Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannotitan chubutensis
Topic Started: Nov 1 2014, 07:47 PM (5,491 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
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).

Posted Image

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 Castaño 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).

Posted Image




Teratophoneus
Oct 31 2014, 01:58 AM
Tyrannotitan v Spinosaurus.

Before telling me that this is a mismatch:

- Spinosaurus is pretty slim by now. Latest estimates speak about a 6-7 t animal.
- Tyrannotitan is very bulky. It was just as heavy, being comparable to MUPCv-ch1.
- Spinosaurus is very short (height wise)

So Spinosaurus is longer mainly due the tail, but it wasn't too big at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Reptile
Nov 5 2014, 11:59 PM
Ceratodromeus
Nov 2 2014, 08:45 AM
The Reptile
Nov 2 2014, 08:31 AM
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)
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?
For one "teradactyls" don't exist; they are known scientifically as pterosaurs.

Second, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Suchomimus would only be a good indicator for spinosaurus' weight if it possessed the same leg-body proportions, which it apparently did not. Not to mention how they were actually quite distant from each other phylogenically (or at least more-so than what you would expect from two proportion-indentical animals)
it's pretty obvious from my post i wasn't talking about pterosaurs.
In fact, my whole post was apparently clear to you seeing how you answered my question in your usual rambling manner. -- suchomimus is no longer the best basis for scaling because of leg:body proportions.

theropod covered “tetradactyl” pretty well on the last page, so there's no need to reiterate.

cheers
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Nov 7 2014, 02:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ok well I apologize for my obvious misunderstanding, so there is no reason for this to get heated.
Edited by The Reptile, Nov 26 2014, 10:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
heated? not at all. i'd appreciate it if you read my posts more carefully before jumping to conclusions
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Reptile
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
See? Right there. You just added more unnecessary intensity/heaviness to this innocent conversation by explicitly demanding that I reduce my laziness
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
please direct me to the point where i “demand you reduce your laziness”

this post has me like lol

i see no where that i'm heated( unless you have deduced the “.” at the ends if my statements as being heated for some weird reason) i suggest you unrustle your jimmies there, kind sir.

i'm not agitated, heated, or whathaveyou. in fact, i'm calmly eating pumpkin pie lol
Edited by Ceratodromeus, Nov 28 2014, 11:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Nov 5 2014, 05:13 AM
@teratophoneus: maybe because that word can also mean "massive", or is used in the sense of "massive", as in "large", not as in "robust in built"?

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/Massicci

I don’t actually speak Italian, but a certain morphological similarity is hard to overlook.
I’m not a native english speaker either, but I think even bulky could be used in this sense (overall mass, not proportions), even though it seems uncommon.
@blaze: This Benson et al 2014?:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001853
I'm pretty sure Cau wasn't talking about size. He mentioned how Carcharodontosaurus' femur was more gracile than Tyrannotitan's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

But firstly, the Carcharodontosaurus femur is distorted, and secondly, the Tyrannotitan femur was 12% longer, so it could be allometrical variation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Carnoferox's sex toy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannotitan wins because Spino isn't suited for land combat. Sorry, Spino fans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.