|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Mar 7, 2014 7:21:03 GMT
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 estimates, 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. Saurophaganax has been considered synonymous with Allosaurus so it is a very likely possibility. Also where did you get 10,000 newtons from? |
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 7, 2014 13:10:48 GMT
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. Saurophaganax has been considered synonymous with Allosaurus so it is a very likely possibility. Also where did you get 10,000 newtons from? It has been suggested as an Allosaurus specimen, but that's still uncertain. 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. Both Saurophaganax maximus and Allosaurus fragilis are very similar, but they aren't necessarily synonymous of eachother; They might be a separate species, or even a separate genus. As you said it yourself, it's only considered a synonym. I suggest you reading my post carefully, I evaluated it at ~10,000 newtons based on studies for Allosaurus fragilis that gave ~5,000 newtons, so please read it again before questioning a guesstimate. It's a fact that its bite should be stronger, so it might have been powerful enough to be used instead of being replaced with the other method. |
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Mar 7, 2014 15:34:09 GMT
Saurophaganax has been considered synonymous with Allosaurus so it is a very likely possibility. Also where did you get 10,000 newtons from? It has been suggested as an Allosaurus specimen, but that's still uncertain. 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. Both Saurophaganax maximus and Allosaurus fragilis are very similar, but they aren't necessarily synonymous of eachother; They might be a separate species, or even a separate genus. As you said it yourself, it's only considered a synonym. I suggest you reading my post carefully, I evaluated it at ~10,000 newtons based on studies for Allosaurus fragilis that gave ~5,000 newtons, so please read it again before questioning a guesstimate. It's a fact that its bite should be stronger, so it might have been powerful enough to be used instead of being replaced with the other method. You are contradicting yourself since you say that Allosaurus and Saurophaganax were slightly different from eachother yet you estimate the bite force of Saurophaganax based exactly off Allosaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 7, 2014 19:12:57 GMT
It has been suggested as an Allosaurus specimen, but that's still uncertain. 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. Both Saurophaganax maximus and Allosaurus fragilis are very similar, but they aren't necessarily synonymous of eachother; They might be a separate species, or even a separate genus. As you said it yourself, it's only considered a synonym. I suggest you reading my post carefully, I evaluated it at ~10,000 newtons based on studies for Allosaurus fragilis that gave ~5,000 newtons, so please read it again before questioning a guesstimate. It's a fact that its bite should be stronger, so it might have been powerful enough to be used instead of being replaced with the other method. You are contradicting yourself since you say that Allosaurus and Saurophaganax were slightly different from eachother yet you estimate the bite force of Saurophaganax based exactly off Allosaurus.Not really. The differences I mentioned don't even mention any part of the skull, and they are pretty irrelevant when it comes to biteforce. |
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Mar 9, 2014 1:31:15 GMT
Evaluted it really means nothing, Allosaurus's bite is a varies a lot. from 2000N to almost 9000N. You can't practically scale up bite force especially with an animal who has a very wide varied bite range suggested and only using one seems pretty bias. Saurophaganax for a majority of the time has been considered synonymous with Allosaurus, they are practically the same animal just with enough differences to define it as a new genus but as Allosaurus's closest relative. So we can safely assume that saurophaganax did have a very similar hunting style and as you said your self its a guesstimate which means its based on an assumption so it really means nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 9, 2014 16:13:25 GMT
You make it sound like I am forcing anyone to use that guesstimate, while I made it clear that it's a guess, something that you already took as fact before.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Mar 10, 2014 0:05:04 GMT
yet you also took it as fact and not only you are actually using it as evidence. Not only that it wasn't a guesstimate in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 10, 2014 19:43:50 GMT
I was talking about Spinodontosaurus' estimate, by the way, which you took as fact;I stopped using it as soon as I found out it was a guesstimate, which even though it was clear that it was estimated you apparently refused to reveal that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Mar 11, 2014 3:50:35 GMT
It remember seeing a post saying it wasn't a guessestimate and was actually scaled. I didn't refuse to reveal that. Not only that a lot of estimates put spinosaurus around the 11-14 ton mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 11, 2014 18:36:21 GMT
On another thread it was actually revealed that he estimated it, and I don't really take it as factual now.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Mar 14, 2014 17:31:13 GMT
Most estimates for Spinosaurus that are around 16 metres are around the 11-14 ton mark, also that you said it yourself. Its an estimat, all figures from paleontologists are estimates as well(they are much more likely though).
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 15, 2014 2:18:17 GMT
I don't consider any estimates for it facts anymore, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Mar 15, 2014 7:35:13 GMT
Even paleontologist's estimates?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Mar 15, 2014 21:26:55 GMT
Obviously, as I already stated, I don't consider any of them. I might only use Hartman's GDI, but still I won't really trust any estimates until we have enough material.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Mar 16, 2014 19:47:54 GMT
No estimates should be taken lightly, but the most accurate ones should be used till replaced or debunked. Yet not stated as fact.
|
|
<- imma rek u btichs