|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 20, 2014 18:57:48 GMT
Giganotosaurus carolinii
Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus vs Giganotosaurus
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 21, 2014 23:02:28 GMT
I would say around 50/50, with perhaps a slight edge to Tyrannosaurus. According to Scott Hartman, Sue (the largest Tyrannosaurus specimen) is slightly larger than the largest Giganotosaurus specimen: www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013From the article: Sue: 8,400 kg (8.4 tons) in weight Giganotosaurus (larger specimen): 8,200 kg (8.2 tons) in weight So despite being shorter in terms of length, Tyrannosaurus appears to be larger in terms of weight. So it is obviously bulkier (which is general knowledge, Tyrannosaurids are generally more stockily built than similar sized Carcharodontosaurids).
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 24, 2014 12:15:05 GMT
That slight edge won't do anything pretty much and its only 200kg heavier than it. Thats nothing in terms of weight when comparing 2 8+ ton animals.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 24, 2014 15:59:12 GMT
Ye but that was just to prove that Tyrannosaurus (Sue) was more robust.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 24, 2014 16:05:44 GMT
But why do you keep mentioning irrelevant size advantages? FMNH PR2081 is only ~2.4% larger according to that, which means it has no relevance.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 24, 2014 16:10:27 GMT
I wasn't saying the slight superior size was an advantage, it was to prove that Sue was more robust than the larger Giganotosaurus specimen.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 24, 2014 16:33:18 GMT
But you still do mention a lot of small size advantages.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 24, 2014 19:48:17 GMT
Ye but that was just to prove that Tyrannosaurus (Sue) was more robust. Thats pretty much common knowledge dude
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 24, 2014 21:09:51 GMT
Yeah, it is pretty common knowledge amongst dinosaur enthusiasts, and that article by Hartman is no longer news amongst us.
|
|