|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 16, 2014 20:45:24 GMT
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
Triceratops horridus
Carcharodontosaurus vs Triceratops |
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 18, 2014 10:45:33 GMT
I would this is a draw or either of them winning slightly, both have major advantages and disadvantages so its hard to choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 18, 2014 16:01:37 GMT
I give it to Triceratops horridus. There are rumours that it didn't get downsized in 2013, but I eblieve it did - Being smaller than its foe, it still has far superior weaponry, and a robustness advantage. Its wide-gauge front limbs and is reduced rotational inertia give it the ability to turn far quicker than its foe, which has an enlongated body, thus being too heavy far from its torso. Given the fact the the ceratopsian is a quicker turner, it's obvious that it won't get outflanked, so Carcharodontosaurus saharicus will have to deal with the horns.
|
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 18, 2014 18:59:49 GMT
The Ceratopsian wins:  It appears that Triceratops is far bulkier, considering that despite Carcharodontosaurus' great length advantage it is less massive than Triceratops. Also Triceratops clearly had a more compact build overall. Triceratops has a very effective horn in comparison to other Ceratopsians and it could deal a severe amount of damage. Carcharodontosaurus did have very efficient weaponry and would be a decent threat to Triceratops, but it wasn't as fully equipped for tackling smaller armoured prey as much as Tyrannosaurids. Triceratops wins 55/45 imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 18, 2014 19:07:56 GMT
It is obviously more robust, that is common knowledge. Also, that skeletal is awkward...
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 18, 2014 22:21:42 GMT
I give it to Triceratops horridus. There are rumours that it didn't get downsized in 2013, but I eblieve it did - Being smaller than its foe, it still has far superior weaponry, and a robustness advantage. Its wide-gauge front limbs and is reduced rotational inertia give it the ability to turn far quicker than its foe, which has an enlongated body, thus being too heavy far from its torso. Given the fact the the ceratopsian is a quicker turner, it's obvious that it won't get outflanked, so Carcharodontosaurus saharicus will have to deal with the horns. The thing is they are rumors, read this: carnivoraforum.com/topic/9951786/1/Those old 9 metre estimates came from old reconstructions. Apparently the largest one is 8.5 metres and most current Triceratops are not even 8 metres. I saw a skeleton cast of a Triceratops in the natural history museum and it was only 6.5 metres long(it even said on it). |
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 19, 2014 16:00:24 GMT
I know, I did say they are rumours.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 19, 2014 17:11:46 GMT
Then why bring it in as a factor?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 19, 2014 18:12:33 GMT
I was basically just saying, seriously it isn't a big deal. Anyway, I favour Triceratops horridus.
|
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 19, 2014 20:09:34 GMT
It is obviously more robust, that is common knowledge. Also, that skeletal is awkward... It's not particularly awkward. |
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 19, 2014 20:21:32 GMT
It is obviously more robust, that is common knowledge. Also, that skeletal is awkward... It's not particularly awkward. Isn't that just a matter of opinion? Also, the fact that two different skeletals were merged into eachother and used in a comparison doesn't sound very normal to me. |
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 19, 2014 22:11:03 GMT
The overall layout isn't that awkward though
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 19, 2014 22:39:49 GMT
It's not particularly awkward. Isn't that just a matter of opinion? Also, the fact that two different skeletals were merged into eachother and used in a comparison doesn't sound very normal to me. Its not even 2 skeletals its just a modification of the skull. It does look pretty awkward imo as well. This skeletal's skull is better.  |
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 19, 2014 22:41:21 GMT
Also this is probably the best skeletal imo to use for carcharodontosaurus even if its an edit.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 19, 2014 22:48:20 GMT
The layout looks fine, but using it as reference is awkward. The layout also does look quite awkward, since we are used to see a different skull for that body.
|
|
<- imma rek u btichs