| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannotitan chubutensis | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 1 2014, 07:47 PM (5,492 Views) | |
| Taipan | Nov 1 2014, 07:47 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
![]()
|
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons). ![]() Tyrannotitan chubutensis Tyrannotitan is a genus of huge bipedal carnivorous dinosaur of the carcharodontosaurid family from the Aptian stage of the early Cretaceous period, discovered in Argentina. It is closely related to other giant predators like Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. Its fearsome appearance is reflected in the meaning of its name, "Tyrant titan". Tyrannotitan chubutensis was described by Fernando E. Novas, Silvina de Valais, Pat Vickers-Rich, and Tom Rich in 2005. The fossils were found at La Juanita Farm, 28 kilometres (17 mi) northeast of Paso de Indios, Chubut Province, Argentina. They are believed to have been from the Cerro CastaƱo Member, Cerro Barcino Formation (Aptian stage) around 112.2 - 121 million years ago. The length of the animal is estimated to be on average at 12.2 metres (40 ft). Little information has yet been released about Tyrannotitan. Only a very brief description of the fossils has been published (four pages). The teeth are less blade-like than those of its kin, and possess odd, lumpy denticles (there is a barely distinguishable groove in the center, dividing each denticle into two parts). ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Nov 2 2014, 08:09 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Can I have documentation of spinosaurus' body robusticity now? Haven't the new discoveries only reconstructed it as an animal less restricted to bipedalism? |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 2 2014, 08:18 AM Post #3 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
alot of people are focusing on 'size reduction' when they're really referring to length. the new length was what? 15 meters? instead of focusing on 16-18 meter hypothetical giants, let's focus on the weight of the semi quadrupedal 15 meter figure. Tyrannotitan was ~12.5 meters, similar to the giga holotype. i don't think a weight figure has been given thus far, but i'm guesstimating 5.5 - 6 tons. if we take the hypothesized 7-9 ton estimate, it's going to be closer. a S. aegyptiacus in the 9 -11 ton range is a different matter |
![]() |
|
| The Reptile | Nov 2 2014, 08:31 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So even its estimated length was revised? Whether it was or not, do not forget the fact that a bipedal animal will probably have vastly different proportions than a quadrupedal animal in general. Bipedal theropods were, compared to animals like ceratopsians, semi-aquatic crocodylomorphs (think deinosuchus or sarchosuchus), or sauropods, very gracile and frail. Spinosaurus having proportionally shorter hind legs would not necessarily reduce its proportional weight, but likely increase it if it changes. Meaning, it is very-well possible that spinosaurus was still well over 7 tons; probably even the same as it was previously estimated (roughly 12 tons) |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 2 2014, 08:45 AM Post #5 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
that's the thing though; Spinosaurus' feet are reminiscent of tetradactlyl feet, and the femur is disproportionately short when compared to Suchomimus( or so i've read) so, it's legs being shorter when compared to other reasonably complete spinosaurs, does that suggest S. tenerensis isn't the best base for scaling? subsequently, 9+ ton estimates? Edited by Ceratodromeus, Nov 2 2014, 08:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Nov 2 2014, 08:57 AM Post #6 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bipedal theropods were gracile and frail compared to ceratopsians and giant crocodylomorphs? how did you arrive at this conclusion? The truth is that Spinosaurus not only has short legs, they are reduced in size relative to its overall size too, comparing the new reconstruction with those of other giant theropods makes it look as if both legs of spinosaurus would not amount to the same mass as a single leg of Tyrannosaurus or Giganotosaurus. That it was a quadruped is just not parsimonious with theropod anatomy and until we find Spinosaurus hands it should not be assumed to be true, I'm of the impression that Ibrahim might have overestimated the size of the missing vertebrae (they claim the new specimen is smaller than the holotype but the vertebrae in their reconstruction are longer than those of the holotype when correctly scaled to the size of the new specimen) so if the torso length can be slightly reduced and the relative size of the neck can also be reduced, this will help it with it being bipedal, even then Andrea Cau is of the opinion that the strongly S-curved neck of Spinosaurus along with a more vertical orientation of its torso would be enough for it to walk bipedally. Edited by blaze, Nov 2 2014, 08:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Big G | Nov 2 2014, 06:15 PM Post #7 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannotitan wins. It may have been even larger than Spinosaurus. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2014/01/coming-soon-tyrannotitan-reloaded.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Nov 2 2014, 06:25 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd favour Tyrannotitan due to its more massive built.
Edited by Teratophoneus, Nov 2 2014, 06:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Nov 2 2014, 10:30 PM Post #9 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is it possible Spinosaurus would also be out of its element on land as well? |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Nov 3 2014, 01:00 PM Post #10 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pretty sure people are indeed referring to size (mass), not length. Andrea Cau was given a 6 - 7 tonne figure by one of the authors of the recent paper, down on the 7 - 9 tonne estimate in Dal Sasso et al. (2005), and indeed on the many 10+ tonne fan estimates. Although given how shrink-wrapped their model appears to be, I suspect this is probably an underestimate. The length has hardly changed at all. Though the quoted length figure is 15 meters, this is seemingly referring to a simple straight line estimate of their skeleton model. It isn't measured over the spine curvature like pretty much every other length figure ever. Over the curves the thing probably hit 16 meters at the very least - comparable to Scott Hartman's 2013 estimate of 15.6 meters, and in line with the lower end of Dal Sasso's 16 - 18 meter estimate. I would say that evidence for Tyrannotitan being heavier than Spinosaurus is pretty weak; what we know of it is that is similar in size to the Giganotosaurus type specimen. Scott Hartman estimated this at 6.8 tonnes. Same size then, although Hartman's Giganotosaurus skeletal is far more fleshed out than Ibrahim et al's Spinosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Nov 3 2014, 10:42 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tyrannotitan was also bulkier than Giganotosaurus, so it may have been heavier than the type. Spinosaurus at 6-7 t seems realistic to me: Spinosaurus had a not deep chest. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Nov 4 2014, 01:32 AM Post #12 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah. i see...quick question; is scaling from S. tenerensis considered invalid now due to Spinosaurus' proportions? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 4 2014, 06:52 AM Post #13 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evidence? |
![]() |
|
| Teratophoneus | Nov 4 2014, 10:15 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Big G has already posted that Cau's post. Look what he wrote:
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 4 2014, 10:35 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which bones exactly? Again only the femur or this time more parts of the skeleton? BTW, Cau only compared it to Acrocanthosaurus and the Carcharodontosaurus holotype, not to Giganotosaurus. http://jpdh-universe.deviantart.com/journal/Early-Birds-and-Tyrannotitan-s-Place-Among-Giants-429193041 Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Nov 4 2014, 10:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 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