|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 21:02:31 GMT
Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
Giganotosaurus carolinii
Giganotosaurus carolinii vs Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
|
|
|
Post by Allosaurus on Feb 14, 2014 21:07:21 GMT
50/50, both basically are the same size and strength, either could win.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 21:14:44 GMT
We don't have many remains on C. saharicus, and what we have can't be compared that much: Note that we don't have the complete skull for C. saharicus, this one is only reconstructed after related taxa. The skulls aren't very similar (they kinda look alike, but not that much), and the only thing that lets us use state that they are similar is the fact they are related. Still, we cannot speculate its anatomy and physyology.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 14, 2014 22:01:02 GMT
clearly another 50/50
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 22:11:19 GMT
I dislike those short-lasting debates...
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 14, 2014 22:13:45 GMT
That's what happens when the two opponents are very evenly matched.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 22:21:08 GMT
Well, the same happens with one-sided fights. Anyway, does anyone have a notion of G. carolinii's biteforce? I had a formula to measure biteforce (apparently in PSI), but I can't remember it.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 14, 2014 22:38:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 22:54:40 GMT
That's 1040kgf, quite low for such animal. Quite ironic, though, that they spelt something wrong on the graphic. Still, 1 ton sounds quite low. Pretty good article, but I am a bit sceptical of that 10,200N biteforce. Still, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 14, 2014 23:00:06 GMT
That's 1040kgf, quite low for such animal. Quite ironic, though, that they spelt something wrong on the graphic. Still, 1 ton sounds quite low. Pretty good article, but I am a bit sceptical of that 10,200N biteforce. Still, thanks. 'Gigantosaurus' lol, I doubt a sauropod would have such a bite force.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 23:02:20 GMT
Yeah, Gigantosaurus is a sauropod genus, so the most likely spelling mistake made it far harder to believe...
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 14, 2014 23:06:10 GMT
However apart from the grammatical errors the article is still pretty good overall. But it is obviously more factual if we are researching Tyrannosaurus.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 23:10:23 GMT
35,000N? I have heard of higher figures that came from more recent studies.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 14, 2014 23:11:49 GMT
I didn't say completely factual
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 14, 2014 23:16:43 GMT
I know, but I just stated that it isn't very factual.
|
|