|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on May 25, 2014 4:52:49 GMT 5
I was referring to it not being a giganotosaurine. My mistake, sometimes I automatically type "carcharodontosaurus" when I refer to any closely related genus. I meant to say "so it was a completely different group from GIGANOTOSAURUS too huh?".
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 26, 2014 2:28:27 GMT 5
No it was not. Giganotosaurus was a carcharodontosaur, Acrocanthosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were too.
They were outside giganotosaurini, but there seems to be no strong support for either of them forming a distinct monophylum with any other taxa outside giganotosaurini that we know of. Nothing i’d call a "completely different group" at least. They were simply more basal carcharodontosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on May 26, 2014 19:32:59 GMT 5
In the realm of subfamilies, yes it was (it was apparently not a giganotosaurine). That is what I was referring to, not carcharodontosauria as a whole
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 7, 2014 19:30:33 GMT 5
Yes, but it is not in an entirely different group, it was merely outside of giganotosaurini, i.e. they were both in the same group, because the lowest-level-taxon we can confidently assign Acrocanthosaurus to is carcharodontosauria
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 12:00:35 GMT 5
Former doesn't have too big of an advantage, and sauropods generally rely on size. So latter wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Dec 11, 2017 6:55:00 GMT 5
Acrocanthosaurus would win this with some injury, maybe around 85% of cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Dec 25, 2017 5:33:30 GMT 5
Not enough of a size difference for the spinophorosaurus to win. I would give this to acro about 90-95% of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 21:51:03 GMT 5
EDIT: Scratch what I said earlier. This depends on how effective the sauropod's thagomizers were but in all honesty I do not care for carnosaur vs sauropod
|
|
