|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 19:32:17 GMT
Also its ironic how before you stated that bite force is the most important advantage in theropods fights and now you are saying it doesn't matter that much. Don't bring the past up, people change their thoughts over time so it's invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 19:38:05 GMT
How are they not the same size? You totally forgot that mass = size ≠ length. Being one metre shorter only makes Carnotaurus sastrei far more robust. If they were at length parity... 2000*(9/8)³ = 2847.65625 At length parity, Carnotaurus sastrei is ~2.8 tonnes. That proves that it is far more robust, and robustness is a good factor. The biteforce here doesn't come in that handy, seeing as what Carnotaurus sastrei has is biteforce disadvantage, it has in gape. I have also explained how this is a very tough match, hence the fact Megaraptor namunhuaiquii won't be able to bite in an effective area with ease. They are not the same size, Megaraptor was above 2 tons if it is similar in size to Allosaurus (when scaled up isometrically from the 7.5 metre long 1.4 ton Big Al a 9 metre Allosaurus would be ~2.4 tons). And according to this paper Carnotaurus was less than 2 tons: "As mentioned above, a volumetric procedure yielded a body mass estimate of 1500 kg for C. sastrei (Mazzetta et al., 1998)" www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/Mazzetta-et-al_04_SA-dino-body-size.pdf Whether it is entirely accurate or not, I don't know, but I can't imagine an 8 metre Carnotaurus being any larger than 2 tons. Carnotaurus was more robust and could use its head as a ram, but those advantages aren't really more important than bite efficiency (which Megaraptor has). Also Carnotaurus was designed for chasing down smaller dinosaurs so its weaponry will be less efficient than a similar sized carnosaur.
It also says 1998, you are using a 16-year old study instead of more recent figures used by people who you refer to like they were paleontologists (Carnivora users). You said Megaraptor namunhuaiquii was Allosaurus-sized, which gives ~2 tons. That is also a very popular figure for the abelisaurid. Also, why use Big Al to scale it? Remember that they aren't really that closely related, if you want to scale them, I recommend using Aerosteon riocoloradense, which is its sister taxon, according to the 2010 analysis by Benson, Carrano and Brusatte.
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 17, 2014 19:43:48 GMT
They are not the same size, Megaraptor was above 2 tons if it is similar in size to Allosaurus (when scaled up isometrically from the 7.5 metre long 1.4 ton Big Al a 9 metre Allosaurus would be ~2.4 tons). And according to this paper Carnotaurus was less than 2 tons: "As mentioned above, a volumetric procedure yielded a body mass estimate of 1500 kg for C. sastrei (Mazzetta et al., 1998)" www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/Mazzetta-et-al_04_SA-dino-body-size.pdf Whether it is entirely accurate or not, I don't know, but I can't imagine an 8 metre Carnotaurus being any larger than 2 tons. Carnotaurus was more robust and could use its head as a ram, but those advantages aren't really more important than bite efficiency (which Megaraptor has). Also Carnotaurus was designed for chasing down smaller dinosaurs so its weaponry will be less efficient than a similar sized carnosaur.
It also says 1998, you are using a 16-year old study instead of more recent figures used by people who you refer to like they were paleontologists (Carnivora users). You said Megaraptor namunhuaiquii was Allosaurus-sized, which gives ~2 tons. That is also a very popular figure for the abelisaurid. Also, why use Big Al to scale it? Remember that they aren't really that closely related, if you want to scale them, I recommend using Aerosteon riocoloradense, which is its sister taxon, according to the 2010 analysis by Benson, Carrano and Brusatte. Please could you show me any more recent studies of Carnotaurus' weight? 1.5 tons may be a bit low, but I can't imagine it being much larger than 2 tons at just 8 metres in length. I didn't use Big Al to scale the weight of Megaraptor, I used it to scale the weight of a 9 metre A. fragilis which gives us 2.4 tons. Megaraptor is similar in size to Allosaurus so it would be 2+ tons.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 19:47:58 GMT
That is common knowledge, I suggest looking it up - Majungasaurus crenatissimus and Carnotaurus sastrei are the only known theropods to ram. And no, I didn't say it used its horns. As I replied to MechaBaryonyx, Carnotaurus sastrei is far more robust. Seeing as both are at mass parity, the abelisaurid is ~1 metre shorter, which means it is far more robust. Scaling it isometrically, it is actually nearly one ton larger at length parity: 2000*(9/8)³ = 2847.65625 How are they going to kill it easily, exactly? As far as I am aware, this isn't a weight mismatch, so there isn't any kind of way that either of them will kill eachother with a single blow (seeing as similarly-sized animals, when engaged in fights, RARELY win under seconds). It does need to outflank it in order to bite its neck, seeing as its foe won't stay there and die. Since the quicker turner ( Carnotaurus sastrei) doesn't want to get outflanked, it isn't happening. That is due to the fact it has a more compact body, as I have proven above, which reduces its rotational inertia. They are face-to-face, and what target does Megaraptor namunhuaiquii have in reach? The skull. As it is common knowledge (seriously, you should know that), the ramming behaviour makes its skull more resistent, as it needs to be in order to not get wrecked while ramming. I can't really see any majour advantages EITHER of them have over eachother. This is very close, and I would suggest also to stop underrating Carnotaurus sastrei's biteforce, seeing as even the much smaller dromaeosaurid, Deinonychus antirrhopus, has a biteforce comparable to that of an american alligator of similar size. i have no idea why you are bringing up deinonychus here, it has a completely different kind of skull from that of carnotaurus and rather has a proportionally much stronger bite. and no they are not at mass parity. carnotaurus was below 2 tons (like what mechabaryonyx showed) while megaraptor could have been more than 2 tons being allosaurus-sized and all. yes carnotaurus is not just going to stand there and let itself get killed but megaraptor could rather just rush in and bite the neck quickly, still i do not see why it would need to outflank carno to attack the neck. and biting carnotaurus on the face wouldn't really be too much of a problem either, it could easily tear its face up with those razor sharp teeth. megaraptor does have some good advantages, it has a much deadlier bite and has huge claws I guess you are simply not getting the point - Deinonychus antirrhopus is around the size of a small to average Cougar. So why would an animal that is MULTIPLE times larger have a weak bite? Proportionally, yes, it did. I am just telling you not to underestimate its biteforce in all-in-all standards. And yes, they are - Are you really using a 1998 study? Stop using speculative behaviour, we do not know if the Megaraptoran would assume this kind of offensive posture so quickly while fighting a similarly-sized animal. And yes, it does need to outflank it, since the head pretty much covers the neck while face-to-face, and how it is harder to get an animal's neck that is facing you, also when the same animal can turn quicker than you can. Those advantages aren't so great to the point it wins comfortably, seeing as its opponent isn't gonna stay there and wait to get killed I would say this is around 55% in favour of Megaraptor namunhuaiquii. I agree it would win, but saying it would win comfortably is just very exagerated(like saying 80% in favour of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus against Tyrannosaurus rex)
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 17, 2014 19:52:22 GMT
They aren't at weight parity, Carnotaurus was no larger than 2 tons and Megaraptor was approaching 2.5 tons considering it is similar in size to Allosaurus. 1998 studies aren't that outdated, they can still be factually correct.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 19:54:00 GMT
@mechabaryonyx A comparison made by the same guy you refer to quite oftenly: MACN-CH 894 is estimated at ~2 tons by him, and he uses SOURCES for comparisons, not just opinion. Also, just saying, but "Big Al" is not an adult specimen, so why not just use an adult specimen instead?
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 19:56:47 GMT
They aren't at weight parity, Carnotaurus was no larger than 2 tons and Megaraptor was approaching 2.5 tons considering it is similar in size to Allosaurus. 1998 studies aren't that outdated, they can still be factually correct. You said approaching - Meaning it isn't that big, but just nearly. Considering you also agreed the abelisaurid here is 2 tons, the difference isn't of even 500kg, so they are virtually at parity. Also, yes they can be outdated, considering we had 4 ton estimates for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in earlier times.
|
|
|
Post by Koolyote on Feb 17, 2014 20:10:06 GMT
Megaraptor wins 6.6/10. Its skull is bigger, with longer and more dangerous teeth, also a stronger bite force, and those big claws that I think can be effectively used in a fight like this. The Carnotaur's only advantages are its speed and PROBABLY the ramming ability. I think it is possible that Carnotaurus used to ram its opponent with its head, mostly because the head is small and has those blunt horns that could help giving a more powerful impact force when hitting an opponent.
But in the end Megaraptor still wins. Not saying it wins easily but I don't think it'll have much trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 20:25:11 GMT
The speed factor isn't important, also the horns weren't too heavy so the impact force with and without them is the same, basically. Also, claws are quite overrated IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 17, 2014 21:06:04 GMT
How are they not the same size? You totally forgot that mass = size ≠ length. Being one metre shorter only makes Carnotaurus sastrei far more robust. If they were at length parity... 2000*(9/8)³ = 2847.65625 At length parity, Carnotaurus sastrei is ~2.8 tonnes. That proves that it is far more robust, and robustness is a good factor. The biteforce here doesn't come in that handy, seeing as what Carnotaurus sastrei has is biteforce disadvantage, it has in gape. I have also explained how this is a very tough match, hence the fact Megaraptor namunhuaiquii won't be able to bite in an effective area with ease. They are not the same size, Megaraptor was above 2 tons if it is similar in size to Allosaurus (when scaled up isometrically from the 7.5 metre long 1.4 ton Big Al a 9 metre Allosaurus would be ~2.4 tons). And according to this paper Carnotaurus was less than 2 tons: "As mentioned above, a volumetric procedure yielded a body mass estimate of 1500 kg for C. sastrei (Mazzetta et al., 1998)" www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/Mazzetta-et-al_04_SA-dino-body-size.pdf Whether it is entirely accurate or not, I don't know, but I can't imagine an 8 metre Carnotaurus being any larger than 2 tons. Carnotaurus was more robust and could use its head as a ram, but those advantages aren't really more important than bite efficiency (which Megaraptor has). Also Carnotaurus was designed for chasing down smaller dinosaurs so its weaponry will be less efficient than a similar sized carnosaur.
I am guessing you didn't actually scale up big all isometrically, you just used a size from a size comparison that you can't wrap your head around that isn't 9 metres but 8.8 and 2.4 tons for the allosaurus. Or you just scaled it up wrong since big al is 1.5 tons not 1.4 and that's the ACTUAL estimate not some crap that "sounds right" since that's what the computer models actually say and scaling 1.4 to 9 metres would give you that but actually scaling up 1.5 to 9 would would get 2.6 tons and 2.4 tons for 8.8 so I was right so stop with this stupid "it looks/sounds right" stuff. Sorry if I come off as a douche lel.
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 21:21:19 GMT
Yes Thesporerex, you are right:
1500*(9/7.5)³ = 2592
In this case, we used 9 metres. I guess you just rounded 2.5 up to 2.6, considering that's a difference of 8kg, so I agree. Using 8.8 metres:
1500*(8.8/7.5)³ = 2423.01155556
|
|
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Feb 17, 2014 21:49:43 GMT
They are not the same size, Megaraptor was above 2 tons if it is similar in size to Allosaurus (when scaled up isometrically from the 7.5 metre long 1.4 ton Big Al a 9 metre Allosaurus would be ~2.4 tons). And according to this paper Carnotaurus was less than 2 tons: "As mentioned above, a volumetric procedure yielded a body mass estimate of 1500 kg for C. sastrei (Mazzetta et al., 1998)" www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/Mazzetta-et-al_04_SA-dino-body-size.pdf Whether it is entirely accurate or not, I don't know, but I can't imagine an 8 metre Carnotaurus being any larger than 2 tons. Carnotaurus was more robust and could use its head as a ram, but those advantages aren't really more important than bite efficiency (which Megaraptor has). Also Carnotaurus was designed for chasing down smaller dinosaurs so its weaponry will be less efficient than a similar sized carnosaur.
I am guessing you didn't actually scale up big all isometrically, you just used a size from a size comparison that you can't wrap your head around that isn't 9 metres but 8.8 and 2.4 tons for the allosaurus. Or you just scaled it up wrong since big al is 1.5 tons not 1.4 and that's the ACTUAL estimate not some crap that "sounds right" since that's what the computer models actually say and scaling 1.4 to 9 metres would give you that but actually scaling up 1.5 to 9 would would get 2.6 tons and 2.4 tons for 8.8 so I was right so stop with this stupid "it looks/sounds right" stuff. Sorry if I come off as a douche lel. I wasn't even using the 8.8 metre long specimen ffs
|
|
|
Post by thesporerex on Feb 17, 2014 21:51:30 GMT
Either way you are wrong
|
|
|
Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 17, 2014 22:05:21 GMT
Also, where did you get ~1,400kg for MOR 693? I have never seen that figure, the computer analysis indicates ~1,500kg.
|
|
|
Post by Allosaurus on Feb 17, 2014 22:15:19 GMT
i have no idea why you are bringing up deinonychus here, it has a completely different kind of skull from that of carnotaurus and rather has a proportionally much stronger bite. and no they are not at mass parity. carnotaurus was below 2 tons (like what mechabaryonyx showed) while megaraptor could have been more than 2 tons being allosaurus-sized and all. yes carnotaurus is not just going to stand there and let itself get killed but megaraptor could rather just rush in and bite the neck quickly, still i do not see why it would need to outflank carno to attack the neck. and biting carnotaurus on the face wouldn't really be too much of a problem either, it could easily tear its face up with those razor sharp teeth. megaraptor does have some good advantages, it has a much deadlier bite and has huge claws I guess you are simply not getting the point - Deinonychus antirrhopus is around the size of a small to average Cougar. So why would an animal that is MULTIPLE times larger have a weak bite? Proportionally, yes, it did. I am just telling you not to underestimate its biteforce in all-in-all standards. And yes, they are - Are you really using a 1998 study? Stop using speculative behaviour, we do not know if the Megaraptoran would assume this kind of offensive posture so quickly while fighting a similarly-sized animal. And yes, it does need to outflank it, since the head pretty much covers the neck while face-to-face, and how it is harder to get an animal's neck that is facing you, also when the same animal can turn quicker than you can. Those advantages aren't so great to the point it wins comfortably, seeing as its opponent isn't gonna stay there and wait to get killed I would say this is around 55% in favour of Megaraptor namunhuaiquii. I agree it would win, but saying it would win comfortably is just very exagerated(like saying 80% in favour of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus against Tyrannosaurus rex) yeah carnotaurus might have had a strong bite in all-in-all standards, but this is up against a carnosaur that is similar in size, in which it still wouldn't cause such fatal damage without getting seriously wounded itself. and megaraptor can still easily target carnotaurus's face that covers the neck, its razor sharp teeth are obviously going to tear the abelisaurid's face up, and that cannot really happen for vice versa since carnotaurus does not have the slashing dentition the carnosaur has. yes the carnotaurus will not obviously just stay there and wait to die, but it's not like it can stop megaraptor from biting it on the face.
|
|