Ekrixinatosaurus novasi has a longer skull in axial length and it is more robust, although both have very similar dentary, angular and surangular structures. One fact is that both are short-armed, so they don't have any good weaponry other than their own biteforces. Scaling them isometrically to axial length parity, Carnotaurus sastrei is larger in mass, which means it is more robust. Having a more compact body gives it less rotational inertia, so it won't get easily outflanked, and that's a good advantage.
What advantage does its head give to it? Biteforce maybe, but as far as I know, we don't have evidence of ramming behaviour on E. novasi (although we do for its foe).
The skull is far longer and more robust probably giving it a edge in bite force and its teeth even though we have no complete ones and only roots look far more robust and larger. Its general build looks better as well.
I can't imagine ramming being more efficient than biting in theropod confrontations like this.
Not ramming in itself, but the fact the skull is more durable since it is designed to suffer impact.
thesporerex: Having a larger biting area means that you will need more force to apply a higher PSI force, while a smaller biting area will mean less effort for that same PSI force.
Even so having a skull to short and stumpy doesn't help. Not only that Carnotaurus's skull is very narrow while Ekrixinatosaurus is far wider and the teeth are not thin and small. There is a reason why T. rex doesn't have a stumpy skull and small thin teeth.
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