Giganotosaurus vs. T. rex

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#5964 Jan 10, 2013
Isn't there new data downsizing Carcharodontosaurus' skull to only 142cm rather than 160cm as previously?
It would put it somewhere in the gigantic chasm between Giganotosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus I belive.

“Australia's #1 Paleontologist”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5965 Jan 10, 2013
Spinodontosaurus wrote:
Isn't there new data downsizing Carcharodontosaurus' skull to only 142cm rather than 160cm as previously?
It would put it somewhere in the gigantic chasm between Giganotosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus I belive.
I have not heard about this either- any sources?

Which Carcharodontosaurus species are you talking about, saharicus or iguidensis?

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#5966 Jan 10, 2013
To quote 7Alx from IP:
7Alx wrote:
Giganotosaurus would be even smaller than previously though. According to Carrano and others MUCPv-Ch1 femur is 136.5 cm rather than reported 143 cm. And the skull would be comparable in length to Tyrannosaurus skull. Also Carcharodontosaurus skull is downsized to 142 cm.

Carrano, M.T., Benson, R.B.J. & Sampson, S.D.(2012) "The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda)" Journal of Systematic Palaeontology
I would imagine this applies to C. saharicus, however, I don't know what affect - if any - it will have on C. iguidensis.

“Australia's #1 Paleontologist”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5967 Jan 10, 2013
"The skull would be comparable in length to Tyrannosaurus' skull"

That's a pretty big downgrade...

Giga's skull was 1.95m (1.8m for holotype). T.rex's largest skull was just over 1.5m. A 40cm drop in skull length??????

I will need to see this source myself to believe it :D

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#5968 Jan 10, 2013
Never did understand that myself. Even assuming they mean MOR 008 and not FMNH PR2081 that isn't even close. And that is me taking into acount Scott Hartman's new(ish) reconstruction of Giganotosaurus with a skull ~160cm long (estimated based on the femur length, skeletal was done when 143cm was the accepted figure for the femur).

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/140/0/...

Of course this new femur length data will require editting of the skeletal, which I might roughly try myself sometime later tonight.
PredatorAPEX1

Kent, WA

#5969 Jan 10, 2013
Skull size can matter in any case.In a fight,flood,or even getting burnt by lava can preserve the skull.Possibly changing th skull size.Gigantosaurus's skull was about 143 cm.The skull could have been preserved in a situation.Life or death.But in order for the skull to fully preserve is to die on even ground.
well then

San Francisco, CA

#5970 Jan 10, 2013
Paleoworld-101 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, i have not yet heard this. Perhaps that means Carcharodontosaurus was bigger than Giganotosaurus after all.
It's nice to finally have someone to talk dinosaurs with, everyone else on this forum right now are downright idiots (except for a very limited few).
DO you really have to insult me and PAZB at every possible time? You are not a dinosaur forum master race. You are just another person who just thinks he is better than all the others. You're not special. Nobody loves you. Get out of the forum. Et cetera.

“Australia's #1 Paleontologist”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5971 Jan 10, 2013
well then wrote:
<quoted text>
DO you really have to insult me and PAZB at every possible time? You are not a dinosaur forum master race. You are just another person who just thinks he is better than all the others. You're not special. Nobody loves you. Get out of the forum. Et cetera.
:D

You just assume i was referring to you and BR?

Get over yourself mate, stop whining and actually contribute. Sheesh.
PredatorAPEX1

Kent, WA

#5973 Jan 10, 2013
At least try.
Rexby

Honolulu, HI

#5974 Jan 10, 2013
T Rex wins!!! You sucker fat giant non-agile not strong giganotosaurus!!! Also t Rex is heavier
Zach

Mullica Hill, NJ

#5975 Jan 10, 2013
Alright I have had enough bullshit
First of all trex points to a scavenger.
1) amazing sense of smell
2) powerful bite force( can make most of meal)
3) his hips are In proportion to his shin which means slower and can travel farther in search of carcasses
4) everything that lived around him was smaller nothing would challenge him to a carcass but anther Rex
5)arms would be useless in hunt for prey
I tend to think of rex as a huge hyena can hunt if it wants to but prefers to scavenge I say he scavenges 65% of the time and hunts 35% of the time
Still don't get me wrong amazing Dino very powerful but out of it's league( what I mean by that everything it hunted was smaller and armoured, like triceratops and ankylosaurus) wasn't made for fighting other big killers!!!!
Zach

Mullica Hill, NJ

#5976 Jan 10, 2013
65% scavenges sorry god damn autocorrect

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#5977 Jan 11, 2013
Points against Tyrannosaurus being an obligate scavenger:
- Easily capable of killing prey (strong bite)
- Was a fast runner
- There was absolutely nothing in Tyrannosaurus' habitat that was capable of killing anything large except Tyrannosaurus itself. Even if Nanotyrannus is a seperate species it toow ould be a scavenger IF Tyrannosaurus was for the same reasons. The next largest predator was the 200kg pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus.
- There are no modern obligate scavengers except high-flying birds. In fact, it may be impossible for a scavenger to be anything BUT a bird.
- There is evidence of Tyrannosaurus engaging in active hunting as shown by healed bite marks on an Edmontosaurus vertabrae and Triceratops horn (= animal was alive when bitten).
- A family that evolved to be both huge and fast moving would not do so to aid scavenging behaviour.

To rebut your points:
1) amazing sense of smell
2) powerful bite force( can make most of meal)
These are not evidence of scavenging behaviour.
Furthermore, it did not just have amazing sense of smell but an amazing sensory system all around, including Hawk-rivaling binocular vision and a great sense of balance.
3) his hips are In proportion to his shin which means slower and can travel farther in search of carcasses
His femur IS longer in relation to it's tibia and foot than ultra-cursorial dinosaurs such as Struthio (Ostrich), ornithomimids and even it's own juveniles. But that does not mean it was especially slow. Quite the opposite, it was rather fast compared to other large theropods.
If this is evidence of Tyrannosaurus being a scavenger, it is evidence of ALL large theropods being a scavenger. Carcharodontosaurids and spinosaurids in particular.
4) everything that lived around him was smaller nothing would challenge him to a carcass but anther Rex
As noted before, this means that there was not anything around that could actually kill anything of substantial size. 50kg dromaeosaurids and 200kg azhdarchids cannot kill anything but very small (<100kg) prey.
If you meant this to apply to prey as well, then you are actually arguing in favour in NOT being a scavenger twice over, as small prey are easy enough to kill in the first place.
5)arms would be useless in hunt for prey
With a 140cm head with the strongest jaws of any known terrestrial animal, combined with 4 inch* bone-crushing teeth, it doesn't NEED small arms which is evidenced by the fact tyrannosauridae selectively developed small arms.

Basal early theropods had long arms and small heads. The majority of predatory theropods later evolved in the opposite direction - small arms and big heads - with the notable exceptions of eudromaeosaurs and megalosauroids.
Again, if this is evidence for scavenging in Tyrannosaurus, it applies to several other groups of theropods.

I would like to add that the only notable advocate of the scavenging hypothesis was Jack Horner who retracted it IN 2009. Aproaching FOUR years ago. He brought the theory up to get the paleo community to think more objectively and promote analysis of data rather than jumping to seemingly logical conclusions. He was probably never serious about it in the first place.

*Although the tooth length is often quoted at 12 inches (which it was; the largest tooth found with specimen FMNH PR2081 was 12 inches total length), this is hugely misleading. Two-thirds of said length is embedded in the skull and functions as the root. Only the top third would be visible.
Nathan

Tokyo, Japan

#5978 Jan 11, 2013
T.rex might be a scavenger(or not)
but being scavenger doesn't mean you always lose
scavengers often have to fight to other carnivore for its meal
like a hyena chase of a panther, T.rex have a better chance to win as a scavenger
PredatorAPEX1

Kent, WA

#5979 Jan 11, 2013
being a scavenger is rare.Because a dead animal's nutrients decompose.Meaning that the parts are not as good.

“Australia's #1 Paleontologist”

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#5980 Jan 11, 2013
T.rex was a large animal, hence it needed a LOT of food to sustain itself (especially if it turns out to be warm blooded).

This amount of food simply can't be found just by scavenging, it isn't a reliable food source (carrion availability obviously varies). If a T.rex was hungry, i doubt it would be waiting around for something to die.

Perhaps the strongest evidence of T.rex as a hunter is the bite marks found on other dino bones, inparticular, the bones HEALED indicating that the animal survived the attack and the T.rex must have therefore attacked it while it was alive.

There are other points as well but i think Spinodontosaurus covered them well enough.
Rexby

Honolulu, HI

#5981 Jan 12, 2013
T Rex was the heaviest theropod, weighing 8-16 tons. That's big!!!

“BOOMER WILL LIVE”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#5982 Jan 13, 2013
Estimates for Sue range from 5 to 9 tonnes.

These estimate boundaries correspond to ~10 tonnes and ~20 tonnes for the largest specimen of Spinosaurus; MSNM V4047.

So not quite the heaviest... But certainly up there...! If you discount MN 6117-V of Oxalaia (and CMN 50791 of Spinosaurus marocannus if it is a distinct species) that is.
Dino researcher

Chennai, India

#5983 Jan 13, 2013
I support Giga.Tyranosauroidea is just right.
Rexby

Honolulu, HI

#5984 Jan 13, 2013
Spinodontosaurus wrote:
Estimates for Sue range from 5 to 9 tonnes.
These estimate boundaries correspond to ~10 tonnes and ~20 tonnes for the largest specimen of Spinosaurus; MSNM V4047.
So not quite the heaviest... But certainly up there...! If you discount MN 6117-V of Oxalaia (and CMN 50791 of Spinosaurus marocannus if it is a distinct species) that is.
wrong.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Megasquid vs Mammoth 14 hr Kiryu2012 1
Godzilla vs Empirosaur 14 hr Kiryu2012 1
Ovosaurus vs Lion 14 hr Kiryu2012 1
Smilotyrannus vs Siberian Tiger 15 hr Kiryu2012 1
Gigantelope vs Rhinoceros 15 hr Kiryu2012 1
Discord y Godzilla 18 hr Kiryu2012 1
Alduin y Twilight Sparkle 18 hr Kiryu2012 1
More from around the web