Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 4, 2013 15:54:13 GMT -5
TyrannosarOIDS were not necessarily characterized by powerful bites, but tyrannosaurids (at least large ones) are generally heavier in build and more powerful than most other theropods. Of course, this does not apply to all tyrannosaurids, as evidenced by nanotyrannus (which was a relatively gracile animal, especially for being a tyrannosaurid). Although Albertosaurus had a less powerfully-built skull and jaw structure than tyrannosaurus, that does NOT imply that it was a weak animal in general; it was still much more heavily-built than most other theropods.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 4, 2013 18:01:59 GMT -5
TyrannosarOIDS were not necessarily characterized by powerful bites, but tyrannosaurids (at least large ones) are generally heavier in build and more powerful than most other theropods. Of course, this does not apply to all tyrannosaurids, as evidenced by nanotyrannus (which was a relatively gracile animal, especially for being a tyrannosaurid). Although Albertosaurus had a less powerfully-built skull and jaw structure than tyrannosaurus, that does NOT imply that it was a weak animal in general; it was still much more heavily-built than most other theropods. Albertosaurus wasn't necessarily a weak animal, but being an albertosaurine, it was more gracile than tyrannosaurines such as Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus, which obviously means it would have less of a chance against Diceros bicornis than a similar-sized tyrannosaurine. I think I also remember talking to theropod that the tooth bending strengths of Gorgosaurus and even Daspletosaurus (and could very well hold true for Albertosaurus) were might have been similar to those of Allosaurus. While Allosaurus didn't necessarily have a weak bite, it didn't really need such a particularly high bite force if it had a dentition of slicing teeth. If the tooth bending strengths for the two tyrannosaurids he mentioned were true, well then it would obviously have a harder time killing a black rhinoceros. Also, I do remember talking about an idea that Tyrannosaurus could have bitten off the horns of animals to protect itself. I'm not so sure anymore that it extended to other tyrannosaurids anymore.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 4, 2013 19:37:06 GMT -5
The main problem I have with the claim that allosaurus and albertosaurines had similar tooth strengths is the fact that their teeth were completely different in shape. Tyrannosaurid teeth would naturally be more resistant to bending due to their sub-conical and spike-like morphology as opposed to the thinner, more knife-like teeth of allosauroids. Can I see his post?
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 4, 2013 20:35:50 GMT -5
The main problem I have with the claim that allosaurus and albertosaurines had similar tooth strengths is the fact that their teeth were completely different in shape. Tyrannosaurid teeth would naturally be more resistant to bending due to their sub-conical and spike-like morphology as opposed to the thinner, more knife-like teeth of allosauroids. Can I see his post? The teeth of Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus are actually more laterally compressed than you think. Gorgosaurus tooth www.indiana9fossils.com/dinosaurs/Gorgosaurus-Teeth.htmDaspletosaurus tooth www.indiana9fossils.com/dinosaurs/Daspletosaurus.htmAllosaurus tooth I trust that you don't need me to show what Tyrannosaurus' tooth would look like in a lateral view.
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Nov 5, 2013 4:11:42 GMT -5
Just some guyMan, cool it will you? Geez. I made those posts months ago before you came here. I am still reading the sources you posted and am reconsidering my stance.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 5, 2013 6:25:14 GMT -5
I'm not necessarily mad.
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 5, 2013 6:45:44 GMT -5
Though, if I sounded aggressive and since I didn't realize those were months old, then I would like to apologize for that.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 5, 2013 9:14:05 GMT -5
I never said anything in the regard that the teeth of gorgosaurus and daspletosaurus were not at least partially laterally compressed and serrated; they were still thicker in cross section than allosaurid teeth, built much more like spikes than steak knives. Subconical = oval. I don't know why theropod would even go as far to call tyrannosaurid power a myth, as their skull, jaw, and tooth structure says otherwise
And rhino, I don't remember you ever posting sonething like that before. Can you show me?
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Nov 5, 2013 12:11:10 GMT -5
I never said anything in the regard that the teeth of gorgosaurus and daspletosaurus were not at least partially laterally compressed and serrated; they were still thicker in cross section than allosaurid teeth, built much more like spikes than steak knives. Subconical = oval. I don't know why theropod would even go as far to call tyrannosaurid power a myth, as their skull, jaw, and tooth structure says otherwise And rhino, I don't remember you ever posting sonething like that before. Can you show me? It was to show that other tyrannosaurids did not exactly have the extreme bone-crushing capabilities of their most famous relative. I think Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus, etc. might have been "in between" a slicing and crushing bite, though probably somewhat more on the "crushing side". And theropod did mention they likely applied greater adductor forces than Allosaurus, it's just that probably not all tyrannosaurids were the extreme, bone-crushing animals people think of them as (like Tyrannosaurus).
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 5, 2013 12:58:11 GMT -5
I never said anything in the regard that the teeth of gorgosaurus and daspletosaurus were not at least partially laterally compressed and serrated; they were still thicker in cross section than allosaurid teeth, built much more like spikes than steak knives. Subconical = oval. I don't know why theropod would even go as far to call tyrannosaurid power a myth, as their skull, jaw, and tooth structure says otherwise And rhino, I don't remember you ever posting sonething like that before. Can you show me? It was to show that other tyrannosaurids did not exactly have the extreme bone-crushing capabilities of their most famous relative. I think Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus, etc. might have been "in between" a slicing and crushing bite, though probably somewhat more on the "crushing side". And theropod did mention they likely applied greater adductor forces than Allosaurus, it's just that probably not all tyrannosaurids were the extreme, bone-crushing animals people think of them as (like Tyrannosaurus). Ah, I see. That is definitely true for the less robust species such as Albertosaurus and gorgosaurus, but they were still very well adapted for crushing nonetheless. Tyrannosaurus teeth, however, were still generally the same shape: thick and subconical with serrations.
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Nov 7, 2013 17:50:00 GMT -5
Albertosaurus wins, it is larger and i actually think it could disable the rhino's horn given its powerful bite force (t.rex was once suspected to bite the horns of a triceratops, i don't see why it couldn't happen here).
I would actually think an albertosaurus could even give some real trouble to a white rhino, let alone a black rhino.
|
|