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
Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex
Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,280 Views)
Wolf Eagle
Member Avatar
M E G A P H Y S E T E R
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

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
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's actually just based on a too wide chest (that's why I too don't believe in it). Apart from that, the 9t figure just filled the outline, but the 18t one is really, really, really fat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 21 2013, 02:12 AM
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 01:39 AM
his weight is 30% heavier than previously thought
That mass estimate is based on a disgustingly fat Tyrannosaurus.

That being said, Kurtz can't really be taken seriously when it comes to dinosaurs...
they give you research... have you ever investigated on 1 dinosaur before? please that´s supported... even if you don´t wanna believe bulkier doesn´t mean fat... they´re not humans
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 12:25 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 21 2013, 02:12 AM
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 01:39 AM
his weight is 30% heavier than previously thought
That mass estimate is based on a disgustingly fat Tyrannosaurus.

That being said, Kurtz can't really be taken seriously when it comes to dinosaurs...
they give you research... have you ever investigated on 1 dinosaur before? please that´s supported... even if you don´t wanna believe bulkier doesn´t mean fat... they´re not humans
If you ever looked at a Tyrannosaurus skeletal and compared it to the model, you would see how disgustingly fat the model is...Need I post the images here and embarrass you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 21 2013, 01:54 PM
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 12:25 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 21 2013, 02:12 AM
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 01:39 AM
his weight is 30% heavier than previously thought
That mass estimate is based on a disgustingly fat Tyrannosaurus.

That being said, Kurtz can't really be taken seriously when it comes to dinosaurs...
they give you research... have you ever investigated on 1 dinosaur before? please that´s supported... even if you don´t wanna believe bulkier doesn´t mean fat... they´re not humans
If you ever looked at a Tyrannosaurus skeletal and compared it to the model, you would see how disgustingly fat the model is...Need I post the images here and embarrass you?
If you look at the mount and compare it too the reconstruction u will see it's not that fat.
Sue has a torso like a fat sausage anyways.
U probably won't accept so... whatever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 21 2013, 02:02 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 21 2013, 01:54 PM
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 12:25 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 21 2013, 02:12 AM
Superiron21
Jan 21 2013, 01:39 AM
his weight is 30% heavier than previously thought
That mass estimate is based on a disgustingly fat Tyrannosaurus.

That being said, Kurtz can't really be taken seriously when it comes to dinosaurs...
they give you research... have you ever investigated on 1 dinosaur before? please that´s supported... even if you don´t wanna believe bulkier doesn´t mean fat... they´re not humans
If you ever looked at a Tyrannosaurus skeletal and compared it to the model, you would see how disgustingly fat the model is...Need I post the images here and embarrass you?
If you look at the mount and compare it too the reconstruction u will see it's not that fat.
Sue has a torso like a fat sausage anyways.
U probably won't accept so... whatever.
You really had to force my hand do you?

Sue:
Posted Image

Stan:
Posted Image

Average Tyrannosaurus(represented by AMNH 5027 here):
Posted Image

Then compare them to the models and prepare to be embarrassed...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I already posted the pics earlier in the thread.
I said compare the reconstruction in the same paper to the mount.
Even if the torso is too long due to extension, it still won't account for a 3 tonne downsize.
It's been discussed many times, if you don't get it you don't get it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
the torso is not only too long, it is too wide because of the wrong rib posture. In the min model, that´s already causing a significant weight increase, you can see it from other scientists estimates. Do you think those where made up (Hartman´s for example)? I think I have debated about this enough for a lifetime, but for sure the differences are not just ignorable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 22 2013, 05:08 AM
the torso is not only too long, it is too wide because of the wrong rib posture. In the min model, that´s already causing a significant weight increase, you can see it from other scientists estimates. Do you think those where made up (Hartman´s for example)? I think I have debated about this enough for a lifetime, but for sure the differences are not just ignorable.
I don't think how the ribs are oriented laterally in the mount has an effect on how wide the torso is.
If you look at that image in the paper, the rib cage is not too wide compare to the head.
Sue's torso is about 1.7 meters wide at the widest point, and the reconstruction in the paper does not exceed that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 1 2013, 03:43 AM
"which is very wrong!!!!"

You should think a bit more before criticising others work. This dentary size bases on Dal Sassos reconstruction. Has it ever come to mind that it might be your own size that is wrong and not always mine?

Furthermore I read one of stromers measurements was in fact 95cm for the dentary.

Obviously, either the measurements for T. rex are too low, or Dal Sassos reconstruction of the spinosaurus mandible-which both seem unlikely, at least to a significant margin.
Your Spino dentary is far too long and deep actually. If you does notice, Andrea Cau didn't just only make the size comparison but he also STATED that MSNM dentary is only as long as that of Sue, but it is still dimensionally smaller (which means SHALLOWER). Please, why don't you just go search for google and find some Spino skull reconstruction DIRECTLY from scientists instead of wasting time to create your own ?

Posted Image

Don't you see the skull proportion is much better than yours ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Jan 22 2013, 03:36 PM
he also STATED that MSNM dentary is only as long as that of Sue
Irrelevant, Tyrannosaurus is more related to birds than Spinosaurus, comparing the two dinosaurs that way proves nothing...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 22 2013, 03:52 PM
Verdugo
Jan 22 2013, 03:36 PM
he also STATED that MSNM dentary is only as long as that of Sue
Irrelevant, Tyrannosaurus is more related to birds than Spinosaurus, comparing the two dinosaurs that way proves nothing...
WTF are you talking about ???. I only stated that T rex had dimensionally bigger dentary, i didn't state that because T rex had dimensionally bigger dentary so it was bigger. Understand now ?. I didn't said a thing about birdie relations thing or the size of the two
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Jan 22 2013, 07:24 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 22 2013, 03:52 PM
Verdugo
Jan 22 2013, 03:36 PM
he also STATED that MSNM dentary is only as long as that of Sue
Irrelevant, Tyrannosaurus is more related to birds than Spinosaurus, comparing the two dinosaurs that way proves nothing...
WTF are you talking about ???. I only stated that T rex had dimensionally bigger dentary, i didn't state that because T rex had dimensionally bigger dentary so it was bigger. Understand now ?. I didn't said a thing about birdie relations thing or the size of the two
Their comparative dentary sizes are irrelevant as it doesn't actually prove anything in this match...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
mystery meat: and where is the torso width figure from? not the mount? I actually was talking about depth mainly, if depth and lenght are both too large and the width is unclear the results may well end up significantly exagerated, but discussing this will not help solving the problem.

Verdugo: I am really annoyed, it is enoug. you are criticising hatever I do, while you cannoz even reproduce it or point out really existant flaws. Do you criticise Hartman because of him mixing up the holotype and mnsm?
The detary is scaled to match toe point it ends in Irritator as well, that's a fact. You cannot just claim tis to be wrong because you personally don't like it. You might favoura proportionally smaller dentary, that's your problem. It might just as well simply be more robust.
And just because its Cau's opinion on how much larger Mnsn wasor how larger it's dentary was, it isn't automatically true.
Do a friggin' better reconstruction before talking mine down.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
I read somewhere on the forum that a spinosaur's claw would only inflict scratches, so I decided to make a comparison to show how deep these scratches would be - the T.rex skull is 143 cm long and the Spino's claw is scaled with Baryonyx's thumb claw to 65 cm across the curve (both are quite liberal).

Posted Image
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 23 2013, 02:34 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fragillimus335
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 23 2013, 02:05 AM
I read somewhere that a spinosaur's claw would only inflict scratches, so I decided to make a comparison to show how deep these scratched would be - the T.rex skull is 143 cm long and the Spino's claw is scaled with Baronyx's thumb claw to 65 cm across the curve (both are quite liberal).

Posted Image
Not to mention that claw lacks the keratin sheath!! I estimate the living claw at around ~75cm long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.