|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 23, 2014 2:09:23 GMT
Giganotosaurus carolinii
Tyrannotitan chubutensis
Tyrannotitan chubutensis vs Giganotosaurus carolinii
|
|
Epanterias
Raptorex
Giant Jurassic Hunter
Posts: 17
Favorite animal: Komodo Dragon
Favorite dinosaur: Carcharodontosaurus
|
Post by Epanterias on Feb 23, 2014 12:09:58 GMT
In my opinion this is a 50/50 with a edge to Giganotosaurus
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 23, 2014 13:46:35 GMT
Could you specify why? Anyway, if we use MPEF-PV 1157 and MUCPv-Ch1, they are both around ~6 tons. MUCPv-95 is probably over ~8 tons though, so it depends on the specimens we use. For a range, both are around ~6-8 tonnes. I'd say it is pretty close, but if anything, I'd give the edge to Tyrannotitan chubutensis, due to being more robustly built, which gives it an edge.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 23, 2014 14:08:06 GMT
Could you specify why? Anyway, if we use MPEF-PV 1157 and MUCPv-Ch1, they are both around ~6 tons. MUCPv-95 is probably over ~8 tons though, so it depends on the specimens we use. For a range, both are around ~6-8 tonnes. I'd say it is pretty close, but if anything, I'd give the edge to Tyrannotitan chubutensis, due to being more robustly built, which gives it an edge. According to Scott Hartman's GDI, the larger holotpye of Giganotosaurus (MUCPv-95) is 8.2 tons in weight, and he also explains that MUCPv-Ch1 is 6.8 tons in weight: www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013So I can't imagine a 13 metre Giganotosaurus ranging from as low as 6 tons. 7-8 tons sounds more plausible imo. Tyrannotitan is shorter in terms of overall length, but it is bulkier and is similar in mass to Giganotosaurus. I would give a slight edge to Tyrannotitan, due to it being surpsingly Tyrannosaurid like and having a stronger bite force.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 23, 2014 15:39:46 GMT
MUCPv-95 is the largest specimen known, MUCPv-Ch1 is the holotype.
"I can't imagine [...]"
That's just around your opinion, you didn't calculate anything at all so it's just opinion. This is science, not a place to share opinions. And do you have a source for any official figures on Tyrannotitan chubutensis' biteforce? If it's still stronger, its foe has a gape advantage.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 23, 2014 17:28:04 GMT
It is an opinion backed up by evidence, so your point is irrelevant. Speculation is alright if it has a base. You are sharing your opinion by stating which dinosaur you think would win in this fight, so you are kind of contradicting yourself by saying 'this is not a place to share opinions'. Also: (Tyrannotitan skull) (Giganotosaurus skull) (not to scale) I don't have any sources on the bite force of Tyrannotitan, but it has a slightly more robust skull than Giganotosaurus, which would allow for more muscle placement and thus a stronger bite force.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 24, 2014 11:53:55 GMT
The skulls are nearly the same, and we don't have a surangular or an angular so we can't speculate how it is shaped. Also, just so you know, the maxilla on your image is pretty similar to MUCPv-Ch1, hence the fact it is based on it. This "slight" robustness advantage isn't any kind of massive advantage, it is a ridiculous difference. Your opinion is not backed up by evidence, you are just saying it sounds wrong for you without mentioning a source which is clear that you are basing it off your own opinion.
And it isn't a contradiction, the right term is called hypocrisy and I am not being hypocritical, hence the fact it is an opinion that is backed up by common knowledge, which if you say is wrong you are REALLY contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 24, 2014 15:49:03 GMT
My opinion DID have evidence to back it up actually, according to Scott Hartman the smaller specimen of Giganotosaurus was almost 7 tons and I stated that a larger specimen of Giganotosaurus (13 m) wouldn't range as low as 6 tons due to this. It IS backed up by a source. My final word on that.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 24, 2014 16:35:37 GMT
But it is still within the 6-ton range, and I also said ~6-8 tons which makes your point rather invalid.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 27, 2014 22:10:29 GMT
More like the 7-8 ton range
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 28, 2014 0:37:24 GMT
By 6 ton range I meant anything 6,000kg or higher and lower than 7,000kg.
|
|