Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..

[DinoFan83]

(09-26-2019, 09:15 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(09-26-2019, 08:41 PM)DinoFan83 Wrote:

(09-26-2019, 08:13 PM)Spalea Wrote: @DinoFan83 

10 cm longer over a 150 cm longed-skull and you say that he “much more chance on landing a decisive bite” ?
You don’t want to understand, ok, end of game.

Oh, sorry! Maybe you misunderstood me.
The message I was trying to convey, simplified:
-Even with a 12.5% mass disadvantage, Giganotosaurus still has a bigger skull
-At parity, a larger skull would give it more of a chance of landing a decisive bite
-That gives it the win

1:Bigger in what sense....
Longer?
Wider?
Heavier?

2: What about teeth as well? 
Bending Strength, Robustness, Length?

3: There are many factors that goes into it.
Tigers for instance have a shorter skull than Lions but usually are wider a parity with larger muscle attachments and thus their bite force is higher. 
A 3'' difference in length on a long skull isn't more of an advantage than a heavier, wider and more muscle packed skull.

4: Neither animal is going to kill the other with one bite, thus the one that does more damage usually wins out. 


5: But there are examples against that too...
For instance a GWS vs a Croc

Crocs have a higher biter force while sharks have a more damaging bite but this shows clearly in their preferred method of attack.
GWS's will bite then sit back and let the prey bleed out while a Croc will bite and hold, but I'm not sure eithers teeth fit into the sharks category, correct?

1: Yes, it is longer. Weight is likely similar while T rex has a slightly (key; slightly wider skull, and at the base, not really the jaw)
See this chart for a better idea: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/583074799836856350/617003995638005770/comparison.jpg
2: Length is similar, robustness and strength are inferior but that is irrelevant as they do not need to be strong in that area for Giganotosaurus' strategy
3: My point was that the Giganotosaurus still possessed a larger skull with a 12.5% mass disadvantage, therefore its skull would be somewhat larger than that at parity
4: And they are equal in that regard - ignoring other factors such as size of the skull, a bite from a T rex/Tarbosaurus or Giganotosaurus would be equally deadly.
5: Yes, good example. That should fit well here.

Seriously, I don't see what makes a tyrannosaurid's bite supposedly more deadly than that of a same sized carnosaur. Reply