Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 16, 2014 22:31:07 GMT
Saurophaganax had a more efficient biting method and a more manoeuvrable skull/neck, while Torvosaurus had a stronger bite force judging from both their skulls. Overall I think the Allosaurid's bite is more efficient, but both were still very devastating.
Also, just a heads up, Saurophaganax maximus isn't exactly like Allosaurus fragilis, there are differences such as lateral, horizontal laminae along the base of the neural spine, craniocaudally expanded ends of chevrons, atlas lacks prezygapophyses for proatlas and does not roof over the spinal medulla.
Draw, S. maximus was a little larger but T. tanneri had a bulkier structure, and probaly, an stronger bite.
Torvosaurus was not bulkier, the Allosaurid had a deeper/wider torso and more centred mass. Also Saurophaganax had a more efficient biting method and a more flexible neck.
This biting method has only been suggested for Allosaurus fragilis, we have no evidence to support it on Saurophaganax maximus. As I earlier estimated, its bite should be around ~10,000 newtons, which is a lot of force. I believe it wouldn't need that biting method to kill.
Hatzegopteryx: That's not even the beginning, the whole forum is disturbingly lethargic.
Jun 14, 2014 15:49:29 GMT
Spinosaurus Maroccanus: I'm quite surprised how no one has touched the Argentina 97ma thread
Jun 14, 2014 15:20:28 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: This forum needs some serious attention; I'll be at it for a moment, unless I get other tasks that do not allow me to do so.
Jun 6, 2014 19:13:55 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: It's a genetic fallacy. It's basically an argument that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position.
May 26, 2014 20:47:51 GMT