Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 12:17 PM- use of wikipedia is to leave room for debate on size or whathaveyou. i know it isn't always accurate.
so, today's match-up is...
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus v Tyrannosaurus rex
C. saharicus
Carcharodontosaurus includes some of the longest and heaviest known carnivorous dinosaurs, with various scientists proposing length estimates for the species C. saharicusranging between 12 and 13 m (39 and 43 ft) and weight estimates between 6 and 15 metric tons.
Carcharodontosaurus were carnivores, with enormous jaws and long, serrated teeth up to eight inches long. Paleontologists once thought that Carcharodontosaurus had the longest skulls of any of the theropod dinosaurs. However, the premaxilla and quadrate bones were missing from the original African skull, which led to misinterpretation of its actual size by researchers. A more modest length of 1.6 meters (5.2 ft) has now been proposed for C. saharicus, and the skull of C. iguidensis is reported to have been about the same size.Currently, the largest known theropod skull belongs to another huge carcharodontosaurid dinosaur, the closely relatedGiganotosaurus (with skull length estimates up to 1.95 m) (6.3 ft).Gregory S. Paul estimates Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis at 10 m (33 ft) and 4 t (4.4 short tons).
T. rex
Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to its large and powerful hind limbs, Tyrannosaurus fore limbs were short but unusually powerful for their size and had two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. In fact, the most complete specimen measures up to 12.3 m (40 ft) in length,[3] up to 4 metres (13 ft) tall at the hips, and up to 6.8 metric tons (7.5 short tons) in weight.[5] By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, and possibly sauropods, although some experts have suggested the dinosaur was primarily a scavenger. The debate about whether Tyrannosaurus was an apex predator or scavenger was among the longest ongoing feud in paleontology; however, most scientists now agree that Tyrannosaurus rex was an opportunistic carnivore, acting as both a predator and a scavenger. It is estimated to be capable of exerting one of the largest bite forces among all terrestrial animals.
let the show begin..
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Silver_Falcon
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 1:55 PMAssuming they're both fully grown, I say the odds are slightly in T. rex's favor.
Size:
Carchar may be slightly longer and taller, but T. rex likely was heavier. Rex's weight would've been more useful in a fight unless it fell over, so I'm giving him the edge. Winner: T. rex
Weaponry:
Carchar has the arms, though I must question if their range of motion would've inhibited their usefullness. For bites, they both have their pros. Carchar's bite will bleed, but T. rex's bite will crush. In a fight, the crushing bite will usually win. If Carchar's arms did have a decent range of motion however, carchar wins here. Winner: indeterminate.
Intelligence:
While many people here disagree with me on this, I say they're virtually even. T. rex did have the bigger brain, but much of it was for keeping track of, and interpretting, the senses of such a large animal. what was for thinking, was nearly on par with a Crocodile. These are in no way intelligent creatures. Winner: Draw
Defenses:
Simply by looking at the skeletons we can know that T. rex was most certainly the sturdier animal. Case closed. Winner: T. rex
Having taken all of this into account, I say about 40 Rex, 30 draw, 30 Carchar.
A fight between these two would be a very impressive sight to behold, with both animals dealing massive amounts of damage to eachother. As soon as the rex gets a good bite in though, it is all over for Carchar. If carchar can get a few decent bites in however, the rex could very well bleed to death.
Here, have a waffle (-'.')-#
Tyrant king
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 1:59 PMSo t.rex wins because it is bulkier.
and I say many theropods were somewhat smart.
and crocodiles are pretty smart.
Silver_Falcon
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 2:42 PMYes, crocodiles are smart, in the sense that they know how to catch food, kill it, and eat it. compared to many animals however, a crocodile isn't special. I also didn't mean to imply that theropods are dumb, no. Theropods were likely intelligent enough animals. What I was saying is that in a fight between two large carnivores whose intelligence is virtually on par, it doesn' play a factor.
Here, have a waffle (-'.')-#
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 2:54 PManimals don't fight with intelligience anyway. hey fight via instinct
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Spinofan
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 3:30 PMI simply cannot accept the suggestion that T. rex was primarily a scavenger for the simple fact that a creature of this size would require a great deal of food neccessitating the instinct to hunt. In addition, I don't see a scavenger having such highly developed senses if its primary function was to wander around in hopes of finding food. This would be especially true of mothers or even fathers caring for their young.
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 4:12 PMSpinofan, you're waayyyy late on that subject matter. that(By 'that' i mean horner's theory) was debunked quite a while ago
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
Spinofan
MemberCompsognathusFeb-07-2015 4:45 PMI'm glad to hear it because the whole idea annoyed the heck out of me.
Lord Vader
MemberTyrannosaurus RexFeb-08-2015 7:40 AMGotta agree with Silver on this. Nothing against Charcar, but he's just plain outgunned against the King.
Jack of all trades. Master of none
Carnosaur
MemberCompsognathusFeb-08-2015 10:41 AMC. saharicus is outgunned in the bite force department. that's a fact. it does, however, have dentition meant to slice and a significantly wider gape, which is going to be just as useful here.
Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
