WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Extinct Animals
›
Dinosaurs
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
|
Carnivorous dinosaurs other than the famous t-rex and spinosaurus..
|
 (09-18-2019, 03:20 AM)DinoFan56 Wrote: 1: Oh, you mean what Franoys got? They used all the biggest specimens in Giganotosaurus size territory for that, and it doesn't necessarily mean all equated to 12.47 meter, 7 ton Mapusaurus. Mapusaurus is "larger" than Giganotosaurus, but that is probably just because it was more robust, but even then, the animal seems to be no longer than Giganotosaurus. All the measurements presented and the calculations of Franoys lead to an animals of similar size of Giganotosaurus although heavier, but not close to the large weight of Tyrannosaurus. Why you think that a 10 ton T. rex is impossible? Many calculations suggest that it could reach that weight. From my point of view I think that a T. rex of 9 tons in the "maximum", but who knows... Spinosaurus was not ever near to 8 tons, it was long but light in built, so not a challenge for the large Carcharodontosaurids or T. rex. 
Megalosaurus: middle Jurassic (around 165 millions of years), Southern England, 6 meters long, 700 kilos. Heavily and robust muscled animal. In 1824 it was the first genus of non-avian dinosaurs to be validly named.
About #64: To confirm that Megalosaurus was one of the most ancient known dinosaur, here is an old depiction from 1859 of the link below:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%...saurus.jpg  *This image is copyright of its original author
(09-24-2019, 03:32 PM)Spalea Wrote: About #64: To confirm that Megalosaurus was one of the most ancient known dinosaur, here is an old depiction from 1859 of the link below: WOOOOW! One of the first representation of dinosaurs ever made. Incredible how much our knowledge has changed since the first days. (09-24-2019, 07:48 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:During the XIXth century, informatic didn't exist, thus no one data connection between two different discoveries, except if the discoverer was the same guy. Then, the modern science was only beginning to develop itself. No scientific methods, but a lot of prejudices/bias. For example, all the big animals were inevitably poorly made, badly developed. Thus the dinosaurs were depicted as being fat, stupid, and first at all as having a big tail dragged on the ground.(09-24-2019, 03:32 PM)Spalea Wrote: About #64: To confirm that Megalosaurus was one of the most ancient known dinosaur, here is an old depiction from 1859 of the link below: No wonder that the depictions were completely whimsical, fanciful... It lasted like so this till the 1960s, IMO the first scientific to have perceveied that the dinosaurs couldn't be fat and tricky, but in opposite, swift, warm-blooded and very activ, was Robert.T Bakker. Bakker was the first one to seriously describe the dinosaurs as adaptable, swift, warm-blooded beasts thus highly performing herbivor and predator animals... For example, I remember during my childhood reading that the sauropod dinosaurs were so fat that they could live only into the water, otherwise their bones will be smashed under their weight.  (09-24-2019, 04:58 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:(09-18-2019, 03:20 AM)DinoFan56 Wrote: 1: Oh, you mean what Franoys got? They used all the biggest specimens in Giganotosaurus size territory for that, and it doesn't necessarily mean all equated to 12.47 meter, 7 ton Mapusaurus. This is DinoFan56 responding. I am permanently stuck out of my old account and had to make a new one. 1: As I already said, that skeletal was made with every Mapusaurus in Giganotosaurus size territory, which a 13.6 meter, 8.5 ton animal fits into, as does a 12.2 and 12.7 meter Mapusauruses. So I have yet to see what exactly is so inaccurate about an 8.5 ton Mapusaurus, especially considering that, as previously stated, large theropods in general had very large weight variations 2: The largest T rex fossils suggest animals of about 8 tons, for one. For another, any land predator over 9 tons is not going to have a very easy time finding enough food. And finally, about the weight limit, a small error was made on my part - bipeds CAN get over 9 tons. However, they need a graviportal build (think sauropods and elephants), which T rex lacked. So, considering that both the fossil and physical evidence does not support it, a 10 ton T rex seems rather unrealistic. 3: Oh, sorry. That was a spelling error of mine you quoted. What I meant that, since it is not bipedal, it could theoretically achieve a mass of over 9 tons. I am aware of Ibrahim and Franoys' work, they state 6.5-7.5 tons. So no, Spino is not 10 tons. But, if I had to engineer any theropod to that size, it would be my choice.
Suchomimus: spinosaurid theropod lived in what is now Niger between 122 to 112 millions years ago. Suchomimus was 9,5 and 11 meters long and weighed between 2,5 to 5,2 tons. Like other spinosaurids, it likely had a diet of fish and small prey animals.
Anyhow, while we're on the topic of carnivorous dinosaurs, I may as well give my 2 cents as to why I think carnosaurs are more formidable than similar sized tyrannosaurs in a head on fight between 2 animals, contrary to what many think.
-Their bites are every bit as deadly as one another. I have absolutely no idea where the myth about crushing bites being deadlier came from. -They have more useful forelimbs. This advantage can vary from carnosaur to carnosaur, being marginal in animals such as Giganotosaurus to very prominent in animals such as Allosaurus fragilis. In any case, even when it's marginal, it's better than nothing. -They have proportionately much bigger heads as a whole. Examples: -An 8 ton T rex has a 1.5 meter skull, while a 7 ton Giganotosaurus has a 1.6 meter skull -A 7 ton Tarbosaurus has a 135.7 cm skull, while a 7 ton Mapusaurus has a 1.5 meter skull A bigger skull means a bigger bite, and therefore more damage. Therefore at weight parity and even with some weight disadvantage, most carnosaurs can do more damage with their bites than similar sized tyrannosaurs. And not to be 'pushy' or anything, but can I politely request to have my posts taken off moderation, just for the sake of convenience? I guarantee all posts will be posts that would be approved if that's doable.
@DinoFan83 :
About #70: It isn't enough to only compare the length of the skull for a same size for both carnosaurs and tyrannosaurs. Look at their skulls justly: Carnosaurs' mandible are slim and rectilinear, whereas the tyrannosaurs' one is more massive behind the last teeth, thus there are more muscle (masseter in particular) inserted onto this part of the bone. The tyrannosaurs had a more powerful jaw. An other detailed account: https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2...otosaurus/  (09-26-2019, 11:21 AM)Spalea Wrote: @DinoFan83 : That is correct. Tyrannosaurids had stronger bites than carnosaurs at similar sizes. But you don't need a strong bite to have a deadly one - the slicing and crushing mechanisms are right on par with one another. @sanjay Thanks! Much appreciated!
@DinoFan83 :
About #73: yes, you're right. But we can be sure that the T-rex's bite is a quickly deadly one provided that he ensures his grip well. The T-rex's jaw is more powerful, the t-rex's neck is far more muscular, if the skulls come into contact, I think your carnosaur, gigatanosaurus or mapusaurus, cannot withstand the assault. IMO. Look at the cervical vertebraes of the T-rex' neck ! The neck is almost broader than the back of his skull.
09-26-2019, 04:18 PM
( This post was last modified: 09-26-2019, 04:19 PM by DinoFan83
Edit Reason: forgot something
)
@Spalea
You are correct. In a fight, if T rex got the first bite, it would win. However, that can also be applied to just about any big carnosaur. The reason that neither's bite can be considered deadlier than the other is because one bite is all either one needs to win. And if you have a larger head, you have a better chance of landing that bite. Which is, as I said, one of the reasons why I find carnosaurs are superior to tyrannosaurs at parity. I'm not saying T rex's bite was not deadly. That is not the case at all. My only point is to illustrate why I think carnosaurs are a league above tyrannosaurs. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |