Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Ankylosaurus magniventris

[Infinity Blade]

Nov 12, 2013 5:53:20 GMT 5 Runic said:

Nov 12, 2013 5:48:13 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

I think the latest size comparison (shown on Carnivora) with these two animals featured a 7 meter Ankylosaurus with T.rex. The former looked as if it were in the perfect position to strike at the legs of the theropod.

that's cause it's a picture....

What seemed to be a pretty accurate picture.

[Runic]

Nov 12, 2013 6:28:21 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Nov 12, 2013 5:53:20 GMT 5 Runic said:

that's cause it's a picture....

What seemed to be a pretty accurate picture.

But still just a picture... but I can't judge.

[Infinity Blade]

Nov 12, 2013 6:38:42 GMT 5 Runic said:

Nov 12, 2013 6:28:21 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

What seemed to be a pretty accurate picture.

But still just a picture... but I can't judge.

For some reason, I cannot see the image on Carnivora anymore (at least on the device I was using) so I had to give a link to the image when I physically looked it up on Google (which I also cannot find anymore). I will try to see what I can do later.

[Runic]

Nov 12, 2013 6:50:57 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Nov 12, 2013 6:38:42 GMT 5 Runic said:

But still just a picture... but I can't judge.

For some reason, I cannot see the image on Carnivora anymore (at least on the device I was using) so I had to give a link to the image when I physically looked it up on Google (which I also cannot find anymore). I will try to see what I can do later.

Mkay

[Fragillimus335]

I think Tyrannosaurus has the size and durability to win more often than not, but a big Ankylosaurus would pose a risk to great to hunt regularly.


Ankylosaurus with a 65cm skull. I think Carpenter made his Ankylosaurus a decent bit too large headed. With more normal Ankylosaurian proportions it appears that the largest known specimens were ~7.5-8 meters long. Not the tiny 6.25m of Carpenter or the giant 10-11 meters of popular books.

Ankylosaurus from Stygimolochspinifer, and rex by Hartman.

[creature386]

A decent bit? Your numbers are way higher than what Carpenter gave, so decent bit is maybe the wrong expression. Anyway, I wouldn't use too many selfmade calculations and go with the 7 m, but that's just me.

[Infinity Blade]

I guess Fragillimus' pic can give you a good idea. Since that is the case, I guess I would slightly favor the Ankylosaurus as it is in the perfect position to strike at Tyrannosaurus' legs, forcing it to balance all its weight on one limb, making it fall, and severely injure or even kill itself from a multi-ton fall.

[Fragillimus335]

Nov 13, 2013 19:26:40 GMT 5 creature386 said:

A decent bit? Your numbers are way higher than what Carpenter gave, so decent bit is maybe the wrong expression. Anyway, I wouldn't use too many selfmade calculations and go with the 7 m, but that's just me.

Well you can look at the picture yourself. The proportions look very good, the skull is 65cm long (size of the largest skull) and the total length is ~8 meters.

[blaze]

The largest skull (NMC 8880) is 75cm wide, not long, it's length is actually 65cm, you have it oversized by 15%, unless you have info on a bigger skull that we are unaware of.

[Fragillimus335]

Nov 15, 2013 4:47:38 GMT 5 blaze said:

The largest skull (NMC 8880) is 75cm wide, not long, it's length is actually 65cm, you have it oversized by 15%, unless you have info on a bigger skull that we are unaware of.

Gag, you're right, I'll fix the image right now. Haha, turns out I scaled the first one too small, I had measured the skull diagonally instead of down the midline. Now this Ankylosaurus has a 65cm long skull and is ~8 meters long.

[Godzillasaurus]

I actually am unsure of how potent a bite to the herbivore's carpace would be, even given the theropod's crushing capabilities. Ankylosaur dorsal armor was insanely durable and strong, especially at the frontal part of its back. Considering tyrannosaurid gapes, it seems likely that tyrannosaurus would not be able to cause any deep puncture wounds on the herbivore's dorsum, as it was immensely armored and was very wide. A neck or head bite would be much easier for the tyrannosaurus to pull off, but they were still armored themselves (although not as heavily).

[Carcharodon]

T.rex wins, it has a large size advantage as it can kill ankylosaurus by crushing its head in those jaws.

[Deleted]

Considering Anky got downsized, it now faces no chance of winning.

[creature386]

www.researchgate.net/publication/320349340_Unusual_cranial_and_postcranial_anatomy_in_the_archetypal_ankylosaur_Ankylosaurus_magniventris

To calculate the mass of Ankylosaurus, we used the QE function in the MASSTIMATE v. 1.3 package of Campione (2016) in R version 3.2.3 (R Core Team 2015). This package estimates body mass from combined stylopodial shaft circumferences using a scaling equation described by Campione and Evans (2012). For AMNH 5214, the smallest known Ankylosaurus (humeral shaft circumference = 315 mm, femoral shaft circumference = 363 mm), the estimated mass is 4.78 ± 1.22 t. For comparison, the estimated mass of AMNH 5404, a large specimen of Euoplocephalus (humeral shaft circumference = 244 mm, femoral shaft circumference = 278 mm), is 2.33 ± 0.60 t. Thus, Ankylosaurus appears to have been a substantially bulkier animal, even if its total body length did not greatly exceed those of its closest relatives (which is consistent with standard allometric scaling relationships of the vertebrate skeleton).

How heavy was the largest known Ankylosaurus, CMN 8880? With only an isolated skull available, it is difficult to be certain. However, it is possible to hazard a first approximation by isometrically scaling up stylopodial shaft circumferences from AMNH 5214 using width between the supraorbitals as a common reference. (Stylopodial shaft circumference very likely scaled allometrically in the genus, but there are too few specimens to determine a scaling coefficient.) In this way, we estimate that CMN 8880 might have weighed approximately 7.95 ± 2.04 t—about as massive as a large male African elephant (Loxodonta africana) (Colbert 1993)—but these values must obviously be regarded with due scepticism. Other published mass estimates for Ankylosaurus (Paul 1997), presumably using the smaller and more complete AMNH 5214 as reference, place the animal at approximately 6 t, although methodological details in these studies are lacking. Seebacher (2001) estimated a mass of just ∼1.7 t using his polynomial technique, which strikes us as excessively small for an animal of otherwise elephantine proportions.

If this is accurate I give this comfortably to Ankylosaurus, even against something like Sue or Trix.

I have yet to verify if Greg Paul's skeletal fits 100% the actual measurements but I made a GDI of its skeletal a while back and it came out not much over 5 tonnes for the largest specimen.

Which means that, unless Paul's skeletal needs serious update, Ankylosaurus is like Dreadnoughtus in having limb bones way more robust than expected for its actual overall body dimensions.

Wasn't that without its armour, though? How much do you think would it add?

Excluding armor, which I don't think will increase the weight by 2-3 tonnes in order to match allometric estimates but I do have to find a way to estimate it with precision.

Just wanted to archive these posts here, so that people can form their own opinion on Ankylosaurus' size.

I'm in the 5-6 t camp which means Ankylosaurus was smaller and would probably lose, but not too small to stand a chance.

[dinosauria101]

Another great classic.
I favor Ankylosaurus, it's low to the ground, very well protected, and can smash T rex to pieces with its club