Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Dacentrurus armatus
Dacentrurus armatus

Posted Image

Temporal range: Late Jurassic, 154–150 Ma

Scientific classification
Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum:Chordata
Branch:Sauropsida
clade:Dinosauria
Order:Ornithischia
Suborder:Stegosauria
Family:Stegosauridae
Genus:Dacentrurus
Species: D. armatus

Binomial name
Dacentrurus armatus
(Owen, 1875 [originally Omosaurus])

Synonyms
Omosaurus armatus Owen, 1875 (preoccupied)

Size
Mass: 6 tonnes
Length: 8-10 meters

Posted Image
Holotype specimen, London



Dacentrurus ("very sharp tail"), originally known as Omosaurus, was a large stegosaur of the Late Jurassic Period (154 - 150 mya).

Description

Posted Image
Life restoration of Dacentrurus armatus

This dinosaur measured around 8 metres (26 ft) in length. It had paired triangular plates down its spine, with four pairs of spikes on the end of the tail. This configuration closely resembles that of its relative, Kentrosaurus (see also: thagomizer). Many books claim that Dacentrurus was a small stegosaur, when in fact finds such as a 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) pelvis (measured at the acetabula) suggest that Dacentrurus was among the largest of them. Although Dacentrurus is considered to have the same proportions as a Stegosaurus, Dacentrurus' plate and spike configuration is known to be rather different, as Dacentrurus has both two rows of small plates and two rows of longer spines along its back. Its closest relative within Stegosauria is Miragaia, and the two are united in the subfamily Dacentrurinae.

Discovery and species

When it was described by Richard Owen in 1875 as Omosaurus armatus, it was the first stegosaur ever discovered, although the genus name had to be changed as the name Omosaurus was preoccupied.

Species


Posted Image
Holotype of Dacentrurus armatus, from Owen's 1875 monograph

Other proposed species of Dacentrurus include D. durobrivensis (included with Lexovisaurus durobrivensis), D. phillipsi (sometimes mistakenly included with Priodontognathus phillipsi, due to having the same species name and a confused history), and D. vetustus (included with Lexovisaurus vetustus).

Distribution

Fossil evidence has been found in Wiltshire and Dorset (including a vertebra ascribed to D. armatus in Weymouth) in southern England, France and Spain and five more historically recent skeletons from Portugal.
Argiles d'Octeville
Camadas de Alcobaça
El Collado Formation
Kimmeridge Clay
Unidade Amoreira-Porto Novo
Unidade Bombarral
?Unidade Castehanos
Unidade Sobral

Eggs attributed to Dacentrurus have also been discovered in Portugal.

Spotted Hyena (pack of 5) v Deinonychus (pack of 5)
Deinonychus wins
  • stronger bite
    • 4100-8200 newtons of bite force

  • more agile
  • avian stamina
  • more durable, like modern birds

Interspecific Conflict Guidelines & Requests
Euhelopus vs Shantungosaurus

Torvosaurus (European) v Tyrannotitan
Torvosaurus has a very strong bone-crushing bite without any mention of small gape, and has a slight size advantage. Torvosaurus wins 70-75%

Torvosaurus Pictorial
Torvosaurus skulls
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Torvosaurus skull with human
Posted Image

Dinosaur and other extinct animal Skulls Pictorial
Torvosaurus skulls
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Torvosaurus skull with human
Posted Image

Dinosaur and other extinct animal Skulls Pictorial
Carcharodontosaurus skull
Posted Image

Carcharodontosaurus Pictorial
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image <--Carcharodontosaurus tooth

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
If you guys use 9.1 tonnes for Tyrannosaurus, then we must use 20.7 tonnes for Spinosaurus. If you are gonna use a liberal estimate for Tyrannosaurus, then we must also use liberals for toher theropods, otherwise, it would be bias.

Verdugo, the skeleton isn't the issue, it's how they fleshed it out, that's the issue. 9-tonne Tyrannosaurus is fat, fat, and more fat

Deinonychus antirrhopus v Velociraptor mongoliensis (Pack of 3)
Deinonychus wins

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Gecko
Oct 8 2012, 01:01 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Oct 7 2012, 01:53 PM
Just stop cherry picking the info that gives Tyrannosaurus the advantage. Spinosaurus was almost twice the mass of Tyrannosaurus and was much taller.
How is that cherry picking? I can show you six more pictures and the results will be the same...

Tyrannosaurs are physically more impressive looking than Spinosaurs (Not counting the arms of course)

brolyeuphyfusion
 
((17 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 11073.6288505 kilograms

((16 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 9232.15627348 kilograms
((18 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 13145.0037566 kilograms

Scaling from a 3-tonne, 11-meter Suchomimus yields ~11 tonnes for a 17-meter Spinosaurus, ~9.2 tonnes for a 16-meter individual, and ~13.1 tonnes for an 18-meter individual


Sue's skeleton alone weight almost 2 tons. The new weight estimates (the laser scanned skeletons one) give Sue a minimum weight of 10 tons. The Field Museum says Sue is "more than 7 tons ".

@Verdugo nice find. Here's the Tyrannosaurus holotype skull in a similar pose.
Posted Image
Your laser scanned skeleton estimate is flawed, don't use it. It assumes that Tyrannosaurus was a fat sausage.
If you have seen the model that the estimate is based on, you'll see what I mean...
Tyrannosaurus can't even hunt effectively at that level of fatness!

Epanterias amplexus v Torvosaurus tanneri (European)
50/50 imo

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Spinosaurus won't be using it's bite to kill though...so even if Spinosaurus had the bite force of a human(which is impossibly low for an 11-tonne theropod), it would still win

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
((17 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 11073.6288505 kilograms

((16 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 9232.15627348 kilograms
((18 / 11)3 ) * 3000 kg = 13145.0037566 kilograms

Scaling from a 3-tonne, 11-meter Suchomimus yields ~11 tonnes for a 17-meter Spinosaurus, ~9.2 tonnes for a 16-meter individual, and ~13.1 tonnes for an 18-meter individual

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Gecko
Oct 7 2012, 01:40 PM
Fragillimus335
Oct 7 2012, 07:04 AM
Spinosaurus wins. This is why I think so. Tyrannosaurus's only useful advantage in this fight is moderately superior bite force. Every other advantage goes to Spinosaurus. It has an enormous weight, height, strength, gape, and reach advantage. Spinosaurus was twice as strong as Tyrannosaurus, that make this a mismatch.
Tyrannosaurus's bite certainly was more than just "moderately" superior. Dr. Sakamoto suggests that Spinosaurus's bite was weak compared to Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus, whos bites were already lower than Tyrannosaurus's by "almost an order of magnitude".

Weight and strength are also something Spinosaurus wouldn't have a big advantage in either. Spinosaurs were bulky but were no where near Tyrannosaurs. A 14-16 m Spinosaurus would probably wasn't much wider than Stan. Tyrannosaurus was extremely barrel chested, at parity Tyrannosaurus was without a doubt stronger and probably comparable in strength to even an 16-17 m Spinosaurus (At least Sue was). I'd think Tyrannosaurus would be within a few 1000 lbs of Spinosaurus.

I doubt it had a big height advantage (If it even had one!). The newest info puts Spinosaurus's legs as being pretty short, and even scaling up from Baryonyx and Suchomimus doesn't make it over 1 meter taller.

Source for Tyrannosaurus having a smaller gape than Spinosaurus? Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus certainly had a bigger gape but Spinosaurus?
Just stop cherry picking the info that gives Tyrannosaurus the advantage. Spinosaurus was almost twice the mass of Tyrannosaurus and was much taller.

size
Pardus
Oct 7 2012, 08:02 AM
Size is: Height and Length
You forgot width...

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
I wonder when will this end...Spinosaurus wins, but Tyrannosaurus' fans keep denying it...

Pegomastax africanus
Posted Image
Lower jaws of specimen SAM-PK-K10488

what is megaraptor?
coelophysid
Oct 6 2012, 07:16 PM
a dromeosaur
No, that's outdated. It was found to be a neovenatorid allosauroid

size
Length isn't size though...Size = Volume. Puertasaurus is far more voluminous than Supersaurus