Spinosaurus vs Carcharodontosaurus

[Deinobrontornis]

Feb 1, 2012 15:11:21 GMT -5 Super Communist said:

^ ^ ^
DAMN! You're the same people that chose Tyrannosaurus over Spinosaurus in a fight--a Theropod with no arms of any substantial length and a much smaller body size. Please explain this double standard.

Tyrannosaurus has a stronger bite, a more robust body, and binocular vision.

Carcharadontosaurus has arms that it can barely use.

Carcharodontosaurus skull:


Tyrannosaurus skull:


And what exactly is the difference?

[Super Communist]

Here are some more robust tyrannosaur skulls;











Oh and there is also this;

[Venomous Dragon]

Feb 4, 2012 19:31:39 GMT -5 Deinobrontornis said:

Feb 1, 2012 15:11:21 GMT -5 Super Communist said:

Tyrannosaurus has a stronger bite, a more robust body, and binocular vision.

Carcharadontosaurus has arms that it can barely use.

Carcharodontosaurus skull:


Tyrannosaurus skull:


And what exactly is the difference?

Even with these cherry picked photos you can tell that trex has a more robust skull.

[Deinobrontornis]

Feb 5, 2012 1:08:48 GMT -5 Venomous Dragon said:

Feb 4, 2012 19:31:39 GMT -5 Deinobrontornis said:

Carcharodontosaurus skull:


Tyrannosaurus skull:


And what exactly is the difference?

Even with these cherry picked photos you can tell that trex has a more robust skull.

They look pretty damn similar to me.

[Anomonyous]

That's probably because the tyrannosaurus in the bottom picture is not quite fully grown; the skull isn't as tall, deep, or large. It's too level, there's not as much contrast in height between the back other skull and the front. The teeth are also too short. In an adult the front teeth (not counting the root) can be 6 inches long. Stick out of the jaw like blades. In the bottom pic, however, the skull is more reminiscent of a smaller theropod like albertosaurus. That's generally the case with young tyrannosauruses that aren't quite yet mature.

Did some researching and found that the tyrannosaurus model was 36 feet long. So, perhaps. At any rate this skull is not nearly typical. On another note, Sue's skull also seems to be somewhat out of the ordinary. Definitely not the shape I associate with a tyrannosaurus skull. Not because the skull isn't robust or the teeth are small, but because the forehead slope to the snout is too gradual.



^Albertosaurus skull.



^Stan's skull. (replica)

archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/trex-giganotosaurus-comparison1.jpg

Giganotosaurus skull compared to giganotosaurus' skull. Carcharodontosaurus' skull is not any more robust than giganotosaurus'.

There is an excellent pic of a carcharodontosaurus skull, spinosaurus skull, and a tyrannosaurus skull all next to each other. Sadly, I can't find it, but you should get the point by now.

[mantisshrimp]

The one who gets the first bite will win...
BTW Carcharodontosaurus´ skull looks like it could proportionally generate more bite force Giganotosaurus´ skull, although I do not know what parts are plaster.

[Tyrannosaurus]

I vote Spinosaurus.

Jan 30, 2012 23:06:35 GMT -5 Anomonyous said:

Spinodontosaurus always said giganotosaurus would have performed better against spinosaurus than tyrannosaurus because of its larger gape. However, when you think about it, that's practically the only advantage giganotosaurus has that tyrannosaurus doesn't.

Exactly. Both have arms to small to use. T.rex is stronger and faster.

[jumbo1]

Spinosaurus is much bigger and has use of claws.

[Anomonyous]

Only if it rears up, which would take a few seconds.

[mobster]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRccVf9NEE Looks about right.

[Anomonyous]

Monsters Resurrected? Are you fricking kidding me? >_<

RAWRS! (dead)

No man, no.

[Godzillasaurus]

Feb 4, 2012 19:31:39 GMT -5 Deinobrontornis said:

Feb 1, 2012 15:11:21 GMT -5 Super Communist said:

Tyrannosaurus has a stronger bite, a more robust body, and binocular vision.

Carcharadontosaurus has arms that it can barely use.

Carcharodontosaurus skull:


Tyrannosaurus skull:


And what exactly is the difference?

Tyrannosaurids were much more robust and heavily-built theropods than any carcharodontosaurids. They were characterized by particularly thick and robust skulls and dentition (resembling serrated spikes); because of this, they were very adept at crushing and causing massive bone and vertebral damage.

Carcharodontosaurids, on the other hand, were much more lightly-built. Their skulls were very deep (they were very well-adapted for resisting vertical stress) and long, yet they were still quite thin (as in very narrow, especially in comparison to their impressive length and depth) and actually very sparse and gracile. Their teeth were also far more gracile than those of tyrannosaurids in that they were much thinner and designed for slicing and ripping as opposed to crushing. There are obvious differences between the two animals, and they were actually not that closely related. I apologize for posting this nearly two years after this originated, but I just wanted something to do.

As for the actual fight itself, spinosaurus should take this easily at maximum sizes.

[Carcharadontosaurus]

Spinosaurus wins due to size advantage.

[Godzillasaurus]

There are really plenty of important differences that you can examine here. Many people claim that carcharodontosaurus was a generally stronger animal and it is annoying! Carcharodontosaurus was NOT a stronger animal, and even if it was, spinosaurus was nowhere near weak and was in fact well suited to cope with its evolutionary niche. The main problem is that people are always claiming that spinosaurus was a "weak fish eater" and that carcharodontosaurus was better adapted for powerful feeding. This is not necessarily true but is instead the direct opposite; spinosaurus was much more highly adept for a power-based lifestyle.

This is rather COMPLETELY LOGICAL TO BELIEVE; the latter creature would have killed through the use of sheer ripping of important tissue/musculature and heavy blood loss. In which case, a high capacity for powerful predation such as the possession of an exceptionally power bite and crushing morphology is highly unnecessary. Specifically, the creatures in which allosaurs were evolved physically to hunt were generally large animals such as sauropods. This is the reason why powerful biting and reasonably blunt dentition as we see in tyrannosaurids would be disadvantageous and instead would be better off coping with moderately-sized creatures. In general, carcharodontosaurus' lifestyle/niche overall did not require a powerfully-built morphology but instead the direct opposite: a lightly-constructed and gracile skull would allow for quicker movements to impact a prey animal and it was yet quite a deep structure making resistance no problem at all in this case.

By comparison, spinosaurus was the opposite: its snout was comparably more slender in both directions owing to its high capacity to reduce drag when snatching up a fish but was yet a much more dense and robust piece overall (making gripping a small issue in this case, as its snout would not break and/or fracture very easily), its dentiton was generally more elongate and spike-like while also being generally sharper at the point and being better designed for deep impalement and gripping alike, and the prey that it was designed for taking were comparably smaller but yet also were particularly powerful (mainly large fish, but the animal was so huge that it likely took considerably-sized dinosaurs and crocodylomorphs on occasion as well). Spinosaurus was, in generally, a much more powerfully-built animal whose high capacity for gripping large fish would make predation a theoretically more grueling task than by slicing open the flanks of a larger animal. Simply put, spinosaurus was well adapted for hunting large fish with its quite strong and robustly-built snout (most specifically its rostrum) and spike-like piercing dentition while the latter had a high aptitude for attacking the flanks of larger animals and whose rostrum was more lightly-constructed and would have likely fractured more easily if it was used for gripping. The same thing goes for its teeth, they were designed like blades as opposed to sharp spikesand were designed for ripping and slashing as opposed to piercing and gripping.

Compare the two here:

images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101003190116/archosauria/images/e/e2/Skulls2.png

[Cr1TiKaL]

Spinosaurus 7/10 at average weights, but gets killed at parity.