One of the difficulties with paleontology (and paleontologists) is that the temptation for, "my dinosaur is bigger than yours," or, mine has bigger teeth and is meaner," frequently trumps scientific objectivity. Less frequent, but not uncommon, are claims for "smallest," "first and oldest," "meanest," etc. One sees this "imprtance inflation factor," in anthropology and archeology. I suspect there are almsot as many "oldest hominid" claims are there bone or tooth fragmnents discovered every year. The reasons for this are as simple as competition for news space that can be translated into justification for that grant and a stepping stone to its extension or renewal, or the next tenure committee meeting. There really is nothing new about trying to find that piece of recognition; Andy Warhol twelve minutes of fame works in science too. One has changed is the rapidity and frequency of claims reflecting the instantaneous nature of worldwide comminication. What has also changed is the intense competition for professional employment and research dollars. There are simply too many unemployed or underemployed professionals for the available positions and despite the popularity of the biggest, meanest, smallest, earliest or latest, fewer positions exist every year.

In point of fact, comparison of Carcharodontosaurus (named for the Great White shark) with Tyrannosaurus rex (the Tyrant king) is very silly. They were very different aniumals with different origins and fates and different adapations. In actuality 30 million years or more separated them and the worlds in which they lived. Now thirty million years is a very period of time, indeed.

Of course, even though comparisons are silly, my money would go T. rex. In a heavyweight match you can go with footwork and flash, or the straight ahead guy with the big punch in either hand--the T. rex of heavyweights for me was Big George Forman. T. rex had a heavier skull with potent teeth made like steak knives--give me T. rex any day.