| 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 Tarbosaurus bataar | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 3 2015, 06:09 PM (6,485 Views) | |
| Taipan | Sep 3 2015, 06:09 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). ![]() Tarbosaurus bataar Tarbosaurus belongs in the subfamily Tyrannosaurinae within the family Tyrannosauridae, along with the earlier Daspletosaurus, the more recent Tyrannosaurus and possibly Alioramus. Animals in this subfamily are more closely related to Tyrannosaurus than to Albertosaurus and are known for their robust build with proportionally larger skulls and longer femurs than in the other subfamily, the Albertosaurinae. Like most known tyrannosaurids, Tarbosaurus was a large bipedal predator, weighing up to six tonnes and equipped with 60 large teeth. It had a unique locking mechanism in its lower jaw and the smallest forelimbs relative to body size of all tyrannosaurids, renowned for their disproportionately tiny, two-fingered forelimbs.The largest known Tarbosaurus skull is more than 1.3 meters (4 ft) long, larger than all other tyrannosaurids except Tyrannosaurus.[2] The skull was tall, like that of Tyrannosaurus, but not as wide, especially towards the rear. The unexpanded rear of the skull meant that Tarbosaurus eyes did not face directly forwards, suggesting that it lacked the binocular vision of Tyrannosaurus. Large fenestrae (openings) in the skull reduced its weight. Between 58 and 64 teeth lined its jaws, slightly more than in Tyrannosaurus but fewer than in smaller tyrannosaurids like Gorgosaurus and Alioramus. Most of its teeth were oval in cross section, although the teeth of the premaxilla at the tip of the upper jaw had a D-shaped cross section. This heterodonty is characteristic of the family. The longest teeth were in the maxilla (upper jaw bone), with crowns up to 85 millimeters (3.3 in) long. In the lower jaw, a ridge on the outer surface of the angular bone articulated with the rear of the dentary bone, creating a locking mechanism unique to Tarbosaurus and Alioramus. Other tyrannosaurids lacked this ridge and had more flexibility in the lower jaw. As with most dinosaurs, Tarbosaurus size estimates have varied through recent years. It could have been 10 meters long, with a weight of 4 to 5 - 7 tons. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Wombatman | Oct 7 2015, 11:28 PM Post #16 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
An hippo isnt bipedal, slender and 15 m long. The spinosaurus built doesnt look able to fight animals of similar size on land. Yes I know that Tarbosaurus is quite smaller, but is very formidable for its size, is robust, agile and have a nasty bite
Edited by Wombatman, Oct 7 2015, 11:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 8 2015, 12:25 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, inability to fight similarly sized opponents is not quite the same as inability to fight on land at all (which seems to have been your original point). Whatever, size does matter here, so I'd say Spino. An interesting question is maybe what is closer: T. rex vs Spino or Tarbosaurus vs Spinosaurus (both on land of course). |
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Oct 8 2015, 01:40 AM Post #18 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I keep the point that Spinosaurus shouldnt be a good fighter at land with the current anatomical reconstruction. It sure could kill smaller animals, but I doubt it could overcome a 4 ton tyrannosaur |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Oct 8 2015, 04:34 AM Post #19 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think what people should rather say is that amphibious animals (including hippos and Spinosaurus) would be at a clear disadvantage fighting on land, where they're kinda out of their element (especially at similar sizes). That's certainly not to say Spinosaurus isn't the clear winner here; it is. |
![]() |
|
| FishFossil | Oct 11 2015, 12:35 PM Post #20 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Even if Spinosaurus is disadvantaged on Terra Firma, it's still a clear winner. It doesn't matter if it's a quadruped, it has a good size advantage. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 11 2015, 04:30 PM Post #21 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ANY non-YT-hater size estimate for Spinosaurus makes it win this. Btw, Spinosaurus is a sausage. It's not really slender when you see it that way. |
![]() |
|
| bone crusher | Oct 12 2015, 11:19 PM Post #22 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus has a very slender body structure especially in the skull and neck region. The legs are actually smaller than Tarbo's so that means less efficient usage of its sheer mass. Unnlike Tyrannosaurus, most of Spino's weight is distributed in its length than width which means Tarbo does have the advantage in more power per kilogram if you will. This is how a 125kg lioness with muscle mass more evenly distributed could overpower a 240kg wildebeest with tooth pick legs despite the latter weighs almost twice as much. Now I'm not saying Tarbo is stronger overall, Spino could still be more powerful all taken into account, but the power difference between the two is more even than what the weight difference tells us. I can certainly see a Tarbo killing it by getting a good bite or two on Spino's neck using that bone crushing force, Spino could certainly kill tarbo too if it can pin it down using its heavier body weight and tear it to death with those huge claws. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Oct 13 2015, 04:27 AM Post #23 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How a lion takes down a wildebeest has nothing to do with the legs of the herbivore. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 13 2015, 07:40 AM Post #24 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Regarding bone crushing, does anyone have any information regarding Tarbosaurus’ tooth structure? Based on Hurum and Sabath (2003) Tarbosaurus’ functional morphology is quite distinct from T. rex, and not all tyrannosaurids actually share its feature of the incrassate mid-maxillary crushing dentition (see Smith et al. 2005; Gorgosaurus has crown base ratios more similar to allosaurs). If, as Hurum & Sabath suggested, Tarbosaurus’ skull design was less specialized for crushing and more suitable for large, unarmoured prey, and if its teeth support that notion, that may benefit its chances here, although I doubt it will turn this around when looking at the sheer size discrepancy. Spinosaurus is the one with the more evenly distributed mass, long, flexible body and distally robust limbs (lion), Tarbosaurus is the one with the compact torso and neck and the cursorial limbs (wildebeest). Not, of course, to say that this analogy has any relevance here, it certainly does not. Edited by theropod, Oct 14 2015, 01:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Oct 13 2015, 09:49 AM Post #25 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's just one tooth, but what about this?![]() Looks pretty thick to me. So if Tarbosaurus had a skull less adapted to crushing and still has robust teeth, that could turn into a disadvantage. Also, I know tyrannosaurids had some cursorial adaptations, but I just want to say that I'm not sure (if not have doubts on) if their hindlimbs would actually be as gracile as the limbs of a terrestrial artiodactyl (although no one directly stated that)...I can't really imagine a non-avian theropod (especially a very, very large one) having "toothpick legs". Edited by Ausar, Oct 13 2015, 09:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Oct 13 2015, 10:10 AM Post #26 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tarbosaurus would be very unlikely to grab spino's neck. Spinosaurus could probably grab it by the neck though. It had much more reach, and was a fish eater which heavily implies it would have had faster "grab this" reflexes than a big game hunter would. |
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Oct 13 2015, 08:24 PM Post #27 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Looks like a very equilibrated bipedal with robust hind limbs, and that backbone sure is very flexible. A formidable terrestrial fighter obviously comparable to a lion. And sarcasm off,yes it is slender. Just imagine that skeleton if it lacked the dorsal spines. |
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Oct 13 2015, 09:01 PM Post #28 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Literally none of that matters with how large the spinosaurus is. It could literally just stand there, and wait for tarbosaurus to get close and then grab it by the head/neck as soon as it does. After that I would bet the immediate follow up would be for it to pull it in and grab it with those big fishhook claws at which point the tarbosaurus would be in about as bad of a aposition as it could possibly be in. Spinosaurus might not have had the tools to go hunting sauropods and etc, but it definitely has the perfect tools to completely screw over a decently smaller theropod. Edited by Grimace, Oct 13 2015, 09:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Oct 13 2015, 10:06 PM Post #29 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay the spinosaurus wont go down without a good brawl and could kill Tarbosaurus sometimes, just wanted to point those mistakes out. |
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Oct 13 2015, 10:09 PM Post #30 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I dunno, if that size comparison on page one is accurate, I'd say it would win the overwhelming majority of the time. |
![]() |
|
| 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