Sarcosuchus imperator vs Carcharodontosaurus saharicus

[Runic]

Godzillasaurus
Your videos aren't really good representations of your argument. For on both crocodile had very poor grips on their prey (tip of the foot or a flap of skin at the throat doesn't allow for good anchorage to pull something in the water) and the crocodile in the first video was a sub adult or female that looked around 9 feet long. Compared to this,
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CG8QtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6-l5kZcW2Es&ei=TpjRUpHtFu7KsQSA2IKYDQ&usg=AFQjCNGI3cHQt--3Q9b6rCNw-8PeoxF2KQ&sig2=pngL1M90uMZ76b2k0xHY8g

Notice how the wildebeast though it escaped it still died from its injuries caused by the crocodile. Had the crocodile been a little more persistent that wildebeest would have been food. And that was a huge wildebeast.

[Carcharodon]

A nile croc is a poor analogy for sarcosuchus. For one the nile crocodile is clearly better adapted for hunting larger prey relative to its size, as sarcosuchus's teeth were no bigger than those of lolong, as its skull is no deeper or wider than that of lolong, despite it being blatantly much larger. And its rostrum had a big opening filled with air and sinuses.

[Godzillasaurus]

Theropod was talking of structures with the same dimensions (width is a dimension too), but one is hollow (= has some holes) and the other is not

I said that because spinosaurus would have faired far better in the realm of gripping than carcharodontosaurus would, despite being inferior in the realm of dimensions.

as sarcosuchus's teeth were no bigger than those of lolong,

Again, STOP USING TOOTH SIZE AS AN ARGUMENT!!! There is no reason to believe that such long teeth are an adaptation for generalism, as demonstrated by spinosaurus. In sarcosuchus, the premaxillary teeth (which were apparently well adapted for piscivory, according to you guys) were very much different in terms of morphology than those of considerably more specialized animals in that they were far more robust in terms of build and they correlate perfectly with the animal's snout width and ability to both exert and withstand stress. In sarcosuchus, its teeth correlate more-so with the impressive bite force and snout width of the creature, unlike spinosaurus. Having small teeth =/= having a weakly built snout, weak bite, or lessened reliance on crushing.

And its rostrum had a big opening filled with air and sinuses.

And carcharodontosaurus had a blantly much more lightly-built snout overall that was in possession of far more visible pockets than even spinosaurus, and yet you are the kind of person who would claim it to be more robust than both sarcosuchus and spinosaurus because it had a larger skull. Your logic is flawed

[Runic]

By pockets are you talking about the fenestrae?

[Carcharodon]

Jan 12, 2014 1:06:50 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

In sarcosuchus, the premaxillary teeth (which were apparently well adapted for piscivory, according to you guys) were very much different in terms of morphology than those of considerably more specialized animals in that they were far more robust in terms of build and they correlate perfectly with the animal's snout width and ability to both exert and withstand stress.

They really aren't that different from tomistoma.

Jan 12, 2014 1:06:50 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

And carcharodontosaurus had a blantly much more lightly-built snout overall that was in possession of far more visible pockets than even spinosaurus, and yet you are the kind of person who would claim it to be more robust than both sarcosuchus and spinosaurus because it had a larger skull.

No it doesn't have a much more lightly built snout:

(looking at the top view of the skulls).

Wider fenestrae =/= more gracile snout

Jan 12, 2014 1:06:50 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

Your logic is flawed

Kind of ironic since you even backed deinosuchus rugosus over therizinosaurus.

[spinodontosaurus]

Jan 11, 2014 6:57:33 GMT 5 coherentsheaf said:

ou also criticised me elsewhere for saying Carcharodontosaurus had a more robust rostrum than Spinosaurus because of Carcharodontosaurus' fenestrae - I latter amended my claim to specify more voluminous as a result of this.

Note that at least to my eyes the skull of Carcharodontosaurus looks far more resistant to vertical bending. Note that this resistance is not only based o material used but also on the configuration, wide structures being more resistant.

I agree.

And I say again, having a hole in that area does not make it any more or less robust necessarily; the bulla was still very broad and relatively deep in general (talking in adult animals of course), so there is practically no reason to believe that it would have been weak at all.

We know the bulla is wider than the rest of the rostrum, so what, the bulla of the Gharial is also wider than the rest of the rostrum, and the explanation for this has already been presented. It is clearly not designed for the specific purpose of prey capture, all it has going for it is width which as well all know is mostly comprised of sinuses (i.e. it isn't a wide bit of bone). I can't understand why you struggle so much to understand this.

Besides that, specifically focussing on the rostrum is somewhat miss-leading given how shallow and thin the mandible is in comparison to modern crocodilians, slender-snouted or otherwise.

And so long and slender teeth are apparently common morphologies found in obligate macropredators? Even when spinosaurus had much longer teeth than carcharodontosaurus? And if you actually read one of my last posts, I actually compared sarcosuchus to a particularly large tomistoma specimen.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I simply stated that "The teeth [of Sarcosuchus] are clearly no bigger relative to the skull than those of slender-snouted crocodilians ... such as Tomistoma"

Hardly a million miles away from the condition seen in Sarcosuchus, and that probably isn't even a large adult individual above.

And I say again (from the Primal Carnage forum), carcharodontosaurus in no way possessed a very robust snout or a very robust tooth structure. Its ability to kill large animals comes from its possession of a very deep rostrum (just as spinosaurus' ability to do so comes from sheer size advantage in most cases), not because it had a robust snout

This is irrelevant! Neither I nor theropod in that specific statement referred to how robust the skull was, you keep bringing that up yourself for no reason at all. Carcharodontosaurus' killing proficiency comes from it's many sharply serrated teeth, that for all intents and purposes would have acted like a gigantic, 1 meter long by 30 cm wide, saw.

Allosaurs were best designed for attacking the flanks or dorsum of a terrestrial (note, I did not say "squat" or "semi-aquatic") prey animal by utilizing their maxillary teeth in conjunction with their wide gape, deep rostra, and powerful necks; it would simply not be able to attack sarcosuchus this way. And even if it did, it would most likely not cause enough vertical damage to begin with due to the specialization of its teeth being in cutting and ripping, not necessarily piercing as seen in an animal like spinosaurus.

So are you saying that Carcharodontosaurus' teeth (the largest of which protruded over 3.5 inches from the skull, in specimen SGM-Din 1), which are designed specifically to cut through flesh creating massive damage to muscles, ligaments and blood vessels of gigantic sauropods, is somehow not going to cause 'enough' damage to Sarcosuchus because it's teeth are not specifically adapted for piercing?? Seriously?
Yeah perhaps it wouldn't be as effective against a low-slung animal like Sarcosuchus, but those teeth are going to do massive damage regardless, and it is not as if theropods couldn't slice through flesh of prey low to the ground, else they wouldn't be able to tear flesh from carcasses to actually eat.

[theropod]

And so that makes carcharodontosaurus far less prone to lateral stress
than animals like spinosaurus because it had a wider snout?

I was talking about two structures. Both the same width (Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus donÂ’t have the same snout width) and depth (obvious). One is hollow (neither Spinosaurus nor Carcharodontosaurus has a markedly expanded region on its snout that developed to house a large air pocket). The hollow one will not be as strong as the solid one. If you take a hollowed-out eggshell and a stone of the same dimensions (obviously not the same mass), the eggshell will be more prone to breakage.

Conclusion I : Your approach of seeing "that thingÂ’s pretty wide" and concluding "that thing was obviously very robust and built for macrophagy" is problematized by the fact that that thingÂ’s also pretty hollow and from an evolutionary approach likely evolved that width to allow for it being hollow, not for being "very robust" and useful for macrophagy.

(Conclusion II : Your comparison is unrelated to what I wrote. It is possible this was the case, or perhaps not. You would need data on the internal built of the snout and complex calculations for that. Just that it is less pneumatic does not automatically mean it is stronger, neither does being wider automatically mean it is. To anticipate what weÂ’ll probably thematize later, Carcharodontosaurus is likely much less prone to vertical stress and bending, because its skull is so much deeper, as well as significantly wider, in conjunction with the mechanical properties known from Allosaurus that suggest very high resistance.)

Again, I state the fact that the teeth in this region were nowhere close
to specialized and are instead very resistant and heavily-structured,
let alone this area being more broadened than the premaxillae in more
obligate piscivores.

But the first part happens to be no fact, and the secondÂ’s relevance is built upon the assumptions that the teeth of extant, adult slender-snouted crocodilians are really that difference and that whatever difference remains cannot be explained by mere allometry.

Either way the size, distribution and variation within the toothrow is not that of an extant or extinct macrophagous crocodile species, and neither is the morphology of its snout.

What other reasons do you have to back this up?

I and at least two others already explained them for several times, so I wonÂ’t do that again.

A deep penetration ability is not only much more evident
in spinosaurus' teeth than those belonging to both carcharodontosaurus
and sarcosuchus, but it is far more necessary. Spinosaurus did not need
such an impressive bite force or slashing ability, as its diet is
fundamentally taken over mostly by very large and powerful fish. The
ability of its teeth to sink in deeply without much driving force and
yet still be strong enough to retain a sturdy grip is the direct effect
of its piscivorous nature. Again, its tooth shape correlates strongly
with that of its snout, just as with the case of the latter two
animals.

Tooth morphology always correlated with that of the snout. Whether we are able to see that correlation or properly interpret it is a different matter.

What you are getting at also seems to be, from the topic of this thread and the comparison to Sarcosuchus.

Umm, how so? I have explained to you why this is not the
case. Sarcosuchus was much more reliant on a strong bite force than
carcharodontosaurus, as evidenced by its comparably wider rostrum in
relation to depth and far more robust dentition that obviously correlates with such an ability to exert such forces.

Since when is a "wider rostrum in relation to depth" indicative of a stronger bite? By that logic, IÂ’d strongly presume Platyrostrans such as laganosuchus would surely be among the strongest biters in history, regardless of their diets, their size...virtually everything but their width!

That it was more reliant on bite force is indicated by the following: Teeth. Phylogeny.

I am referring to build in general; carcharodontosaurus had a very deep
snout that was poorly adapted for gripping and lateral resistance as
evidenced by its possession of a very gracile build. But the other two
animals possess far denser and more compact snouts that are far better
adapted for gripping functions.

They merely posess teeth and a lifestyle enabling this and making it a necessity. They preyed on smaller animals, and of course would have seeked to avoid unnecessary stresses.

Umm, no. Spinosaurus did not have a narrower snout than all slender-snouted crocodilians.

Just an overally narrower skull, that expanded much less posteriorly.

I
remember you saying before how spinosaurus actually did possess a
particularly robust snout, a multitude of times. There is in fact no
reason to believe that either were very fragile and weak but rather the
direct opposite.

No, I said Spinosaurus was robust
enough for doing what it did. I then usually went on explaining how in
what it did it would probably not have had to resist huge forces,
because its teeth sunk into flesh easily, could have killed by precise
puncturing without too huge a force necessary, and would have thereby
allowed it to subdue large fish or mid-sized dinosaurs without the kind
of reliance on raw force that we see in some crocodiles or tyrannosaurid
tyrannosaurs.

ONE argument; you guys gave me one argument.

Ok, then one argument, that you nevertheless couldnÂ’t invalidate.

Oh, but I have. I explained to you why it was not very specialized and
was in fact far more robust than the premaxillae of far more piscivorous
animals.

Another correction, I meant to write "valid argument". See the first response in the top of this post, it adresses the issue why this argument is not valid.

I thought you said that it possessed an imperative morphology for piercing deeply...

I meant "causing deep-going damage by means of applying force through the teeth". Considering you chose to use "crushing" as not synonymous with "crushing bone" but rather "piercing hide and holding it", you certainly understand this

Carcharodontosaurus- well adapted for killing much larger and taller animals than the crocodylomorph

Sarcosuchus-
too low to the ground for the theropod to effectively utilize the same
killing strategies as it can with larger terrestrial animals

Carcharodontosaurus- well adapted for killing much larger and taller animals than the crocodylomorph could

Sarcosuchus-
too low to the ground for the theropod to effectively utilize the same
killing strategies as it can with larger terrestrial animals, which is why it would have some problems and take some time, but eventually suceed, because its still at the advantage

Sarcosuchus being poorly-adapted for macropredation as a whole is a
major overstatement. Nile crocodiles today are very well equipped for
taking down antelope, zebras, and wildebeest but yet have major problems
taking down animals as large and powerful as buffalo. It is evident
here:

But it did have a strong skull... Even though you had previously
reasoned with me about beam theory and how such vigorous forces would
likely be too much for it (because, I admit, I know practically nothing
about beam theory or physics in general for that matter), but its snout
was very well adapted for taking down very large fish and was obviously
designed for gripping purposes.

Being designed for gripping purposes and being very strong are two different things. Gharials also have snouts and teeth designed for gripping purpose. The difference; Gharials would likely need proportionally greater forces than Spinosaurus to kill animals similarly large in proportion. Accordingly, they also have stronger bites. The end result is pretty much the same, they both could likely take on reasonably sized prey by virtue of their large size, but Spinosaurus had some additional advantages that would have allowed it to reduce the stress its skull experienced in doing so, and is thus likely better designed for it.

[theropod]

Godzillasaurus, please have another, very careful look at SpinodontosaurusÂ’ comparison. Compare their skulls! HAve a look at the maxilla alone in both, and decide which is more robust. YouÂ’ll see they are pretty similar in width, but with he carnosaur having a by any standard, (and NOT just because of the femestrae) much deeper skull structure.

[Godzillasaurus]

By pockets are you talking about the fenestrae?

Yea; I like to spice up my vocab.

They really aren't that different from tomistoma.

I'm sorry, but they are not. I have explained to you why they are in no way specialized.

No it doesn't have a much more lightly built snout:

Actually, it does. And that applies to spinosaurus as well.

Wider fenestrae =/= more gracile snout

I have already explained to you why this is not the case a multitude of times...

Kind of ironic since you even backed deinosuchus rugosus over therizinosaurus.

I can't understand why you struggle so much to understand this.

Because there are nowhere near as many parallels as you claim to the premaxillae of more specialized animals. That is the bottom line

Carcharodontosaurus' killing proficiency comes from it's many sharply serrated teeth, that for all intents and purposes would have acted like a gigantic, 1 meter long by 30 cm wide, saw.

That and its snouts' impressive vertical resistance...

So are you saying that Carcharodontosaurus' teeth (the largest of which protruded over 3.5 inches from the skull, in specimen SGM-Din 1), which are designed specifically to cut through flesh creating massive damage to muscles, ligaments and blood vessels of gigantic sauropods, is somehow not going to cause 'enough' damage to Sarcosuchus because it's teeth are not specifically adapted for piercing?? Seriously?

When did I say that? I simply stated the fact that the only reason why it would cause any damage to sarcosuchus is the ability of its teeth to effectively cut flesh. Most driving force behind them in the event of a hatchet-bite comes from its powerful neck when attacking the spine of a particularly taller animal...

Since when is a "wider rostrum in relation to depth" indicative of a stronger bite? By that logic, IÂ’d strongly presume Platyrostrans such as laganosuchus would surely be among the strongest biters in history, regardless of their diets, their size...virtually everything but their width!

What I meant to say was that very powerful bites are normally anchored by particularly widened snouts at the base if anything. Carcharodontosaurus was impressive in what direction, but not necessarily in the other (it did not possess nor require a very powerful bite). But what we see in sarchosuchus is rather a high aptitude for exerting such crushing forces unlike the theropod in this case.

They merely posess teeth and a lifestyle enabling this and making it a necessity. They preyed on smaller animals, and of course would have seeked to avoid unnecessary stresses.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The snout and tooth morphology of both latter animals indicates, obviously, strong reliance and aptitude on/for gripping. Let's ignore sarcosuchus and talk about spinosaurus for a minute.

What its snout and tooth morphology indicates is a killing style revolving primarily around the gripping of very large and certainly very powerful fish (as I have said before). Carcharodontosaurus would have killed vertically in a likely very quick fashion as evidenced by its deep snout. But it again was poorly adapted (especially by comparison) for gripping; it did not possess a very slender but yet very heavily-built snout that was studded with very strong and conical dentition. The features present in spinosaurus indicate a strong capability for gripping powerful animals: slender but yet strong central and posterior snout, specialized premaxilla (shaped vaguely like a hook for gripping fish, but still relatively gracile in comparison to the posterior regions of the snout), lack of an exceptional bite force (obviously didn't kill by crushing), and very strong and conical teeth (best adapted for piercing deeply into large fish with easer but yet still not necessarily being designed for killing, and very resistant in that they lacked serrations and were very robust).

And then in sarcosuchus, its teeth were very thick and conical (more so than in spinosaurus; less well designed for piercing deeply. This also of course pertains to the premaxillary and foremost dentary teeth) again as adaptations for vertical resistance from the animal's impressive biting strength, piercing into the hides of large animals, and far higher aptitude for crushing than the former two animals. Its snout was comparably more robust than carcharodontosaurus in addition and did not possess such impressive depth and was rather again far better adapted for gripping and clamping down with strong force than being used quickly to cause blood loss and/or tearing damage.

As you can see, the morphology of both spinosaurus and sarcosuchus indicates that the stresses in predation would actually be far superior to those experienced by carcharodontosaurus. This appears to especially be the case in sarcosuchus, which was clearly far better adapted for crushing than the other two genera. Carcharodontosaurus killed more quickly and was poorly adapted for gripping and/or crushing, while spinosaurus and sarcosuchus are rather the direct opposite in that their snout and tooth morphologies alike are more robust and are much more indicative of gripping functions.

No, I said Spinosaurus was robust enough for doing what it did. I then usually went on explaining how in what it did it would probably not have had to resist huge forces, because its teeth sunk into flesh easily, could have killed by precise puncturing without too huge a force necessary, and would have thereby allowed it to subdue large fish or mid-sized dinosaurs without the kind of reliance on raw force that we see in some crocodiles or tyrannosaurid tyrannosaurs.

Fixed that for you.

Anyway, I again state the fact that, while its teeth could certainly be put to good use in terms of precise and quick puncturing, they were designed for gripping nonetheless as evidenced by their conical shape and lack of serrations. The morphology of its snout as well is indicative of this (if it was designed for quick killing, we would most likely see even greater depth present as opposed to it being so specialized and narrow for picking out fish in water). They were designed for puncturing deeply into the hides of very large fish and retaining a stable grip, thus gripping is far more probable but the quick killing theory is still possible.

I meant "causing deep-going damage by means of applying force through the teeth". Considering you chose to use "crushing" as not synonymous with "crushing bone" but rather "piercing hide and holding it", you certainly understand this

Well now I do

Gharials also have snouts and teeth designed for gripping purpose.

But the obvious difference is the obvious difference in terms of robusticity and ability to resist between the two animals. That simply does not compare between them

HAve a look at the maxilla alone in both, and decide which is more robust. YouÂ’ll see they are pretty similar in width, but with he carnosaur having a by any standard, (and NOT just because of the femestrae) much deeper skull structure.

Yea, for killing larger animals vertically. Not only does the evidence speak for itself (come on, you guys are more than capable of telling which one is more robust and better designed for multi-directional resistance based on its overall skull anatomy!), but being an obligate piscivore rather makes a much more robust snout far more of a necessity.

Carcharodontosaurus had a very deep snout, but that is it. It does not possess any sort of reasonable width, build, or ability to grip for that matter.

[Infinity Blade]

Off topic, but I'm going to make a thread about this whole D. rugosus vs. Therizinosaurus thing, as I don't want to spam this thread showing my opinions of it.


On topic, you guys don't seem to really be getting anywhere.

[creature386]

Jan 12, 2014 18:10:20 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Off topic, but I'm going to make a thread about this whole D. rugosus vs. Therizinosaurus thing, as I don't want to spam this thread showing my opinions of it.

I believe you can post it here. This thread would likely go the same way as my Sauroposeidon vs Tyrannosaurus thread on carnivora.

[Infinity Blade]

^You made a separate thread with T.rex vs. Sauroposeidon to keep a thread clean. I'm planning on the same.

[theropod]

When did I say that? I simply stated the fact that the only reason why it would cause any damage to sarcosuchus is the ability of its teeth to effectively cut flesh. Most driving force behind them in the event of a hatchet-bite comes from its powerful neck when attacking the spine of a particularly taller animal...

I think the term "hatchet bite" is somewhat misplaced here. Carcharodontosauridae donÂ’t display the same marked adaptions towards this as allosauridae. They rely, so similar extends, on pulling, head-depression and the sheer size of their jaws and lenght of their toothrows for killing.

What I meant to say was that very powerful bites are normally anchored
by particularly widened snouts at the base if anything.
Carcharodontosaurus was impressive in what direction, but not
necessarily in the other (it did not possess nor require a very powerful
bite). But what we see in sarchosuchus is rather a high aptitude for
exerting such crushing forces unlike the theropod in this case.

Yes, there typically is a correlation between skull width and bite force, because this width determines the space for the adductor muscles. This has absoultely NOTHING to do with the relationship between depth and width. Of course they tend to have wide skulls, but whether thatÂ’s proportional to depth is not important. The absolute width, coupled with the absolute resistance of the cranium to the relevant forces, is what matters to how strong an animal could have bit.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. The snout and tooth morphology of both
latter animals indicates, obviously, strong reliance and aptitude on/for gripping.

You are repeating yourself. I already explained that this is true but none of it is contradicting what I wrote.

What its snout and tooth morphology indicates is a killing style
revolving primarily around the gripping of very large and certainly very
powerful fish (as I have said before). Carcharodontosaurus would have
killed vertically in a likely very quick fashion as evidenced by its
deep snout. But it again was poorly adapted (especially by comparison)
for gripping; it did not possess a very slender but yet very
heavily-built snout that was studded with very strong and conical
dentition. The features present in spinosaurus indicate a strong
capability for gripping powerful animals: slender but yet strong central
and posterior snout, specialized premaxilla (shaped vaguely like a hook
for gripping fish, but still relatively gracile in comparison to the
posterior regions of the snout), lack of an exceptional bite force
(obviously didn't kill by crushing), and very strong and conical teeth
(best adapted for piercing deeply into large fish with easer but yet
still not necessarily being designed for killing, and very resistant in
that they lacked serrations and were very robust).<br><br>And then in
sarcosuchus, its teeth were very thick and conical (more so than in
spinosaurus; less well designed for piercing deeply. This also of course
pertains to the premaxillary and foremost dentary teeth) again as
adaptations for vertical resistance from the animal's impressive biting
strength, piercing into the hides of large animals, and far higher
aptitude for crushing than the former two animals. Its snout was
comparably more robust than carcharodontosaurus in addition and did not
possess such impressive depth and was rather again far better adapted
for gripping and clamping down with strong force than being used quickly
to cause blood loss and/or tearing damage.

You again ignore that Sarcosuchus teeth are not cimparable to those of relatives with a comparatively high reliance of crushing and tissue damage of large animals. your sole argument is that they are thick. So what? They are thick, but numerus, relatively uniform, and small. All adaptions not suggesting they were well-suited for killing of large prey by comparison to some extant relatives. All factors very similar <br>to slender-snouted crocodilians, along with the snout morphology.
Your point, the robusticity of the teeth, can easily be explained by the sheer size of this creature. Additionally, adult Mecistops or Tomistoma also get more robust teeth than the immature ones you all the time compare it to.

As you can see, the morphology of both spinosaurus and sarcosuchus
indicates that the stresses in predation would actually be far superior
to those experienced by carcharodontosaurus.

And thatÂ’s the fallacy here. You assume they tackled similarly large or powerful prey. But that their stresses would be so much larger is the reason they did not!<i>Carcharodontosaurus</i> undoubtedly did not need considerable lateral or torsional (but likely great amounts of vertical) strenght, and if the three of them all killed a buffalo, <i>Sarcosuchus</i> would likely experience the highest stresses in the process and C. saharicus the lowest.

But there is a considerable difference in prey size here, which also contorts the picture you are trying to paint.
In reality, <i>Carcharodontosaurus</i> would have killed large animals by slashing and tearing bites, inflicting large amounts of tissue damage, even tough most will be to soft tissues, with the aid of more than just its mere bite force, but also considerable amounts of postcranial depression and pulling. <i>Sarcosuchus</i> would have preyed on mid-sized animals, which to kill a simple bite with its jaws would usually suffice. The latter tactic also obviously requires smaller margins of savety, it simply wouldnÂ’t attempt to bite something thats too risky.
Hence the latterÂ’s probably stronger bite force, but yet its overally less resistant skull.

Anyway, I again state the fact that, while its teeth could certainly be
put to good use in terms of precise and quick puncturing, they were
designed for gripping nonetheless as evidenced by their conical shape
and lack of serrations.

And I state again that gripping has the positive side effect of puncturing, and that <i>Spinosaurus</i>Â’ teeth excelled at gripping simply by being good at puncturing but bad at tearing.

But the obvious difference is the obvious difference in terms of
robusticity and ability to resist between the two animals. That simply
does not compare between them

Here you have the reason why we all consider <i>Sarcosuchus</i> as comparable to slender-snouted crocodiles, false gharials or freshwater crocodiles, not to indian gharials. The ontogenic difference in tooth design was already pointed out to you by blaze.<br>But this should show you that merely being designed for gripping purposes does not imply massive resistance of the snout. Gharials obviously donÂ’t have it, but are still adapted for gripping. This works because what they are gripping doesnÂ’t excert very strong forces.

Yea, for killing larger animals vertically. Not only does the evidence
speak for itself (come on, you guys are more than capable of telling
which one is more robust and better designed for multi-directional
resistance based on its overall skull anatomy!), but being an obligate
piscivore rather makes a much more robust snout far more of a necessity.<br><br>Carcharodontosaurus
had a very deep snout, but that is it. It does not possess any sort of
reasonable width, build, or ability to grip for that matter.

Again, itÂ’s about the same width as <i>Sarcosuchus</i>Â’, you should have seen this by now. I was talking about the overall resistance of this structure and adaption to excerting strong forces. In this regard, <i>Carcharodontosaurus</i> has a pretty obvious advantage, and that regardless of whether or not it was as well-built for gripping or not.

IÂ’m sorry about the layout, I experienced some error with the WYSIWYG interface, which I use for quoting large quantities of text; for some reason it produced HTML code, which wasnÂ’t displayed correctly but ruined the line-breaks. Is anyone having a similar issue?

[theropod]

I just noticed: Why exactly is this in the hypothetical versus scenarios? The two animals have overlapping geological and geographical ranges.

[Carcharodon]

Sarcosuchus lived over 10 million years earlier.