#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 8, 2013 18:35:35 GMT
since when were allosaurid claws not particularly powerful? Epanterias' claws were powerful to a certain extent, but only really for grasping hold of prey that is lower than it. Oxlaia's arms/claws were much larger and probably more maneuverable and could probably extend outwards more easily. |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Dec 8, 2013 21:18:41 GMT
Mecha, I already told you 500kg is no advantage. It was not an advantage even for ~3 ton animals, 500kg is nothing compared to 5-6 tons. 6/5.5=1.09. Oxalaia is ~1.09 times bigger than " Epanterias" which is no advantage. I am gonna give you an example with smaller proportions: 100/1.09=91. So the size difference is the same between a 100kg animal and a 91kg animal. Male cougars usually weigh 62-100kg, imagine two cougars with a 10kg difference fighting. No size advantage, also this is just nearly 10kg. Scaling that up to this thread's animal proportions we get the same size difference (1.09). Size is not an important factor here Mecha. Now to the arms... Allosaurus Spinosaurus Those are good models to represent Oxalaia and the dubious genus Epanterias. The Allosaurus one shows a really dense musculature around the arm and forearm structures. Now to the Spinosaurus one, the arm does not seem to be that muscular in comparison to the Allosaurus one. Allosaurids have some of the strongest arms in the dinosauria clade, and this skeletal reconstruction (made by Scott Hartman, by the way) suggests very muscular arms. The Spinosaurus one also suggests a muscular arm structure, but not as much as the other one. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 8, 2013 21:32:09 GMT
Mecha, I already told you 500kg is no advantage. It was not an advantage even for ~3 ton animals, 500kg is nothing compared to 5-6 tons. 6/5.5=1.09. Oxalaia is ~1.09 times bigger than " Epanterias" which is no advantage. I am gonna give you an example with smaller proportions: 100/1.09=91. So the size difference is the same between a 100kg animal and a 91kg animal. Male cougars usually weigh 62-100kg, imagine two cougars with a 10kg difference fighting. No size advantage, also this is just nearly 10kg. Scaling that up to this thread's animal proportions we get the same size difference (1.09). Size is not an important factor here Mecha. Now to the arms... Allosaurus Spinosaurus Those are good models to represent Oxalaia and the dubious genus Epanterias. The Allosaurus one shows a really dense musculature around the arm and forearm structures. Now to the Spinosaurus one, the arm does not seem to be that muscular in comparison to the Allosaurus one. Allosaurids have some of the strongest arms in the dinosauria clade, and this skeletal reconstruction (made by Scott Hartman, by the way) suggests very muscular arms. The Spinosaurus one also suggests a muscular arm structure, but not as much as the other one. The Allosaurus does not appear to have more muscular arms, Spinosaurus had thicker shoulder bones and upper arms. |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Dec 8, 2013 21:39:24 GMT
Mecha, I already told you 500kg is no advantage. It was not an advantage even for ~3 ton animals, 500kg is nothing compared to 5-6 tons. 6/5.5=1.09. Oxalaia is ~1.09 times bigger than " Epanterias" which is no advantage. I am gonna give you an example with smaller proportions: 100/1.09=91. So the size difference is the same between a 100kg animal and a 91kg animal. Male cougars usually weigh 62-100kg, imagine two cougars with a 10kg difference fighting. No size advantage, also this is just nearly 10kg. Scaling that up to this thread's animal proportions we get the same size difference (1.09). Size is not an important factor here Mecha. Now to the arms... Allosaurus Spinosaurus Those are good models to represent Oxalaia and the dubious genus Epanterias. The Allosaurus one shows a really dense musculature around the arm and forearm structures. Now to the Spinosaurus one, the arm does not seem to be that muscular in comparison to the Allosaurus one. Allosaurids have some of the strongest arms in the dinosauria clade, and this skeletal reconstruction (made by Scott Hartman, by the way) suggests very muscular arms. The Spinosaurus one also suggests a muscular arm structure, but not as much as the other one. The Allosaurus does not appear to have more muscular arms, Spinosaurus had thicker shoulder bones and fore arms. But the model seems to have more muscle on those structures, with less bone and more muscle. Spinosaurus would only have a more resistant arm, but lacking the muscle to hit with the same force as an Allosaurus at parity. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 8, 2013 21:50:48 GMT
The Allosaurus does not appear to have more muscular arms, Spinosaurus had thicker shoulder bones and fore arms. But the model seems to have more muscle on those structures, with less bone and more muscle. Spinosaurus would only have a more resistant arm, but lacking the muscle to hit with the same force as an Allosaurus at parity. Your logic seems flawed. Surely a theropod would have more muscle if it had denser bone structures in its arms? |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Dec 8, 2013 22:02:22 GMT
But the model seems to have more muscle on those structures, with less bone and more muscle. Spinosaurus would only have a more resistant arm, but lacking the muscle to hit with the same force as an Allosaurus at parity. Your logic seems flawed. Surely a theropod would have more muscle if it had denser bone structures in its arms? No yours does, the skeletal clearly shows Allosaurus having a denser arm musculature. It has a longer arm, and it still has a very robust arm musculature. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 8, 2013 22:15:55 GMT
Allosaurus had a thinner and less dense bone structure in its upper arm, that would mean that its musculature would be less compact and less dense.
Allosaurus did have a denser musculature in its arm than most theropods, but Spinosaurus' arm appears to have denser and more compact musculature.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Dec 8, 2013 22:20:32 GMT
Allosaurus had a thinner and less dense bone structure in its upper arm, that would mean that its musculature would be less compact and less dense. Allosaurus did have a denser musculature in its arm than most theropods, but Spinosaurus' arm appears to have denser and more compact musculature. But it had more arm musculature at parity overall, and the dubious genus Epanterias HAD stronger arms than Oxalaia. Spinosaurid arms are very overrated. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 8, 2013 22:24:59 GMT
Allosaurus had a thinner and less dense bone structure in its upper arm, that would mean that its musculature would be less compact and less dense. Allosaurus did have a denser musculature in its arm than most theropods, but Spinosaurus' arm appears to have denser and more compact musculature. But it had more arm musculature at parity overall, and the dubious genus Epanterias HAD stronger arms than Oxalaia. Spinosaurid arms are very overrated. Oxlaia had more compact musculature in its arms meaning that its arm muscles would be more dense. Epanterias might of had larger arm muscles but Epanterias' arm muscles probably weren't as dense. |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Dec 8, 2013 23:03:05 GMT
But it had more arm musculature at parity overall, and the dubious genus Epanterias HAD stronger arms than Oxalaia. Spinosaurid arms are very overrated. Oxlaia had more compact musculature in its arms meaning that its arm muscles would be more dense. Epanterias might of had larger arm muscles but Epanterias' arm muscles probably weren't as dense. But it had less arm muscle. It doesn't matter if its arm muscles are denser here, because " Epanterias" had more arm musculature (by what the skeletal suggests), Oxalaia still lacked arm musculature compared to " Epanterias". |
|
#00be0f
10
0
1
140
thesporerex
"May the flames guide thee"
2,872
October 2013
thesporerex
Example 4
|
Post by thesporerex on Dec 10, 2013 17:22:06 GMT
Epanterias is about 5.5 tons while oxalaia is about 6 tons, 500kg difference won't make much of a difference. Not only that the allosaurid has far superior weaponry and is far more agile. Epanterias is more like 5 tons, so its a ton difference. Also neither theropod was particularly agile because both were above 4 tons in weight. You say that Epanterias had 'far superior weaponry' when the only useful weapon Epanterias had was its devastating hatchet bite. Epanterias' claws were not particularly powerful and would not be useful as a weapon. Oxlaia's claws on the other hand were much larger and potent, and Oxlaia was stronger overall due to its weight advantage. Epanterias might of had a devastating hatchet bite but that would be fairly easy to avoid because Epanterias would take a certain amount of time to perform the entire hatchet action with its jaw. Oxlaia on the other hand had a much quicker method of biting, and Oxlaia could grasp Epanterias with its jaws and latch on for a fairly long time (despite having a weak bite force, Oxlaia's bite was very useful for gripping and impaling). I am sorry but you have everything wrong, epanterias is 5.5 tons when scaled up and not only that epanterias did have far superior weaponry. That bullshit allosaurid weak bite force crap is wrong, allosaurus actually had the biteforce of around 500kg which is probably more powerful that carcharodontosaurids are parity due to allosaurids being generalists and having very compact skulls and strong muscles for basically anything. Its arms are also far more effective than any spinosaurid arm which were designed to kill fish which epanterias/allosaurus arms are larger and more powerful overall with much greater flexibility and power. Epanterias wins. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 10, 2013 17:34:11 GMT
Epanterias is more like 5 tons, so its a ton difference. Also neither theropod was particularly agile because both were above 4 tons in weight. You say that Epanterias had 'far superior weaponry' when the only useful weapon Epanterias had was its devastating hatchet bite. Epanterias' claws were not particularly powerful and would not be useful as a weapon. Oxlaia's claws on the other hand were much larger and potent, and Oxlaia was stronger overall due to its weight advantage. Epanterias might of had a devastating hatchet bite but that would be fairly easy to avoid because Epanterias would take a certain amount of time to perform the entire hatchet action with its jaw. Oxlaia on the other hand had a much quicker method of biting, and Oxlaia could grasp Epanterias with its jaws and latch on for a fairly long time (despite having a weak bite force, Oxlaia's bite was very useful for gripping and impaling). I am sorry but you have everything wrong, epanterias is 5.5 tons when scaled up and not only that epanterias did have far superior weaponry. That bullshit allosaurid weak bite force crap is wrong, allosaurus actually had the biteforce of around 500kg which is probably more powerful that carcharodontosaurids are parity due to allosaurids being generalists and having very compact skulls and strong muscles for basically anything. Its arms are also far more effective than any spinosaurid arm which were designed to kill fish which epanterias/allosaurus arms are larger and more powerful overall with much greater flexibility and power. Epanterias wins. Fuck the media (I think you know what I mean) |
|
nanolancensis
Yutyrannus
If you can't beat 'em... call in a T. rex to eat 'em.
Posts: 53 Likes Received: 7 
Youtube: Nanotyrannus Lancensis
Favourite Dinosaur: Spinosaurus aegypticus
Favourite Animal: Loxodonta africana
Joined: Nov 2, 2013 15:23:13 GMT
inherit
32
0
Mar 10, 2016 22:20:00 GMT
7
nanolancensis
If you can't beat 'em... call in a T. rex to eat 'em.
53
November 2013
nanolancensis
Nanotyrannus Lancensis
Spinosaurus aegypticus
Loxodonta africana
|
Post by nanolancensis on Dec 10, 2013 19:18:12 GMT
60/40 in favor of Epanterias would be my usual answer... but 100/0 in favor of Oxalaia because Epanterias possibly does not even exist. If it does, yeah, Epanterias wins a good bit more thanks to the reasons listed above.
|
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 10, 2013 19:41:27 GMT
60/40 in favor of Epanterias would be my usual answer... but 100/0 in favor of Oxalaia because Epanterias possibly does not even exist. If it does, yeah, Epanterias wins a good bit more thanks to the reasons listed above. We are using the hypothetical Epanterias. Epanterias was a freakishly large Allosaurus if it definitely did exist. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Dec 10, 2013 20:27:36 GMT
'Bates and Falkingham (2012) bridged extant and fossil dynamics with simulations of biting in humans, Alligator, Tyrannosaurus, and Allosaurus. Their dynamic simulations found higher bite forces in Allosaurus than expected from previous static analyses based on finite element reaction forces (Rayfield et al., 2001). Bates and Falkingham's (2012) analyses showed the versatility of multibody dynamics methods, adapting the free program GaitSym which is normally applied to simulate locomotion (Sellers et al., 2009; .' Quoted from an article about Allosaurus' feeding method: palaeo-electronica.org/content/2013/389-allosaurus-feedingAllosaurus didn't have a weak skull at all, TV media often underrates or overrates certain dinosaurs. The scientific papers and articles are much more reliable. |
|
