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 Tarbosaurus bataar
Topic Started: Sep 3 2015, 06:09 PM (6,483 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

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.

Posted Image




bone crusher
Sep 3 2015, 01:22 PM
Tarbosaurus bataar (5-7 tons) vs spinosaurus aegyptiacus (6-7 tons) Should be awesome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
This changed my opinion

Posted Image

Tarbosaurus skull (the left one) is quite flat
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grimace
Oct 7 2015, 11:09 PM
Wombatman
Oct 7 2015, 10:58 PM
Grimace
Oct 7 2015, 04:56 PM
It doesn't even matter which one has a skull better adapted for big game.

Kind of like how an elephant seal isn't adapted for preying on large herbivores, but it'd still obliterate a lion.
There is people here that wouldnt agree with that.
On the other hand Im having a hard time imagining how a Spinosaurus would fight on land.
>someone would argue for the lion
pfffffffffft

Also how are you having trouble imagining a spinosaurus fighting on land? Its not a mososaur or something, thats like me saying I can't imagine how a hippo would fight on land. Sure it's more at home in the water and has short legs, but that doesn't mean it isn't fully capable of coming out and obliterating you.
I would like to support your argument by saying that hippos are known to be one of the most aggressive and possibly deadliest animals. They are very territorial and surprisingly fast.
bone crusher
Sep 4 2015, 12:00 AM
Spino's disadvantage would be mobility on land due to much shorter height, also most certainly a much weaker bite. If Tarbo could use its height advantage and get a good hold of Spino's rather slim neck then it could win the fight by crushing the spine.
May I ask why people keep using the height of Spinosaurus as an important disadvantage? It wasn't that short!

Posted Image

And I assume Spinosaurus might have been able to stand on two legs for short times, as it had evolved from biped creatures.
I was thinking of a 18 m., 10 t. Spinosaurus but I don't think I should really bring this up right now cause I'm not in the mood to start another such disqussion for now.
SpinoInWonderland
Oct 11 2015, 04:30 PM
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.
A 14-18 m. long animal that looks like a sausage isn't called Spinosaurus. It is called Sei Whale.
bone crusher
Oct 12 2015, 11:19 PM
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.
Quote:
 
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


Sorry. I don't understand that. Most of its weight is distributed in its length rather than width?

Quote:
 
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.


I don't know if you are aware of it but when lionesses go for wildebeest hunting they remain cautious. Cause a wildebeest can certainly kill a lioness.
theropod
Oct 13 2015, 07:40 AM
bone crusher
Oct 12 2015, 11:19 PM
I can certainly see a Tarbo killing it by getting a good bite or two on Spino's neck using that bone crushing force
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.

Quote:
 
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.
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.
Not to mention that Spinosaurus most probably surpasses Tarbosaurus in weight.

Although smaller than Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus was one of the largest tyrannosaurids. The largest known individuals were between 10 and 12 m (33 and 39 ft) long.[1] The mass of a fully grown individual is considered comparable to or slightly smaller than Tyrannosaurus, often estimated to be around 4–5 metric tons.

Compare it to Spinosaurus which is 15 m. long and weights 6-7 t. (although I still support the 18 m., 10 t. estimation).
Grimace
Oct 13 2015, 10:10 AM
theropod
Oct 13 2015, 07:40 AM
bone crusher
Oct 12 2015, 11:19 PM
I can certainly see a Tarbo killing it by getting a good bite or two on Spino's neck using that bone crushing force
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.

Quote:
 
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.
Spinosaurus is the one with the more evenly distributed mass, long, flexible body and distally robust limbs (lion), _T. rex_ 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.
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.
Quote:
 
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.


One of the arguments I used in Spinosaurus VS Tyrannosaurus. Memories.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 29 2015, 05:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I don't care if you are "thinking about an 18 meter 10 tonne Spinosaurus", this is not the fantasy/fictional section so such an animal has no place in these discussions. The scale chart you posted is also not accurate, and the reason people keep bringing up height is because Spinosaurus had tiny legs. If it was quadrupedal as you believe it to be, then it would unquestionably be shorter at the hips than a large Tarbosaurus. This remains true even if it adopted a reared-up bipedal pose as I believe is most realistic, although in that case it's head height would be somewhat greater.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 30 2015, 02:57 AM
I don't care if you are "thinking about an 18 meter 10 tonne Spinosaurus", this is not the fantasy/fictional section so such an animal has no place in these discussions. The scale chart you posted is also not accurate, and the reason people keep bringing up height is because Spinosaurus had tiny legs. If it was quadrupedal as you believe it to be, then it would unquestionably be shorter at the hips than a large Tarbosaurus. This remains true even if it adopted a reared-up bipedal pose as I believe is most realistic, although in that case it's head height would be somewhat greater.
Quote:
 
I don't care if you are "thinking about an 18 meter 10 tonne Spinosaurus", this is not the fantasy/fictional section so such an animal has no place in these discussions.


The 18 m. Spinosaurus isn't fictional. It has been made fictional here by some users, like you, who just say "MSNM-V4047 can't have belonged to Spinosaurus" without supporting it. And no, that thing that was saying about the validity of the specimens in Kem Kem Formation STILL hasn't convinced me cause it didn't say anything important.

Quote:
 
The scale chart you posted is also not accurate


You are right! Spinosaurus wasn't quadrupedal and 15 m. long as shown here! This is stupid! It was bipedal and 18 m. long! rolleyes rolleyes

Quote:
 
If it was quadrupedal as you believe it to be


Do we support Ibrahim, yes or no?
Why do I keep writing "Spinsoaurus"?
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 30 2015, 06:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ceratodromeus
Member Avatar
Aspiring herpetologist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You've really got to stop believing everything you read on the internet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid
Nov 30 2015, 06:58 AM


The 18 m. Spinosaurus isn't fictional.
Good lord, won't you already stop? It's as real as a 14.5m T. rex.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thalassophoneus
Member Avatar
Pelagic Killer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Nov 30 2015, 07:57 AM
Mantrid
Nov 30 2015, 06:58 AM


The 18 m. Spinosaurus isn't fictional.
Good lord, won't you already stop? It's as real as a 14.5m T. rex.
I believe that a snout is more helpful at estimating the length of Spinosaurus than how much helpful a toe is at estimating a possible maximum length for Tyrannosaurus.

Also, since Sue is considered an unusually old specimen (she died at the age of 28) which means that she is also possibly a very large one.
The assumption that Spinosaurus was up to 18 m. long is based on MSNM-V4047. And this snout would give a skull length of over 170 cm. And it has been accepted as a Spinosaurus specimen cause this snout looks like the snout of a Spinosaurus, which we know how it probably looked judging from other fossils. And saying that another specimen that was discovered in the same are might not have been a Spinosauurs doesn't mean this skull didn't belong to a Spinosaurus.

Those are my arguments to support this. But off course I'm gonna go through circular reasoning again. Somebody will tell me "neither did this snout certainly belong to a Spinosaurus". Jesus guys! I'm not the one who sticks to his own assumption and doesn't listen to anyone else! You are the ones that ignore my arguments to get me through circular reasoning!
And this thing that you found and says that it was a mistake for Ibrahim to instantly attribute his fossils to Spinosaurus is just bullcrap! It doesn't say anything supporting what you believe and it is the only even slightest proof that you have found ever since this downscaling of Spinosaurus was first made.
Edited by Thalassophoneus, Nov 30 2015, 08:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The 18 m. Spinosaurus isn't fictional. It has been made fictional here by some users, like you, who just say "MSNM-V4047 can't have belonged to Spinosaurus" without supporting it. And no, that thing that was saying about the validity of the specimens in Kem Kem Formation STILL hasn't convinced me cause it didn't say anything important.

The claim has been supported, it is you who has failed to support the referral of MSNM V4047 to Spinosaurus. The presence of multiple spinosaurid genera being present in the Kem Kem, and the possible absence of Spinosaurus itself from that formation are incredibly important points for this discussion, your steadfast refusal to admit this is a failing of yourself not the argument.

You cannot say that MSNM V4047 looked like a Spinosaurus snout because we don't actually know what Spinosaurus' snout even looked like.

Even if we refer MSNM V4047 to Spinosaurus we are only talking about a <16 meter individual, not 18 meter. Despite your bizarre insistence to the contrary, those two size figures are not the same.

Quote:
 
Do we support Ibrahim, yes or no?

This is not a yes/no question.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Nov 30 2015, 08:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mantrid
Nov 30 2015, 08:03 AM
I believe that a snout is more helpful at estimating the length of Spinosaurus than how much helpful a toe is at estimating a possible maximum length for Tyrannosaurus.

You also don't get that I never mean this toebone when saying that, do you? It's about estimating an animal's size without having any fossil evidence for that exact estimate.


Quote:
 
The assumption that Spinosaurus was up to 18 m. long is based on MSNM-V4047.


YOUR VERY OWN estimate of it resulted in a shorter head-body size than all the other estimates by professionals. Thus you just gave Spinosaurus an extraordinary long tail which doesn't affect its mass at all except for some dozen kilogramm at best, but claim it magically to be 10t. It's flawed and you can't accept it since you're emotionally too attached to this dead dinosaur.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mirounga leonina
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Why is this even being debated this is not the 18m Spinosaurus Thread. There is no reason that this thread should be hijacked to yet another hypothetical Spinosaurus debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Carnoferox's sex toy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tarbo wins as although Spino is larger, it's not suited for land combat.
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.