Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Elasmotherium spp.

[Infinity Blade]

Tyrannosaurus rex


© @ MicrocosmicEcology (Nathan Rogers)


Elasmotherium spp.


© @ Leogon

[Runic]

I don't know why, but I'd like to see this match happen before I would T.rex vs Triceratops...... interesting twist dinopithecus!

Anyways I'd give it to the Tyrannosaurus assuming near equal weights.

[Infinity Blade]

Tyrannosaurus appears to have been somewhere around ~50% heavier or so (~4t vs. ~6t). It also would have been an adept predator of big, bulky herbivores with goring weapons, given how large ceratopsid genera like Triceratops and Torosaurus were contemporaneous with it. Elasmotherium looks like it would have been armed with a formidable weapon, but there are some facts that need to be considered in my opinion. First, we don't know the exact shape/size of the horn. Second, if it really was long as is commonly portrayed, it makes one wonder whether it would be too fragile or too unwieldly in a fight (either case wouldn't bode well for it). Third, if it was of more moderate size, that means Elasmotherium's range would be diminished and Tyrannosaurus could more easily avoid the horn. Fourth (Spider Horse once pointed this out on Carnivora (where he's known as Sleipnir)), its neck and head sort of slope downward and the horn is placed on top of the head, so I'm not sure how hard it could thrust upward with its weapon; I don't think the thrust would be as forceful. In any case, I see the rhino getting some part of it grabbed, getting toppled over by the larger (hence stronger) tyrannosaurid, and getting bitten and kicked to death. The giant coelurosaur will overpower and maul the giant hairy unicorn.

[Carcharodon]

Tyrannosaurus wins due to size advantage and extremely powerful bite. That horn may be a bit of a problem, but the rex could just disable it (since it was suspected to bite triceratops on the horns)

[blaze]

I recently found a ~1000 pages monograph about prehistoric rhinos, Guarin (1980), it has lots of measurements from skeletons of modern and extinct rhinos, it also has some for Elasmotherium sibiricum, with the exception of the length of the metapodials and the tibia, no measurement appeared extraordinarily big.

Longest tibia was 558mm long, 27% longer than the largest Indian rhino tibia found in the study, but how does it compare in the transverse width of the distal end? just 12% larger. (141mm vs 126mm) whoops.

What about the femur? the femur is 595mm long, shorter than the largest Indian rhino femur in the study, albeit more robust but no more robust than the largest white rhino femur there, which is only 8% shorter than the Elasmotherium femur.

The metapodials is where you get impressed by their length, the third metatarsal is 241mm long, almost 20% longer than the largest Indian rhino there but the width of its distal end? is actually narrower. It's the same with the metacarpals, the third metacarpal is 279mm long, 27% longer than the largest of an Indian rhino but the width of its distal end, just like with the tibia, is less than 16% greater.

You might be asking, is the Elasmotherium measured by Guarin a small individual or something? not at all, Deng and Zheng (2005) have measurements of E. caucasicum third metacarpals, from 260mmm to 290mm long, they are more robust but still behind in robustness to those of the Indian rhino and specially of the white rhino.

Regarding skull size, Guarin doesn't mention skull length of Elasmotherium skulls but Deng et al. (2013) has a figure where it shows an Elasmotherium skull 1m in greatest length, how does this compare to modern rhinos? average greatest length of 23 white rhino skulls: 80cm, largest in the sample, 84cm, so, is the Elasmotherium 25% larger (twice as heavy)? that depends, guess what skull has more elongated proportions? Still, I'll keep searching for more data on the skull size of Elasmotherium.

btw, look at the mounted skeleton above, if the tallest spines are 53cm long then the height to the top of the scapula is just over 160cm and to the top of the spines, just over 210cm, the op is misciting its source, the paper actually says "over 2m tall at the shoulder" and "tallest spines of 53cm", someone at Wikipedia originally added up the two for some reason and came up with "over 253cm tall at the shoulder".

[Godzillasaurus]

So would it still be smaller than tyrannosaurus? I would definitely favor it over spinosaurus, but it would likely succumb if tyrannosaurus could completely impact any vulnerable area with biting (such as the neck)

[blaze]

Smaller, yes, my post is more along the lines of, Elasmotherium is probably smaller than commonly depicted.

[Infinity Blade]

I fear this may turn into a hunt.

[spinosaurus1]

someone pity voted the elasmotherium

[Infinity Blade]

Actually that was an accident by me.

[creature386]

Can't you change your vote?
Anyway, my choice is clear. With the material Life presented in the equivalent of this thread on carnivora, Tyrannosaurus probably would even win if Elasmotherium was as big as we though before.

[blaze]

Remember on cf when prehistoric cat was saying the skulls of E. sibiricum were 1.2m long and that of E. caucasicum 1.38m long? he made several assumptions to come with those lengths, first, what suggest E. caucasicum was 15% larger than E. sibiricum? he indirectly cites Zhegallo et al. (2005), which briefly argues that based on the size of the molars E. caucasicum was 5-5.2m long as opposed to 4.5m for E. sibiricum but Zhegallo et al. (2005) don't give any measurements neither of the molars or the size of the molars of skulls of known length nor what specimen is supposedly 4.5m long and how long is its skull, how then can we say E. sibiricum had an skull 1.2m long? we can't, that statement comes from the book "Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals" by Prothero and Schoch which only mention it in passing, no references no concrete measurements, no mention of which species they are talking about and they actually say "almost 4 feet long" not 4 feet long, for all we know they are talking about 1.1m long being the reconstructed size of the largest known skull of E. caucasicum.

My search for measurements of skulls of Elasmotherium was unsuccessful but I got teeth measurements, generally there's a single set of E. sibiricum teeth mentioned

P4 43mm x 50mm (L/W = 0.86)
M1 48mm x 58mm (L/W = 0.83)
M2 68mm x 61mm (L/W = 1.11)
M3 80mm x 52mm (L/W = 1.54)

Their combined length is 239mm and their average width is 55.3mm. For comparison this is the largest set of E. caucasicum teeth I have found information of.

P4 60mm x 57mm (L/W = 1.05)
M1 65mm x 75mm (L/W = 0.87)
M2 86mm x 76mm (L/W = 1.13)
M3 113mm x 52mm (L/W = 1.54)

Their combined length is 324mm and their average width is 68.3mm, so it's 35.6% larger? not really, in regards to the average width of the teeth, the E. caucasicum set is only 23.5% larger, suggesting, which is also seen in the L/W ratios I wrote next to the measurements, that E caucasicum had proportionally longer teeth and thus a proportionally longer toothrow, this is also mentioned in a paper I have (but I can't find the citation right now). This still doesn't tell us the size of the skull but it can help us, using too the reconstruction of Deng et al. (2013). In an skull 1m in greatest length, the toothrow from the P4 to the M3 measures 290mm, thus the set of teeth of E. sibiricum above come from an skull 82cm in greatest length about the same size as the average white rhino skull, the E. caucasicum one? from an skull about 1m-1.1m long with either a proportionally 10% (3cm) longer toothrow or a proportionally 10% longer snout.

[Infinity Blade]

Can't you change your vote?

I thought you couldn't do that, but I figured it out now and just did.

Man, lots of things go unnoticed by me.

[Deleted]

I remember hearing of fossil evidence of Tyrannosaurus grabbing hold of Triceratops' horns and breaking them. Considering that the Elasmotherium's horn is much larger, it should be easier for Tyrannosaurus to be able to grab a hold of. Another reason as to why it would be easier for Tyrannosaurus to disable Elasmotherium's horn is because the rhino's big horn is also its only one, while Triceratops has more than one that would make it riskier to grab onto the horns.

It's worth noting that on Carnivora, it has been speculated a few times that Elasmotherium's horn might be too long and too fragile to actually be put into use where it can go into combat with it. Here's a picture to describe what I am talking about:



(^credit to blaze for that pic)

Tyrannosaurus has experience in tackling prey like this, and should be able to win this more often than not.

[creature386]

Feb 21, 2016 1:48:14 GMT 5 @somebody said:

I remember hearing of fossil evidence of Tyrannosaurus grabbing hold of Triceratops' horns and breaking them.

Yeah, that's the material I mentioned in my psot above (when referring to something Life has shown on carnivora). On the other hand, looking at how risky such an action would have been, I doubt this was common behavior and there could be interpretations different from a fight, such as a Tyrannosaurus dragging a Triceratops carcass by pulling its horns.