Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 20, 2013 11:34:59 GMT -5
I realize that. But tyrannosaurus probably had proportionally longer legs: Tyrannosaurus was a more heavily-built animal in general.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 20, 2013 14:58:32 GMT -5
I am fully aware of that.
Are you talking about the two animals at parity or their largest sizes? A larger theropod would naturally have a larger femur if it grew big enough.
I agree with this. But we are talking about leg sizes here, not skull size and neck thickness.
I agree that carcharodontosaurus grew to larger sizes than tyrannosaurus. But that doesn't make it a more heavily built animal.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 22, 2013 11:10:57 GMT -5
But your point was T. rex had longer legs, which is simply incorrect. Carcharodontosaurus had longer legs. And at lenght parity, Carcharodontosaurus is also a lighter animal, so that's not an accurate base for parity comparisons (especially if the skeletal is was too skinny in most regards) For one, the longer leg idea was proposed on Carnivora. So talk to those knuckle-heads about it, not me. And I never said anything against carcharodontosaurus being a lighter animal at parity Edit: when you claim that carcharodontosaurus had longer legs, are you talking about parity or when comparing the biggest specimens of each animal? You are failing to answer that simple question. Yes, a larger theropod would normally have longer legs, but you are not verifying whether or not you are talking parity.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 22, 2013 13:25:44 GMT -5
I'm on my phone, so quoting is a huge pain. Anyway, I would first like to acknowledge that I believed tyrannosaurus to have proportionally longer legs because people talked about that over and over again on Carnivora. If you are trying to disprove me, then talk to the people on carnivora, because they were the ones who explained it to me.
And it's not like I posted it when I didn't believe it. You disproved me AFTER I said that... If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Oct 23, 2013 19:28:23 GMT -5
When I was talking proportionally I was referring to length parity. Because carcharodontosaurus is a generally lighter animal than tyrannosaurus, it would have to be bigger than its opposer to be at weight parity, in which case its legs would be longer.
That is my point right there.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jan 19, 2014 23:10:28 GMT -5
The same thing can be said about tyrannosaurids against animals considerably larger than themselves. Tyrannosaurus would most likely not target its opposer's flanks or back, as not only do its jaws lack the adaptively wide gape and thin slicing dentition of carcharodontosaurus (which are adaptations for attacking the flanks of particularly large animals such as sauropods, for example), but they were also poorly-adapted for taking down comparably larger animals than itself (they possessed a very wide morphology and powerful biting force, implying that vertebral damage was most likely coming from a tyrannosaurid in killing, and predation on animals like ceratopsians and ankylosaurs were evolved). If this was at maximum sizes (assuming carcharodontosaurus is the larger of the two, which I firmly believe that it was based on the size reconstructions that I have seen), tyrannosaurus would not be able to just "crush" the allosaur's ribs, and possibly would not even be able to attack its back or neck due to leverage and height disadvantages.
As well, strong bite forces are not relevant in allosaur predation. Allosaurs were best adapted for killing larger animals than themselves, and would have only used their mandible in actual feeding in favor of the utilization of their rostrum alone when killing. Their possession of an adaptively deep rostrum and powerful necks (lacking exceptionally powerful jaws, however) tells us that carcharodontosaurus could easily kill smaller animals than itself through the use of the hatchet-bite technique.
Comparably powerful legs (although not as much in its case, I believe), considerably longer and more useful forearms (they were not used in killing, but they would have been useful as grappling tools in allosaurs when hunting), generally deadlier teeth (much sharper and have much smaller reliance on bite force to make them effective. They were adapted to slice and rip, not crush, respectively), comparably powerful neck, and adaptively deeper rostrum (for use in predation on larger animals).
Talking about intelligence in dinosaur match-ups is unwise. Not much is known about dinosaur intelligence, unless extensive studies on their cranial morphology can be found or put into place. Do you have any of these studies, if there are any?
Are you talking about potency or strength? Tyrannosaurus has the obvious advantage in terms of strength here, and potency relies on which part of an animal's body is being bitten. Carcharodontosaurus was poorly adapted for crushing and causing similar amounts of skeletal damage as tyrannosaurus, that is the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Jan 20, 2014 7:24:39 GMT -5
Bite force-irrelevant if their bites were completely different.
Intelligence-irrelevant provided the discrepancy is not ridiculously, humongously huge. Not to mention, our only indicator (which I think is brain size) is not very good at determining intelligence.
|
|
batcheno
Invertebrate
Leopard kills caiman
Posts: 186
|
Post by batcheno on Nov 29, 2016 18:46:55 GMT -5
The carcharodontosaurus is faster and bigger than the tree rex and the carcharodontosaurus is the winner
|
|
|
Post by jouletrix on Sept 4, 2018 16:37:43 GMT -5
this stuff is outdated based on new information and the ecosytems they both lived in i give this to tyrannosaurs rex literally most of the time its like a cheetah vs a spotted hyena.
|
|
|
Post by jouletrix on Sept 4, 2018 16:41:27 GMT -5
also anything that these guys will and can use in a fight is relevant i beleive since they would simply be using them in a fight
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 2, 2019 12:23:06 GMT -5
Id say T rex would've won 70% of the time, the t rex wouldve had the clear cut advantage in this fight, it had, a stronger bite force, better vision, better smell, better senses, bulkier, and had a stronger skull, carchars skull was relatively weak, its skull was used to slash dinos with its teeth and make them bleed out, t rex wouldve just needed one bite to end it. The fact is Simple T rex is far more powerful, it also has a more devastating killing weapon, bigger brain, stereoscopic vision, and so on, all this gives a huge stomp to carchar.
|
|
jakenino
Single celled organism
Posts: 6
|
Post by jakenino on Jul 3, 2019 7:27:43 GMT -5
Id say T rex would've won 70% of the time, the t rex wouldve had the clear cut advantage in this fight, it had, a stronger bite force, better vision, better smell, better senses, bulkier, and had a stronger skull, carchars skull was relatively weak, its skull was used to slash dinos with its teeth and make them bleed out, t rex wouldve just needed one bite to end it. The fact is Simple T rex is far more powerful, it also has a more devastating killing weapon, bigger brain, stereoscopic vision, and so on, all this gives a huge stomp to carchar. i agree , i give this too tyranasaurus as well but i do not think this is a stomp , both sides have a good chance to win
|
|