Poll: King of the Theropods?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
0%
0 0%
Giganotosaurus carolinii
12.50%
1 12.50%
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
0%
0 0%
Tyrannosaurus rex
75.00%
6 75.00%
Other (please specify)
12.50%
1 12.50%
Total 8 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
King of the Theropods?
#1
Giganotosaurus carolinii
Giganotosaurus (meaning 'giant southern lizard') was a genus of carcharodontosaurid dinosaur that lived 93 to 89 million years ago during the Turonian stage of the Late Cretaceous Period. It is one of the largest known terrestrial carnivores, larger than Tyrannosaurus, but smaller than Spinosaurus. Its fossils have been found in Argentina.
The Giganotosaurus´ measurements are impressive. From head to tapering tail it measured 13.5 to 14.3 meters (44 to 46 feet), and from feet to head, it stood 3.9 meters (13 feet). Its skull was the length of a tall man.
Like the T-rex ("Tyrant lizard king"), which lived 10 to 30 million years later, the Giganotosaurus was a theropod, meaning, for example, that it was a bipedal; had short, clawed hands used for grasping prey; a long tail for counterbalancing the rest of the body; was carnivorous; and had long, powerful, clawed legs built, presumably, for speed. It is believed that the Giganotosaurus held its tail erect rather than drag it.

[Image: giganotosaurus_1.jpg]

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Spinosaurus (meaning "spine lizard") was a genus of theropod dinosaur that lived in what is now North Africa, from the Albian to early Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous Period, about 95 to 93 million years ago. It is unclear whether there are one or two species. The best known is S. aegyptiacus from Egypt, though a second species (S. marocannus) has been recovered from Morocco. Spinosaurus is called "spiny lizard" because it had a series of large neural spines up to 6 feet (1.8 m) long coming out of its back vertebrae, probably forming a sail-like fin that may have helped in thermoregulation, mating rituals and/or intraspecies rivalry. Spinosaurus had a relatively flexible upper spine (these vertebrae had modified ball-and-socket-joints) so it could arch its back somewhat, perhaps being able to spread the sail (like opening the ribs of a fan). Spinosaurus was bipedal (it walked on two legs). It was about 40-50 feet long (12-15 m) and weighed 6 tons or more (some paleontologists estimate it weighed up to perhaps 12 tons); it is the largest known spinosaurid (a type of large, meat-eating dinosaur). It had a large head with sharp, straight, non-serrated teeth in powerful, crocodile-like jaws. Its arms were smaller than its legs but were larger than the arms of most other theropods. It may have gone on all fours at times.

[Image: _77498610_spinosaurus_ngm_102014_superja...dbf7be.jpg]

Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
Carcharodontosaurus meaning "jagged-toothed lizard" was a gigantic carnivorous carcharodontosaurid dinosaur that lived around 98 to 93 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period.Although parts of these large carnivorous dinosaurs were discovered some time ago, their huge size has just recently come to light. The first almost complete Carcharodontosaurus discovered was being studied in Germany but was destroyed by Allied bombing during WWII. with various scientists proposing length estimates for the species C. saharicus ranging between 12 and 13 m (39 and 43 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons. Carcharodontosaurus had long, muscular legs, and fossilized trackways indicate that it could run about 20 miles per hour, though there is some controversy as to whether it actually did. At four tons, a forward fall would have been deadly to Carcharodontosaurus, due to the inability of its small arms to brace the animal when it landed.Carcharodontosaurus was a carnivore, with enormous jaws and long, serrated teeth up to eight inches long. It may have hunted in packs, but no fossil evidence of this exists. It may have been a scavenger as well as an active predator.

[Image: Carcharodontosaurus_BW.jpg]

Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, located at the Field Museum of Natural History and known colloquially as FMNH PR2081 and nicknamed "Sue", measured 12.3 metres (40 ft) long, and was 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 metric tons (6.0 short tons) and 6.8 metric tons (7.5 short tons).

[Image: t__rex_reigns_again_by_shartman-d35000f.jpg]
[Image: wildcat10-CougarHuntingDeer.jpg]
Reply
#2
I'd give it too Allosaurs, they hunt Large suaropods and, were the top predators of the Jurassic. Some theories even point too it almost completely wiping out other theropods in the Morrison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6E-mGjgk8g&t=1s
Reply
#3
Spinosaurids are still my favorite Theropods because of how unique they are but in a fight I think T. rex or Giga would be the strongest.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself
[-] The following 1 user Likes Grawlix's post:
  • theGrackle
Reply
#4
Charch is said too be larger than Giga.
Reply
#5
I have to admit I think my boy t-rex is the king.

But spinosaurus is pretty freakin cool.
[-] The following 2 users Like Mammuthus's post:
  • ScottishWildcat, theGrackle
Reply
#6
I am not too informed about dinosaurs, so I took the easy way out, and voted for the T-rex. However, what about Acrocanthosaurus? I have seen documentaries speculating that they hunted sauropods. They must have been pretty fearsome. Can any dino-experts let me know if I am just out of my element, and have no idea what I am talking about?
A pine needle fell. The eagle saw it. The deer heard it. The bear smelled it
Reply
#7
All carcharodontosaurids had a jaw apparatus optimal for lacerating, eviscerating, and exsanguinating animals much larger than themselves. So yes, I'm sure Acrocanthosaurus and other large carcharodontosaurids would have hunted sauropods larger than themselves (however, I don't think the jaw apparatus of T. rex is much more inferior for this task, so I think it would be capable of more or less the same thing with more or less the same constraints, which I am now going to get to).

But the fundamental question is, just how much larger? Given the effects of the square cube law, it becomes more dangerous to practice brontophagy the larger the animals get. It gets a lot easier to bludgeon and trample something to death without very specialized weaponry. The clawed club-like limbs of a sauropod, its tail, and maybe even its neck (depending on how much larger it is than its assailant) could seriously injure a large carcharodontosaurid. So how large of a sauropod could a single Acrocanthosaurus or a close relative take before it reaches its maximum prey size limit? And could they hunt in packs to take down even larger prey?
[Image: tumblr_n237ts3Mel1tst46wo2_r1_1280.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ausar's post:
  • theGrackle
Reply
#8
(08-16-2018, 03:57 AM)Ausar Wrote: All carcharodontosaurids had a jaw apparatus optimal for lacerating, eviscerating, and exsanguinating animals much larger than themselves. So yes, I'm sure Acrocanthosaurus and other large carcharodontosaurids would have hunted sauropods larger than themselves (however, I don't think the jaw apparatus of T. rex is much more inferior for this task, so I think it would be capable of more or less the same thing with more or less the same constraints, which I am now going to get to).


If this image is accurate, I'd argue that a Tyrannosaurus rex could certainly open its jaws wide enough to compete with most Carcharodontosaurs in terms of sheer gape. A Carcharodontosaur could almost certainly cause more damage though, as the bite force that made the American carnivore so deadly couldn't be utilized at such a wide angle. At least, it wouldn't be as effective as the blade-like teeth that the Carcharodontosaurs had- they didn't need to bite down to cause damage as long as they could simply drag their jaws down the flanks of their chosen prey item. I'd imagine a good comparison would be trying to carve meat with knife versus carving with a pickaxe.

That being said, I'd say that the pickaxe would be capable of causing a much larger amount of damage when the force necessary for it to do work can be applied.

People compare these animals all the time and frankly I think they're each 'the best' in their own right. Carcharodontosaurs were equipped to deal with animals much larger than themselves, and Spinosaurs weren't really predators in the traditional sense that one would think of when considering an apex predator (they were in tiers of their own, and aren't really candidates for being king as a result to me). I'd personally argue that, compared to other super carnivores, a T. rex was best equipped for combating other animals of comparable size to itself. This isn't to say it's superior in any way to the other carnivores as much as it is to say that in the case of a skirmish, the other carnivores fall more comfortably in the range of what a Tyrannosaurus was best equipped to do.

If some time traveling being were to replace a Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus with Tyrannosaurus in South America or Africa, I think that it wouldn't be nearly as effective a predator at the Shark toothed lizards, and vise versa if the replacement stuck the Carcharodontosaurs in Cretaceous North America.
Reply
#9
Quote:If this image is accurate, I'd argue that a Tyrannosaurus rex could certainly open its jaws wide enough to compete with most Carcharodontosaurs in terms of sheer gape. A Carcharodontosaur could almost certainly cause more damage though, as the bite force that made the American carnivore so deadly couldn't be utilized at such a wide angle. At least, it wouldn't be as effective as the blade-like teeth that the Carcharodontosaurs had- they didn't need to bite down to cause damage as long as they could simply drag their jaws down the flanks of their chosen prey item. I'd imagine a good comparison would be trying to carve meat with knife versus carving with a pickaxe.

That being said, I'd say that the pickaxe would be capable of causing a much larger amount of damage when the force necessary for it to do work can be applied.

Well, gape seems to be something that could either positively or negatively impact bite force. You need some amount of greater gape for greater mechanical advantage and thus more bite force. I don't think 63.5 or even 80 degrees is at that optimum mechanical advantage (well above it), but nonetheless I'd like to see some further testing with that (and I'd imagine bite force at maximum gape would still be substantial, even if not the maximum possible force that could possibly be achieved).

My point there was that the jaws of a carcharodontosaurid won't be that much more damaging, as I think a Tyrannosaurus could apply the force needed for its thicker, blunter teeth to cut and tear (thanks not only to the jaw muscles, but also to the enormous neck muscles, and arguably the strength of the whole body for that matter).
[Image: tumblr_n237ts3Mel1tst46wo2_r1_1280.jpg]
Reply
#10
King of the Theropods? Depends upon the circumstances. What are we comparing?
Mmm, chocolate cake
Reply
#11
(08-18-2018, 05:55 AM)Ausar Wrote:
Quote:*snip*

Well, gape seems to be something that could either positively or negatively impact bite force. You need some amount of greater gape for greater mechanical advantage and thus more bite force. I don't think 63.5 or even 80 degrees is at that optimum mechanical advantage (well above it), but nonetheless I'd like to see some further testing with that (and I'd imagine bite force at maximum gape would still be substantial, even if not the maximum possible force that could possibly be achieved).

My point there was that the jaws of a carcharodontosaurid won't be that much more damaging, as I think a Tyrannosaurus could apply the force needed for its thicker, blunter teeth to cut and tear (thanks not only to the jaw muscles, but also to the enormous neck muscles, and arguably the strength of the whole body for that matter).

We're in agreement there, then. It's all about what the animals evolved to do. A Rex didn't need to bite down on anything much wider than its own body. I think on an animal of similar size, a Tyrannosaur would be capable of inflicting much more damage.

These might be papers you've already read, but if you havent then you might enjoy the read. The difference in the amount of force that could theoretically generated by the animals as seen in graph f in figure two of the second study is, well, pretty awesome if you ask me.

http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/22490/1/102.pdf


http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/8/4/660



ChocolateCake123 Wrote:King of the Theropods? Depends upon the circumstances. What are we comparing?

Well, as I said I think they're all 'kings' in what they did. For the sake of qualifying the debate I'd say their combative abilities against one another.
Reply
#12
T. rex takes this it pretty much outclasses every single theropod in many aspects.
Reply
#13
Of course Mondus the wise is here to give us his expert take on these fearsome beasts
Check yourself before you wreck yourself
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)