower weight for Carcharodontosaurus either.
The holotype is an adult? I have no issue believing this, but where did you hear that from? From what I know, there is no data on whether the holotype is mature or not and it was destroyed in WW1, so I disregarded it. Regarding the weight: The neotype is of a very similar length to MUCPv-95's estimated length, and the latter masses 8.6 tonnes at that length. That Carcharodontosaurus also seems to be quite a bit more robust that MUCPv-95 ( link), so 9 tonnes probably isn't off the table. ~5 tonnes for the holotype is not unreasonable either; scaling down the neotype gives ~5.36 tonnes. This gets us an average mass of about 7.18 tonnes. Regarding density: Different types of theropod dinosaurs have different densities. Spinosaurus for example is almost as dense as water, while Tyrannosaurus, being a coelurosaur and more closely related to birds, would be more pneumatic (likely around 0.8, theropod can probably elaborate for you if you need it). Sue and Scotty have volumes of around 9200 L, and the mass is going to vary depending on the densities, but at 0.8 that gets about 7.3 tonnes. Carnosaurs, meanwhile, are intermediate between the 2 - they do have some pneumaticity, more than spinosaurs but less than coelurosaurs. One of Carcharodontosaurus' relatives, Tyrannotitan, is rather apneuamtic, lacking hollows in many vertebrae. It's likely that Carch had a density around 0.915.
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 20, 2020 0:25:09 GMT 5
Is that scale up to date? Spino says that the neotype is "Possibly" 9 tonnes, and he guessed it: "I currently don't have a rigorous mass estimate for those two, but if I had to guess, IPHG 1922 would probably have massed about ~5 or so tonnes while SGM-Din 1 could possibly reach the ~9 tonne region, based on these reconstructions."
If T.rex can have its weight differ "depending on density", then why not Carcharodontosaurus? I also did not put T.rex at the potential maximum weight of 8.5 tons listed for Scotty, and I see no actual reason NOT to include potential lower weight for Carcharodontosaurus either.
The holotype is an adult? I have no issue believing this, but where did you hear that from? From what I know, there is no data on whether the holotype is mature or not and it was destroyed in WW1, so I disregarded it. Regarding the weight: The neotype is of a very similar length to MUCPv-95's estimated length, and the latter masses 8.6 tonnes at that length. That Carcharodontosaurus also seems to be quite a bit more robust that MUCPv-95 ( link), so 9 tonnes probably isn't off the table. ~5 tonnes for the holotype is not unreasonable either; scaling down the neotype gives ~5.36 tonnes. This gets us an average mass of about 7.18 tonnes. Regarding density: Different types of theropod dinosaurs have different densities. Spinosaurus for example is almost as dense as water, while Tyrannosaurus, being a coelurosaur and more closely related to birds, would be more pneumatic (likely around 0.8, theropod can probably elaborate for you if you need it). Sue and Scotty have volumes of around 9200 L, and the mass is going to vary depending on the densities, but at 0.8 that gets about 7.3 tonnes. Carnosaurs, meanwhile, are intermediate between the 2 - they do have some pneumaticity, more than spinosaurs but less than coelurosaurs. One of Carcharodontosaurus' relatives, Tyrannotitan, is rather apneuamtic, lacking hollows in many vertebrae. It's likely that Carch had a density around 0.915. I really don't consider MUCPv-95 in debate because there's too little to actually garner a good estimate from. If someone found Jay Leno's jaw and compared it to a normal person's skull and extrapolated size from it, he may get a giant human! MUCPv-95 may be larger than T.rex or it may simply have a more robust jaw. It's like using the fabled UCMP toebone to prove T.rex was definitely 13-14 meters long. Given the variation in specimen to specimen in T.rex and others, either one may be true.
I know different Theropod dinosaurs have different densities, but do you have a source for Carcharodontosaurs using 0.915 for density? And a source for T.rex density being 0.8 as opposed to anything higher or lower?
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 20, 2020 0:39:00 GMT 5
The holotype is an adult? I have no issue believing this, but where did you hear that from? From what I know, there is no data on whether the holotype is mature or not and it was destroyed in WW1, so I disregarded it. Regarding the weight: The neotype is of a very similar length to MUCPv-95's estimated length, and the latter masses 8.6 tonnes at that length. That Carcharodontosaurus also seems to be quite a bit more robust that MUCPv-95 ( link), so 9 tonnes probably isn't off the table. ~5 tonnes for the holotype is not unreasonable either; scaling down the neotype gives ~5.36 tonnes. This gets us an average mass of about 7.18 tonnes. Regarding density: Different types of theropod dinosaurs have different densities. Spinosaurus for example is almost as dense as water, while Tyrannosaurus, being a coelurosaur and more closely related to birds, would be more pneumatic (likely around 0.8, theropod can probably elaborate for you if you need it). Sue and Scotty have volumes of around 9200 L, and the mass is going to vary depending on the densities, but at 0.8 that gets about 7.3 tonnes. Carnosaurs, meanwhile, are intermediate between the 2 - they do have some pneumaticity, more than spinosaurs but less than coelurosaurs. One of Carcharodontosaurus' relatives, Tyrannotitan, is rather apneuamtic, lacking hollows in many vertebrae. It's likely that Carch had a density around 0.915. I really don't consider MUCPv-95 in debate because there's too little to actually garner a good estimate from. If someone found Jay Leno's jaw and compared it to a normal person's skull and extrapolated size from it, he may get a giant human! MUCPv-95 may be larger than T.rex or it may simply have a more robust jaw. It's like using the fabled UCMP toebone to prove T.rex was definitely 13-14 meters long. Given the variation in specimen to specimen in T.rex and others, either one may be true.
I know different Theropod dinosaurs have different densities, but do you have a source for Carcharodontosaurs using 0.915 for density? And a source for T.rex density being 0.8 as opposed to anything higher or lower?
Regarding MUCPv-95, you are correct that it's just a jaw and it's impossible to know how big it was - it could be anywhere from just another 12.4 meter and 7.1 tonne Giganotosaurus with just a big jaw, to more than 8 percent bigger than the holotype with a proportionately smaller jaw - I just use Hartman's best fit to get an idea. That wasn't even the point of the comp - the point was that at a similar length to the neotype of Carcharodontosaurus, the seemingly more slender Giganotosaurus is very close to the estimated mass, so 9 tonnes is likely a good weight for it. Regarding UCMP 137538, it's actually sorta a hoax - the bone was measured wrongly and is SMALLER than Sue! See this: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/29848As for the density? It's generally assumed for theropods for the head to be about 0.4-0.8 (depending on the shape of the skull, this empty space is due to sinuses and the empty space in the mouth), and the neck/torso are about 0.9 due to air sacs. See this chart for an example: (these would take up about 10% of the torso; it may not look like that from the side, but abelisaurs are fairly robust; from top view, you'd see what I mean). Tyrannosaurids and coelurosaurs, being more closely related to birds, are thought to have a high degree of hollow bones and air sacs, moreso than carnosaurs. A good example of this is the tyrannosauroid Aerosteon.
|
|
|
Post by 6f5e4d on Jan 21, 2020 4:55:47 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurus may still be able to attempt victory, having the harder bite force.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 21, 2020 4:58:12 GMT 5
6f5e4dBite force=/=win; it's not really a deciding factor if both have different jaw mechanisms. Take Komodo dragons for instance, they have a very low biteforce, but a very deadly bite. The same applies here; Carcharodontosaurus does not need force, its sharp teeth do the trick,
|
|