Cretaceous Carnage #7

Alright, Gonna have to go 55-45 in favor of C. Dentisulcatus.

8.8 meters is an internet invention, a myth. C. Dentisulcatus is based on teeth, and allometrically scaling from teeth is a terrible idea. But, if we absolutely had to, ~7.3 meters is the best estimate. A Ceratosaurus measuring 7.3 meters would weigh in the ballpark of 1200-1500 lbs, big for the species.

Now, even though carnotaurus had the height advantage its teeth are relatively small compared to the jaw. The jaws of this particular species aren't particularly strong either, say compared to the other abelisaurids;

While heavily built in the frontal view, it'sis relatively shallow and narrow from this view. Compared to that of Ceratosaurus(Nasicornis in this example) It looks absolutely tiny. Dentisulcatus,being the largest species, would have a skull that absolutely dwarfs it.

Thus, it would have the more powerfulbite between the two, though both aren't relatively impressive. Ceratosaurus also had the more useable arms - as those of Carnotaurus are vestigial and wouldn't be much use at all. 

At parity sizes, i'd favor the Abelisaur but in this match-up, the Ceratosaur takes this.

Bit biased, but I would want Carnotaurus to win. The TLW novel version of Carnotaurus would have an advantage although obviously that is fictional.

I'd say 55-45 for Carnotaurus.

while it may have a almost useless jaw design it has many other advantages over the Ceratosaurus.

first of all its heavier and stornger. And while it may not have useful jaws, it has different weapon, a robust skull with robust horns at the end. I feel that combined with the speed in strength of Carnotaurus, the horns would be more then enough to defeat Ceratosaurus the majority of the time.

Well, Scott Hartman put C. dentisulcatus at ~7.0 meters and 1,500 kg. That roughly translates to 22 feet and 3,300 lbs (1.65 tons)

The holotype - and olnly Carnotaurus was around 70 percent complete when they unearthedit, and seeing the cervical vertebrate were fully sutured, it appears to be a fully grown animal. The holotype measures 8.2 meters and weighs 2100 kg, which translates over to 25 feet and a weight of 4,629lbs(2.3 tons) so it does have a small weight advantage.

But, C. dentisulcatus is more robustly built and has a stronger jaw. Carnotaurus has those long, slender legs that would definetly give it an agility edge over Ceratosaurus, but it can't do a whole lot with those jaws. The teeth are tiny,and i don't think they'd be able to do much damage

So.. second line predator vs likely scavenger? Ceratosaurus takes this on for me(although I do like carnotaurus better). 57/43 in flavor of ceratosaurus.

I'm going Carnotaurus 55-45 it was bigger, more robust, and speedy. Also while it teeth maybe small, it had very strong neck muscles.which could be used to hold on to the prey. And of course speed combined with the head butt with definitely crack bone

Ceratosaurus. It had a more lethal bite and, something many haven't focused on is that it actually had usable arms/claws.

Also, what about Ceratosaurus ingens? It's a pretty large species of Ceratosaurus...

55-45% Ceratosaurus.

I think a good analogy would be a track star vs a wrestler. The track star is taller and faster, but the wrestler is far stronger. It's no contest in the end.

I'd give this one 70-30 in favor of Ceratosaurus.

65-35 in Cerato's favour. Sure, it was smaller. That's where the disadvantages stop though. It had some of the largest teeth proportianately, a nasty bite for  it's size, it was pretty agile, fast, and useable arms. Sure, Carno was tough and had those horns, but that'll only do so much for a short time. 

Ok, why do you all think carnotaurs could use his horns? I am sure it couldn't because its skull wasn't right for it. And it skull was fragile enough and quite weak... It would be able to take that amount of stess. It's skull produced a very weak bite and that was its only weapon. It's arms were utterly useles. It was fast and a bit larger, That's it. Ceratosaurs like me.hsppy said had huge teeth, powerful arms tipped with claws. And he wmy more agile. Ceratosaurs would win the majority.70-30 in favor of ceratosaurs.

I do think it's horns weren't it's primary weapons. It MAY have used them, but I doubt it was on a regular basis, at least on large animals.

I agree rex fan. They just would be useful in combat against an equally sized carnivore.

Ok, I'm going to set some stuff straight...

first off all, those horns weren't useless... Carnotaurus had a Storng skull, and those horns are robust as hell. 

And Lets not forget Carnotaurus was likely stornger. As it was heavier and just as if not more robust then Ceratosaurus and, was faster.

Ceratosaurus Definetly has a better bite and useful arms but, a stronger and faster animal with Bull like horns is probably going to come out on top the majority of the time.

also, there's a moisconception that almost evreybody on this forum believes... it is that a stornger bite force equals a deadlier bite. Which, honestly is not true. A overly powerful bite is only needed against ARMOURED prey... What really matters are the teeth, which there is ussualy no "better tooth design" unless the tooth doesn't have serrations.

A tooth twice as big as another is gonna leave a much bigger and deeper injury and Ceratosaurus had massive teeth.

BTW, just look at the skull of Carnotaurus...

I wouldn't call that a strong skull.

Ya carnotaurs is adapted to hunting small prey due to its small skull and tiny teeth. The horns are not as combat oriented as you guys think the horns are fairly small. plus when ceratosaurs bites carnosaur's neck it won't be able to fend off the cerato cause of its lack of arms and appropriate jaws.

What about the muscle that layered its thick neck. That would help Carnotaurus rip and twist off flesh from the ceratosaurus  

TK, if you know SO MUCH what ep were those horns used for if not fighting? Huh. Probably not mating unless the bulls rammed each other which would mean they were meant for combat.

also, you guys don't seem to to factor in the Carnotaurus size, strength, and speed. 

Also TK the Carno wouldnt just stand there waiting to get killed. It will probably shake around and try to move around and shift the ceratosaurus off

What about ceratosaurs huge teeth and powerful arms? That surly will take a toll on carnotaurs.

Studies show that Carnotaurus was capable of quick bites, but not strong ones. This is perfect for capturing small, fast prey, but not good for dealing with large animals. This would line up with it's speed, suggesting a fast theropod like Carnotaurus could run down quick prey, snap his jaws quickly, and grab it.

Still not factoring in the horns, speed and strength... 

Carnotaurs horns wre for show most likely. Bigger Horton the better the male.

alot like ceratosaurus horns.......

Speed doesn't help as much as you think it does in a fight . 

Its strength will be useless.

Probably not... Ceratosaurus horns a thin and delicate while Carnotaurus horns are robust sturdy. A good feature for combat.

I don't think Carnotaurus was stronger than Ceratosaurus. It was an animal built for speed. Fast animals like Carnotaurus, cheetahs, Deltadromeus, etc. aren't all that powerful. Speed is really only helpful if the Carnotaurus is chasing something, not fighting. Agility would be helpful, but I think both dinosaurs had a similar agility. Carnotaurus had long legs, but Ceratosaurus was a bit smaller. It probably evened out in that regard.

really.... Speed, aglity and strenght don't help in a fight... I think this is a comedy club not a debate.

How would it not be stornger?? So what it's faster! It's heavier and just as robust!

They don't. Cheetah vs lion, deltadromeus vs spinoosaurus, ceratosaurs vs carnotaurs. Carnotaurs was built for speed not strength. Ceratosaurs was the opposite.