| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Oxalaia quilombensis v Suchomimus tenerensis | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 3 2014, 09:41 PM (4,684 Views) | |
| Taipan | Jul 3 2014, 09:41 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Oxalaia quilombensis Oxalaia (a reference to the African deity Oxalá) is a genus of carnivorous theropod. It is a spinosaurine spinosaurid which lived during the late Cretaceous (early Cenomanian stage, about 98 mya) in what is now Brazil. Oxalaia is known from the holotype MN 6117-V, fused premaxillae of a very large individual and from the referred fragment MN 6119-V, an isolated and incomplete left maxilla, which were found on Cajual Island, Maranhão State of northeastern Brazil. Fossils of Oxalaia were recovered in 2004 from the Laje do Coringa locality of the Alcântara Formation, part of the Itapecuru Group of the São Luís Basin. Besides these bone fragments, numerous spinosaurid teeth had earlier been reported from the site. The genus was named by Alexander Wilhelm Armin Kellner, Sergio A.K. Azevedeo, Elaine B. Machado, Luciana B. Carvalho and Deise D.R. Henriques in 2011 and the type species is Oxalaia quilombensis. The specific name quilombensis refers to the quilombo settlements, such as on Cajual Island, which were founded by escaped slaves. Estimates suggest that it was 12 to 14 metres (39 to 46 ft) in length and 5 to 7 tonnes (5.5 to 7.7 short tons) in weight —- it is the largest theropod known from Brazil and the eighth officially named species of theropod from Brazil. ![]() Suchomimus tenerensis Suchomimus ("crocodile mimic") is a genus of large spinosaurid dinosaur with a crocodile-like mouth that lived between 121–112 million years ago, during the late Aptian stage of the Cretaceous period in Africa. Unlike most giant theropods, Suchomimus had a very long, low snout and narrow jaws studded with some 100 teeth, not very sharp and curving slightly backward. The tip of the snout was enlarged and carried a "rosette" of longer teeth. The animal is reminiscent of crocodilians that eat mainly fish, such as the living gharial, a type of large crocodile with a very long, slim snout, from the region of India. Suchomimus also had a tall extension of its vertebrae which may have held up some kind of low flap, ridge or sail of skin, as seen in much more exaggerated form in Spinosaurus. Detailed study shows that the specimen of Suchomimus was a subadult about 11 meters (36 ft) in length and weighing between 2.9t and 4.8t, but scientists think that it may have grown to about 12 meters (40 ft) long, approaching the size of Tyrannosaurus. The overall impression is of a massive and powerful creature that ate fish and presumably other sorts of meat (carrion, if naught else) more than 100 million years ago, when the Sahara was a lush, swampy habitat. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Teratophoneus | Dec 18 2014, 10:42 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm talking about Suchomimus. 11 meters=11 meters, if you meant 11.1-11.9 m you had to say 11 m range. Hartman's skeletal has a 143 cm long skull. If Oxalaia's skull was 1.1-1.2 m long, the difference is very substantial. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Dec 19 2014, 01:28 AM Post #32 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i do not have to do anything. it's obvious from the context of my post what i meant. any way, if we round to the nearest digit(which you're opposed to for some reason) S. tenerensis - 1.4 meters O. quilombensis 1.2 meters two .10ths of a meter is certainly not substantial. let alone be a defintive advantage. |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Dec 19 2014, 02:26 AM Post #33 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, it isn't obvious. You said ~11 m, and ~=about. 11.6 m, for example, isn't 11 m. When someone says ~11 m it's clear that he means that it's something like 10.9 or 11.1 m. 0.2 m of advantage is enough, especially when two animals are very similar. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Dec 19 2014, 09:31 AM Post #34 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay, two theropods that are very similar. Based on various estimates carch and giga have skull lengths similar to each other, within a tenth of each other i believe. You believe that match is a 50/50, so why would this ~.2 meter longer skull have any more significant meaning in this match? do you have anything suggesting skull length differences of ~.2 meters to be a deciding factor in any interspecific conflict? right now it just appears to be your opinion. Edited by Ceratodromeus, Dec 19 2014, 12:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 19 2014, 08:21 PM Post #35 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It would have the significance of the difference between a 12m theropod and a 14m theropod, given that it was actually present. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Dec 20 2014, 02:31 AM Post #36 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Isn't ~14 meters based on spinosaurus? Because, basing off of S.hartmans Spinosaurus is where i get the ~1.2meter skull length; 11.7 meters TBL. At best it'd be marginally larger then Suchomimus, but i see nothing to really indicate a 14 meter animal. Edited by Ceratodromeus, Dec 20 2014, 02:32 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 20 2014, 08:00 PM Post #37 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That wasn't my point, I haven't checked. The point is that a 1.4m skull is as much larger than a 1.2m skull as a 14m theropod is larger than a 12m one. That's a very significant difference, almost 60% in cubic terms. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Dec 20 2014, 09:48 PM Post #38 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I though you had realized that the 12-14m range for Oxalaia is scaled down from Dal Sasso et al. (2005) range of 16-18m for Spinosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 20 2014, 10:15 PM Post #39 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have, I wasn’t referring to the sizes of these two, I merely tried to point out just how big the difference between the two skull lenghts listed eariler is. I bet nobody would say that the difference between 14m and 12m or a 60% weight advantage doesn’t matter, yet it appears that because the absolute difference between 1.2m and 1.4m is just 20cm people are mistakenly considering it irrelevant. If the longer skull one was not radically more slender (which is exceedingly unlikely), its actually a huge difference in terms of size. Leaving aside that it’s "just" 20cm, this 17% difference is probably not limited to skull size. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Dec 21 2014, 12:31 AM Post #40 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, now I get it. About that difference, you have a point but I it also depends in the reconstruction, Hartman's Baryonyx and Suchomimus have longer snouts than other, I guess comparing the two snouts would be best if trying to gauge the size of the specimens compared to each other. |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Dec 21 2014, 01:28 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinodontosaurus had doubts too. Although it would definitely make a good deal of sense as long as balance was a contributing factor. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Dec 21 2014, 01:39 AM Post #42 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
didn't state it was irrelevent once. i was merely remarking on the difference. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 21 2014, 10:51 PM Post #43 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, it’s a pretty significant difference if your estimates are correct, although as blaze pointed out issues related to the reconstruction should be taken into account here (and everywhere else for that matter). |
![]() |
|
| TheBeast | Dec 23 2014, 02:52 AM Post #44 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sucho wins. Why? He's more robust, and oxa has sail. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Dec 23 2014, 03:10 AM Post #45 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Oxa has sail"? How would you know? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:27 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)










![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



2:27 AM Jul 14