Cretaceous Top Killers

[Gabe]

JPC said: "I hate to be a debbie downer, but we get this question from kids all the time at the museum... hate this question. Who the heck cares?!?! I hate boxing, too."

Hey don't knock it. I made quite a bit of money from a Discovery Channel affiliate who did a whole series of shows based on "Who would win" questions. They made stainless steel casts of the skulls of a fair number of different predators, and then tested them, then produced CGI fights. They used my plastic casts of skulls to make the stainless steel versions.

But you are right - I do particularly hate the question when it involves critters than didn't exist at the same time.

Rich

Totally agreed, but I understand how people can wonder which predator was more terrifying, powerful and so...whatever the period and if they lived together or not. Just like despit T. rex and Smilodon did not live at the same time, we know which one was the largest predator in the history course.

After all the modern blue whale is itself often compared to the Jurassic and Cretaceous largest sauropods.

[DE&i]

JPC said: "I hate to be a debbie downer, but we get this question from kids all the time at the museum... hate this question. Who the heck cares?!?! I hate boxing, too."

Hey don't knock it. I made quite a bit of money from a Discovery Channel affiliate who did a whole series of shows based on "Who would win" questions. They made stainless steel casts of the skulls of a fair number of different predators, and then tested them, then produced CGI fights. They used my plastic casts of skulls to make the stainless steel versions.

But you are right - I do particularly hate the question when it involves critters than didn't exist at the same time.

Rich

Wow that's amazing Rich...you was involved in that program..my son followed it here in the UK we had to endure repeats of it day in day out.

Regards,

Darren.

Edited December 9, 2013 by DarrenElliot

[Gabe]

If there was a carcharodontosaurus, a tyrannosaurus rex and a gigantosaurus fighting each other at the same place and time, who do you think would win?

Using current knowledge, Tyrannosaurus. The animal is whole much more robust and muscular (jaws, neck, legs) and it appears that no carcharodontosaurid is really larger than T. rex. It is possible that they outsized it by 50 cm-1 m but T. rex was more heavily built. Scott Hartman recently proposed size and weight estimates between Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus.

http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013

Edited December 9, 2013 by Gabe

[jpc]

Wow... someone restarted this topic. The other thing that irks me to no end about this question is that in asking it you assume each and every T rex or Giganotosaur (or whatever) is the same. There is variabliltiy built into the system so the answer can not be based on asking it about a whole species. Sometimes one would win, sometimes the other.

signed, Debbie Downer

[Opisthotriton]

I'm with Debbie.

[Gabe]

Wow... someone restarted this topic. The other thing that irks me to no end about this question is that in asking it you assume each and every T rex or Giganotosaur (or whatever) is the same. There is variabliltiy built into the system so the answer can not be based on asking it about a whole species. Sometimes one would win, sometimes the other.

signed, Debbie Downer

In the case of Tyrannosaurus/Giganotosaurus, Hartman said too that this is more a matter to compare specimens with specimens and not species with species as we have only a limited sample of both animals. But it does not change that we can determinate at now which species possessed overall the most robust, powerful design. Sue is very slightly heavier, and shorter, than the largest potential Giganotosaurus we have, supposing that the isolated dentary of the later indeed indicates an animal larger than the holotype. We can simply say, with the available material and modern analysis, which animal independantly produced the most powerful build, and the largest size. Even though at now, they are very similar, there is little doubt that Sue remains the largest carnivorous dinosaur from which we have a substantial skeleton. But larger by a small margin. Bu overall, Tyrannosaurus is understood to have had a very powerful and muscular built compared to others large theropods. Just looking at the thick neck, the barrel chest and the muscular legs.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Gabe

[Herb]

The meteorite won.

[Rait]

I think the right question would be which of them would survive, instead of 'winning'. If one of them dies at the spot, the second dies later of blood loss and the last gets one of his thigh bone smashed and dies a painful death out of starvation and infection, which one had won the battle?

[Gabe]

I think the right question would be which of them would survive, instead of 'winning'. If one of them dies at the spot, the second dies later of blood loss and the last gets one of his thigh bone smashed and dies a painful death out of starvation and infection, which one had won the battle?

As T. rex is a more brutal and direct agressor with its banana-like thick bone-pulverizing teeth, and that the carcharodontosaurids are equiped with flesh-slicing teeth, we can expect T. rex to win the initial battle but collapse moments later due to massive exsanguination produced by its foe.

[Rait]

We can indeed judge the bite force and tooth type of a prehistoric animal, but what was its position in the habitat, is something harder.

About the subject under discussion, some paleontologists think that T rex was a scavenger rather than an active hunter. Now I don't stand out and propagate that idea, my point is that the body alone does not determine the outcome of battles.

But yes, if all those animals fought head on with all their heart, it is much likely that any animal bitten by T rex would be either instantly crippled or suffer a debilitating loss.

Oh wait, the speed, strategy and reflexes would have their parts to play too.

[jpc]

my point is that the body alone does not determine the outcome of battles.

Why I keep chiming in here is beyond me, but this is exactly my point... go back and read my post about cats and dogs viewed as skeletons and tell me that you wouldn't pick a large dog over a cat any time, yet everyone knows that many cats will kick a large dos'a canine bottom right back to wherever it was he came from.

[Auspex]

Quantify the factors all you want; it's still an exercise of the imagination (not that this is a bad thing per se, but one needs to acknowledge that it is a case where seemingly scientific methods do not yield scientific results).

[Herb]

G.I.G.O.

[Krazy Rick]

JPC said: "I hate to be a debbie downer, but we get this question from kids all the time at the museum... hate this question. Who the heck cares?!?! I hate boxing, too."

Hey don't knock it. I made quite a bit of money from a Discovery Channel affiliate who did a whole series of shows based on "Who would win" questions. They made stainless steel casts of the skulls of a fair number of different predators, and then tested them, then produced CGI fights. They used my plastic casts of skulls to make the stainless steel versions.

But you are right - I do particularly hate the question when it involves critters than didn't exist at the same time.

Rich

It could be worse, it could be a Trilobite VS. Hamster question

[Boesse]

I know this post is ancient but I'd like to respond this.

None of these species is more impressive than C. megalodon actually, in terms of size (so predatory strength). The last findings of Pimiento in the Gatun nursery counts an adult C. megalodon lateral tooth indicating a total length of 17.9 m using Shimada's method. Reading Gottfried et al works, they predicted for a 17 m C. megalodon specimen a body mass of 59 tonnes, based on the weight regression curve used in the same paper. Shimada's method seems more conservative than Gottfried's method at estimating the size of C. megalodon. For the same UA2 tooth in the study, Gottfried et al regression estimated a total length about 15.9 m, whereas Shimada found 14-15.1 m. So it is possible that 17.9 m figure found in Gatun using Shimada's method is itself a conservative or cautious estimate. And Gottfried's regression itself appears somewhat conservative compared to others methods. And all the works dedicated to C. megalodon size only involved isolated specimens, none trying to establish a maximum size for the species, except for Gottfried who hypothesized a 20.3 m TL female individual.

By comparison, Tylosaurus, like others mosasaurs such as Hainosaurus and Mosasaurus, grew up to 10-13 m, perhaps to 15 m for discussing with Mike Everhart and Johan Lindgren. And mosasaurs were very slender in body structure.

The largest Pliosaurus, macromerus, was according to McHenry in his thesis, 12.8 m and 20 tonnes. Pliosaurus funkei and kevani are both slightly below that range in their description papers.

McHenry also estimated Kronosaurus at 10.5 m and 11 tonnes in the same thesis.

Liopleurodon was smaller than this at a size of about 5-7 m though some isolated remains from Oxford suggest possibly 9 m.

Basilosaurus was very large, in excess of 20 m, but very slender. It had an impressive set of jaws but only comparable to mosasaurines and tylosaurines in terms of size and predatory apparatus.

Livyatan is certainly the most impressive of all predatory tetrapods. Estimated at 13.5 m, based on Physeter zygomatics, and 16.2-17.5 m based on Zygophyseter zygomatics. Possibly it was somewhere between these two figures. It outclasses any marine reptiles with ease, even at an estimated 13.5 m.

But still, C. megalodon with several individuals estimated at 17 m+ in Gatun (so possibly in excess of 60 tonnes using Gottfried table), by a seemingly conservative method, still is likely the most impressive marine predator. Others unpublished calculations, based on jaws perimeters (a method used for Cardabiodon rickii and Parotodus benedeni), using large unstudied yet isolated teeth suggest for C. megalodon a maximum size approaching 20 m.

No doubt, all these ancients marine predators are very impressive, but none really equals C. megalodon in terms of size, even by conservative means.

Does body size make something a more impressive killer? I don't necessarily think so. I don't want to belittle the importance of C. megalodon in Miocene seas... but the teeth if Livyatan, for example, are many times larger. So that's something to consider. Another aspect of body size: most sharks (Carcharodon included) typically kill prey items that are smaller than they are. On the other hand, killer whales - at least certain populations (e.g. transients) - are known to take down baleen whales much larger than themselves (although widely documented, it's not known how often it occurs). Scaling that behavior up to Livyatan should make one shudder at the "possibilities". It's a moot point anyway, because there weren't any (or at least very very few) baleen whales larger than Livyatan during that period of time. We also can't assume that Livyatan was neatly in between the Physeter and Zygophsyeter length estimates, (convienently making it a hair smaller than the length estimate for C. megalodon), because it's more closely related to Zygophyseter (see phylogeny in Lambert et al. 2010). So using the more appropriate length estimate, Livyatan is roughly the same length as C. megalodon, and with bigger teeth to boot. And, it's an odontocete so it's A) smart and probably social. = Livyatan wins.

And again, reiterating JPC's point, it's a totally silly discussion to be having in the first place, but I thought I ought to defend the rightful crown of Livyatan and make one last silly indulgence.

[Gabe]

Does body size make something a more impressive killer? I don't necessarily think so. I don't want to belittle the importance of C. megalodon in Miocene seas... but the teeth if Livyatan, for example, are many times larger. So that's something to consider. Another aspect of body size: most sharks (Carcharodon included) typically kill prey items that are smaller than they are. On the other hand, killer whales - at least certain populations (e.g. transients) - are known to take down baleen whales much larger than themselves (although widely documented, it's not known how often it occurs). Scaling that behavior up to Livyatan should make one shudder at the "possibilities". It's a moot point anyway, because there weren't any (or at least very very few) baleen whales larger than Livyatan during that period of time. We also can't assume that Livyatan was neatly in between the Physeter and Zygophsyeter length estimates, (convienently making it a hair smaller than the length estimate for C. megalodon), because it's more closely related to Zygophyseter (see phylogeny in Lambert et al. 2010). So using the more appropriate length estimate, Livyatan is roughly the same length as C. megalodon, and with bigger teeth to boot. And, it's an odontocete so it's A) smart and probably social. = Livyatan wins.

And again, reiterating JPC's point, it's a totally silly discussion to be having in the first place, but I thought I ought to defend the rightful crown of Livyatan and make one last silly indulgence.

I think that is a much more interesting discussion than it seems at the first glance as it allows to get somewhat of a vision of the ecological roles of C. megalodon and Livyatan in the Miocene seas and to observe in detail their known or assumed paleobiology and paleoecology. After all, both species coexisted and have modern relatives, which provides interesting glimpses of some ancients trophic systems. That is at least much more valuable than the classic discussions involving Tyrannosaurus compared with a 30 millions years older very distant relative.

Respectfully, I have to say that some of your points are not totally established or are missing some others facts though. In short, yes, teeth size wise, Livyatan is obviously more impressive. But in terms of body size, jaws size, survival duration and cosmopolitan distribution/dominance, based on what we have as material, Carcharocles is clearly more impressive.

At first, in my opinion yes, size is important as it usually determines the hierarchy between coexisting predators in the wild. Orcinus orca dominates Carcharodon carcharias at the very first because of its important size advantage. I can understand the argument that Livyatan was the same size than Carcharocles, only with bigger teeth. However, Pseudorca, despite being in the size range of Carcharodon, and possessing huge impressive teeth, does not dominate the shark. Body size matters more than teeth size with different functions.

If Carcharocles reached maximum sizes up to ~20 m (Gottfried 1996, Compagno 2001, Wroe 2008), there is quite a range of difference with Livyatan upper estimate at 17.5 m (and 16.2 m using the lower estimate based on Zygophyseter).

Also, using Gottfried regression, a 17 m Carcharocles (so roughly the size or a bit shorter than the upper estimate for Livyatan) would weigh about 59 metric tonnes. This rigorous reconstruction of Carcharocles suggests a bulky body build. I just don't see the skull from Livyatan in Lima belonging to something equally that heavy. Pimiento recently found another specimen in Gatun at 17.9 m, which according to Gottfried et al. theoretically corresponds to a 65 tonnes plus animal, let's even assume conservatively 55 tonnes.

I don't think we can argue at now that Livyatan, whatever its exact length, reached that body mass which is superior to even most of the males Physeter. Though there are no published works on its body mass, I've heard some interviews from the Lima exhibit where a body mass of around 30 tonnes was hinted. Hence, even if these are just guess, I don't think that Livyatan, as of now, really equals the largest accepted modern figures for Carcharocles. Of course, Gottfried et al. regression curve body mass is not written in the stone but no one has produced best data as of 2013 regarding the weight predictions in lamnids/lamniforms.

.

Stating that Zygophyseter is more appropriate than Physeter because of phylogenetic reasons is defensible but it is, in my opinion, more appropriate to use a closely related taxon of similar size (in this case Physeter macrocephalus) as template when you estimate total length. Hence, the reason why Lambert et al. proposed that range, and not favoring one or the other in all cautiousness. But again, the largest Livyatan estimate does not equal the largest Carcharocles estimates, it merely enters the proposed range.

The teeth of Livyatan are larger (though, strictly speaking the widest teeth from Carcharocles are wider) but, like body size, are they more impressive as they are totally different in their use ?

Pliosaurs and Tyrannosaurus too have larger (longer) teeth than Carcharocles, still they are certainly respectively outclassed in terms of size and predatory power by the later otodontid.

Especially, Carcharocles as a shark, of course does not have that deep root known in tetrapods, despite its teeth are themselves much more robust than those of Carcharodon at size parity. The crown of Livyatan teeth themself constitutes only a part of the tooth and does not appear that larger compared to Carcharocles largest Upper, Lower and Lateral.. The whale was obviously a bone crusher whereas Carcharocles was built to saw, by huge lateral head shaking, through flesh, blubber and bones. And at least we have direct numerous evidences of Carcharocles feeding/scavenging on mysticetes/odontocete bones/remains. That is not the case of Livyatan.

Also, teeth are not the only point to keep in mind while discussing the predatory apparatus, the size of the jaws too. Livyatan has a mouth itself 1.8 m long and ~1.2 m wide. That's again huge, bigger than any Mesozoic carnivorous critters, but not comparable to the much wider, rigorous Carcharocles megalodon jaws reconstructions (of course, not thinking about the models that are poorly designed, or too much stretched).

But check this example, the jaws of the skeletal reconstruction of the CMM, originally representing a medium-sized Carcharocles at 11.5 m, scaled up at 17 m (Gottfried, Pimiento) compared with Livyatan, Orcinus and Physeter.

From Renz (2002) :

The teeth of the shark are smaller but the predatory apparatus itself appears quite more voluminous and wider than in Livyatan, and 17 m does not represent the highest modern size prediction for Carcharocles. Several people could reastically stand in the open jaws of a large Carcharocles, I don't think that's exactly the same case with Livyatan.

My point : Carcharocles had the bigger bite and with its robust saw-like dentition, had no problem to slice through even bones.

However, I would not be surprised if Livyatan's bite force, due to its huge temporal fossa and the deep root of its enormous teeth, had a bite force equalling or surpassing by a margin the estimated bite force in Carcharocles, which is suspected to have had itself a substantial bite force (in absolute terms, not at parity weight which appears quite weak in most sharks). Here again, two very different killing apparatus.

But the biggest predatory apparatus is most impressive to me than the biggest teeth.

To my knowledge, Carcharodon carcharias has been actually known to engage similarly-sized preys including bull elephant seals, pilot whales or right whales calves, which are easily as heavy or heavier than any adult Carcharodon even if the attack is not necessary successful :

http://yalikedags.southernfriedscience.com/?p=983

There is a fossil recorded case from the Pliocene by Kallal et al. with healed bite marks on the rib of a rorqual species. The shark behind this has been estimated at 4-7 m and is suspected to have been a very large Carcharodon or more likely a juvenile Carcharocles (numerous juvenile teeth in the area) and the rib itself belonged to a much larger cetacean, thought to be fin whale-sized (Godfrey, personnal communication) :

By Tim Scheirer

So sharks such as Carcharodon and Carcharocles, are known to have individually engaged larger, even irrealistics opponents.

Yes orcas attack larger preys too...but usually in packs. I've not seen orcas individually taking on larger preys than themselves. I know that case :

O'Sullivan, J. B.; T., Mitchell (2000). "A fatal attack on a whale shark Rhincodon typus, by killer whales Orcinus orca off Bahia de Los Angeles, Baja California". American Elasmobranch Society 16th Annual Meeting, 14–20 June 2000. La Paz, B.C.S., México. Retrieved 2010-02-18."

But that's again two orcas on a prey of similar size or slightly smaller (in mass, a 8 m Rhincodon is certainly less massive than a bull orca). Not saying orcas don't have the "bravery" to engage a larger opponent alone, but individually they're not more impressive than some sharks species such as Carcharodon or Carcharhinus leucas which preys on dolphins the same size it is.

And applying orca or Physeter social habits to Livyatan appears too much speculative to me. Some others odontocetes like Kogia are solitary. And given the very large size of Livyatan, its position in trophic systems, the fact it had no or very few preys larger than itself and its rare occurence, I doubt it was certainly as social as Physeter or Orcinus.

I'm always dubious about the intelligence factor. Carcharhinus leucas, longimanus or the makos engage and kill smarter dolphins.

Now, even though we don't know when Livyatan disappeared, it seems highly likely it vanished long before Carcharocles itself vanished.

Two predators in the same size class, in a similar trophic position, so logically sensitive to the same change and phenomenon, and one being presumably more intelligent, advanced, social...Ultimately, this one did not outcompete the other and gone extinct much earlier. There can be multiple reasons at why one and not the other, but at least in terms of survival, Carcharocles won the ecological battle.

I personnally prefer to compare Carcharocles and Livyatan with Carcharodon and Pseudorca. Pseudorca, despite a set of teeth absolutely impressive, more impressive at size parity than in the orca and Carcharodon, and being of a size comparable to some Carcharodon, is not equal to the shark in terms of predation dominance :

LVJ Compagno 1990 :

So, in terms of size (by the modern widely accepted, reasonnable range), bite volume, survival and predatory agression on large preys, despite we of course lack of material from Livyatan (a smoking gun ?), Carcharocles therefore appears likely, but not demonstrated beyond all dout, to be the largest and most dominant predator in the Miocene/Pliocene marine environments.

Except for its huge teeth, totally different than sharks teeth anyway, I'm not convinced that Livyatan was the most impressive predator, especially seeing its probably much shorter-lived occurence.

Of course, there's no certainty there and some updates could change that statement. But all of this makes sense to me. Now of course, I can have missed some points, don't hesitate if that's the case.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Gabe

[Foshunter]

I thought this was a quesrion about the top killer of the Cretaceous? This is my two cents-----Everyone knows Godzilla is the apex killer Dino.---well almost everyone---well maybe some----none?.

Here is the statistics for Godzilla:

Can walk under water

Spit fire and extremely bad breath that destroys everything in it's path

Tail that when moved side to side takes out large buildings and radio towers, etc

Large feet with claws that can crush 6 Volkswagon beetles, one Ugo and a Toyota with each step

Front appendages with claws that grasp and throw objects long distances

And lastly, from a very reliable or semi-reliable or naybe none of those listed, a Japanese witness mentioned Godzilla has extreme flatulence that can level two city blocks,

So!!!!If you ever find yourself behind Godzilla when it is dark, Never strick a match for it won't go well for you

I find the above to be the top predator of the Cretaceous, T-Rex you are going down. That's my story and I'm sticking to it----Tom

[Herb]

Edited December 15, 2013 by Herb