Allosaurus fragilis vs Daspletosaurus torosus

[Carcharodon]

Allosaurus fragilis

Allosaurus is a genus of large theropod dinosaur that lived 155 to 150 million years ago during the late Jurassic period (Kimmeridgian to early Tithonian). Allosaurus was a large bipedal predator. Its skull was large and equipped with dozens of large, sharp teeth. It averaged 8.5 meters (28 ft) in length, though fragmentary remains suggest it could have reached over 12 meters (39 ft). Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, its three-fingered forelimbs were small, and the body was balanced by a long, heavy tail. As the most abundant large predator in the Morrison Formation, Allosaurus was at the top of the food chain, probably preying on contemporaneous large herbivorous dinosaurs and perhaps even other predators (e.g. Ceratosaurus). Potential prey included ornithopods, stegosaurids, and sauropods. Allosaurus was a typical large theropod, having a massive skull on a short neck, a long tail and reduced forelimbs. Allosaurus fragilis, the best-known species, had an average length of 9 meters (30 ft), with the largest definitive Allosaurus specimen (AMNH 680) estimated at 9.7 meters long (32 ft), and an estimated weight of 2.3 metric tons (2.5 short tons). As with dinosaurs in general, weight estimates are debatable, and since 1980 have ranged between 1500 kilograms (3300 lb), 1000 to 4000 kilograms (2200 to 8800 lb), and 1010 kilograms (2230 lb) for modal adult weight (not maximum). Using the subadult specimen nicknamed "Big Al", researchers using computer modelling arrived at a best estimate of 1,500 kilograms (3,300 lb) for the individual, but by varying parameters they found a range from approximately 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb) to approximately 2,000 kilograms (4,400 lb).

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Allosaurus_BW.jpg

Daspletosaurus torosus
Daspletosaurus (meaning "frightful lizard") is a genus of tyrannosaurid theropod dinosaur that lived in western North America between 77 and 74 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous Period. Fossils of the only named species (D. torosus) were found in Alberta, although other possible species from Alberta and Montana await description. Including these undescribed species makes Daspletosaurus the most species-rich genus of tyrannosaur. Daspletosaurus is closely related to the much larger and more recent Tyrannosaurus. Like most known tyrannosaurids, it was a multi-tonne bipedal predator equipped with dozens of large, sharp teeth. Daspletosaurus had the small forelimbs typical of tyrannosaurids, although they were proportionately longer than in other genera. Adults could reach a length of 8–9 meters (26–30 ft) from snout to tail, and a mass of 2 to 3 tonnes. Daspletosaurus had a massive skull that could reach more than 1 meter (3.3 ft) in length.

fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/308/e/9/daspletosaurus_attacks_by_alexandernevsky-d4f1h0x.jpg

[Godzillasaurus]

If this is at parity, the tyrannosaurid destroys allosaurus easily

[thesporerex]

I think this is around 50/50, slight edge to daspletosaurus but that's not enough to give it a vote imo

[Infinity Blade]

^I agree.

[theropod]

Jan 20, 2014 10:29:42 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

If this is at parity, the tyrannosaurid destroys allosaurus easily

You are referring to lenght parity, right?

[Carcharodon]

Jan 20, 2014 10:29:42 GMT 5 Godzillasaurus said:

If this is at parity, the tyrannosaurid destroys allosaurus easily

Care to elaborate?

Anyways 50/50

[Godzillasaurus]

You are referring to lenght parity, right?

Yes

Care to elaborate?

I would always favor a tyrannosaurid over an allosaurid unless the latter has a decent size advantage. The crushing morphology of the former would mean that it could quite easily crush its opponent's spinal cord without much effort, especially if it had the size advantage.

[creature386]

Haven't you once said you think slicing is deadlier (it was on CF, so you maybe changed your mind)?

[Carcharodon]

And the bladelike serrated teeth of the allosauroid means that it can lacerate huge wounds and blood loss on its opponent.

I don't think either has the advantage in the bite, both are easily capable of landing life-threatening injuries to each other. I'd say whoever inflicts the first good bite wins.

[Godzillasaurus]

Jan 20, 2014 20:12:27 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Haven't you once said you think slicing is deadlier (it was on CF, so you maybe changed your mind)?

Yea, but that was simply referring to the actual tooth shape. We know for one that allosaurs were not in possession of exceptionally powerful biting forces, so naturally most of the actual driving force in predation comes from its powerful neck for the most part.

And the bladelike serrated teeth of the allosauroid means that it can lacerate huge wounds and blood loss on its opponent.

I never said that they were incapable of doing so...

Naturally the hatchet-bite would simply be the best way to kill a similarly-sized prey animal quickly when attacking the spinal cord, but the flank-biting tactic (which also utilizes the same mechanical properties as the perpendicular hatchet-bite) would be the most efficient way to kill an animal much larger than itself (this is what allosaurus did to take down animals like diplodocus for example due to the latter's sheer size advantage). Although I am unsure as to how quickly a large prey animal would be killed in this regard with the ripping out of important tissue/musculature and increased blood loss. Spinal laceration is honestly the quickest way for allosaurus to kill, just as with tyrannosaurus.

[theropod]

The quickest way for an Allosaurus to kill is to cut its opponentÂ’s throat.
No "spinal damage" or anything like that, and no bone-crushing needed to kill quickly. It could nevertheless cause crippling or fatal injuries in most body regions, but the neck is the most likely target for a quick kill.

Where from do you take those claims about the biting mode Allosaurus employed depending on the prey animal? Is there any actual reason to presume it did not use a striking bite on larger animals? Obviously it would always impart ventroflexive and pulling motions in order to cause deep wounds and tear through tissues, all the more on a larger animal that would require more damage.
Damage to the spinal chord would be incidental in such a bite, and absolutely unnecessary for it to kill.

[dinokid202]

slicing bite vs crushing bite! i think which ever animal is bigger wins. in this case, i think allosaurus wins because it was just bigger by a ton or two

[theropod]

^The largest specimens (like AMNH 680 or NMMNH P-26083, and some like AMNH 5767 are probably double the weight), yes. But on average Allosaurus fragilis and Daspletosaurus torosus are likely quite similar in terms of weight (Daspletosaurus beinhg slightly shorter, but mostly due to tail-lenght).
Since there are several times more specimens of Allosaurus than of Daspletosaurus, it’s imprudent to compare the largest in each.

[Deleted]

The first bite decides the most likely winner.

[Godzillasaurus]

The quickest way for an Allosaurus to kill is to cut its opponent’s throat.
No "spinal damage" or anything like that, and no bone-crushing needed to kill quickly. It could nevertheless cause crippling or fatal injuries in most body regions, but the neck is the most likely target for a quick kill.

The throat seems like the most vital area in terms of where a theropod could bite its prey. Only it would be quite different in different animals: spinosaurus would do so with moderately powerful and deep puncturing most of all (its teeth were ideal for this; they were sharply pointed, relatively slender, and conical. They were suited best for piercing and gripping fish) to cause impaction to the spinal cord or even pierce the trachea, tyrannosaurus (or daspletosaurus in this case) would likely crush the spinal structure most of all through its less well adapted teeth for the same kind of piercing and more effective bite force (its teeth were generally blunter at the tip although possessing thick serrations sort of like a butter knife. They were less well designed for piercing efficiently), and allosaurus would do so with the severing of ligaments and tissue holding the vertebrae together. So the neck is quite a vulnerable place, even with the heavy variation among morphologies and killing styles of different predatory theropods.

Where from do you take those claims about the biting mode Allosaurus employed depending on the prey animal? Is there any actual reason to presume it did not use a striking bite on larger animals? Obviously it would always impart ventroflexive and pulling motions in order to cause deep wounds and tear through tissues, all the more on a larger animal that would require more damage.

Obviously most of the driving force in allosaur predation comes from its powerful neck if anything, so naturally a hatchet-bite seems to be the quickest way to kill something in which case something much larger than itself would force the creature to attack its flanks where most of the net damage done would be to the prey's tissues.

Damage to the spinal chord would be incidental in such a bite, and absolutely unnecessary for it to kill

Of course not, it is just seemingly the most logical/quick way to kill a comparably-sized creature.