| 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 Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,278 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Superiron21 | Jan 24 2013, 04:47 AM Post #1546 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you have prove that spino was heavier than T-rex? everything is speculation.... those fanboys and haters are saying that with his arms could deal with the head and power of the T-rex.... maybe jurassic park 3 fight scene was his best "recreation" of a fight totally impossible dream haters dream... |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Jan 24 2013, 04:50 AM Post #1547 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
oh my god that was the most irrational thing I´ve ever heard.... his claws could never penetrate t-rex skulls you´re quite wrong! who told you broleyupfusion? |
![]() |
|
| Maelstrom | Jan 24 2013, 04:52 AM Post #1548 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not a fanboy nor a hater, I don't even think Spino could kill T.rex easily (6/10 maybe), Spino is most likely heavier than T.rex because mass cubes as length increases; saying that T.rex was heavier is more speculative. No one thinks Jurassic Park 3 is the best 'recreation'. |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Jan 24 2013, 04:56 AM Post #1549 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"For instance, Spinosaurus would be able to lift,carry,push,move, much heavier objects that Tyrannosaurus. Pushing moving is with body, not arms, although Spinosaurus has the advantage there too. " pal what did you smoke?... his body and his arms are designed to carry only fish and preys much much smaller compared to him... yes maybe spino was able to lift a brachiosaurus.... with your theorical facts.... Well imagine a pitbull (T-rex) and a Great Dane (Spino) pitbull can take down GD easilly.... @theropod The overestimates of spino 17m are proved theropod? with so less than 15% of the body? or this is true cause is not T-rex and the largest T-rex specimens need to be 100% researched Edited by Superiron21, Jan 24 2013, 05:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Jan 24 2013, 04:57 AM Post #1550 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn´t say so... I was talking about other guys that post in here.... jp3 thing was not for you.. sorry pal.... according to weight I´m not with you Spino mass was more speculative than T-rex cause specimens are less than 15% complete.... they speculated with it´s relatives... like suchominus or baryonix.... Edited by Superiron21, Jan 24 2013, 05:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Maelstrom | Jan 24 2013, 05:14 AM Post #1551 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No problem, but I don't see why you disagree with the speculated weights, linear scaling with relatives would give a more reliable estimate than just an opinion and just because it's speculative doesn't mean that it is wrong - it's all we can do at this point. I didn't say T.rex's weight's were more speculative than Spino's, I said that it is more speculative to assume it was heavier than Spino. In my opinion it is pretty obvious that Spino would be larger than T.rex; the holotypes vertebrate was 40% larger than the corresponding one in Sue and 193% larger than the one in Baryonyx. MSMN V4047 is about 20% larger than the holotype, so there is no doubt it was much larger than T.rex.
Firstly, extremely fatal does not equate to penetrating the skull. Secondly, if Spino used it's claws like depicted in Planet Dinosaur it would be very capable of penetrating T.rex's skull - just because it is a TV show does not mean it is inaccurate, they obviously did research. Broly did not tell me anything... Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 24 2013, 05:19 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Jan 24 2013, 05:25 AM Post #1552 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with you on that but for me Spino was not designed to fight big theropods like (t-rex carcha and giga) that was proved according to its bite and it claw (to catch squeeze preys).... I respect your point.... |
![]() |
|
| Maelstrom | Jan 24 2013, 05:42 AM Post #1553 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok then I respect your opinion, but Spino's bite hasn't really been tested properly - just assumptions based on skull structure. It is very possible that it had a strong bite because it would need to to pull 2 ton fish out of the water and linear scaling would put it at: (17/8)^3*387kg = 1747 kg bite force atleast. Nowhere near as strong as T.rex's but very capable of killing and probably similar to Carcha and Giga's bite force; it's teeth weren't as damaging as there's, but IMO it could still overcome them with just it's size and claws. You can keep your opinion though. |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Jan 24 2013, 05:49 AM Post #1554 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You have a point but is till not enough to penetrate the T-rex neck according what I´ve been reading... and something another point that could put the balance in favor of the winner is the aggressiveness, and according to it´s diet (2tons fish, prey relatively small than it´s big size) not the same aggressiveness that T-rex could have killing preys with awesome defense and according to the 2 tons fish maybe the arms should help him to catch and to hurt the fish and also finish him bite it imo ... but could kill another big predators Don´t worry my friend that will be answered soon.... Edited by Superiron21, Jan 24 2013, 05:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 24 2013, 07:13 AM Post #1555 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^I have to disagree on the last part, going by the msot recent studies an allosaurus spoecimen with a skull ~80cm long was put at a bite force of 800kg. It is possible that this is overestimated regarding the other, lower estimates for similar sized specimens, but using it would yield ~3t for the Carcharodontosaurus neotype (max skull lenght=1,56m, and remember, the skull is rather more laterally expanded than in Allosaurus). Giganotosaurus wouldn´t be too different, at least for the holotype, not sure about the other specimen. It doesn´t seem as if carcharodontosaur bite forces where quite as weak as some think, tough I used to think spinos bite was stronger too. It might be save to say they are closer to each other than either is to T. rex, and together in a rough range. Check this to see the skulls in question compared: http://carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3823033/45167/ ![]() ![]() ![]() I think it is obvious that while more elongated than th others, whimpy is certainly the wrong term to refer to spinosaurus skull. It still has robust bits, the dentary obviously is, after all that´s also the part bearing a lot of weight in predation on large fish, and the rostrum is more or less a solid piece of bone. It is imo likely that it had a bite force ~2t +-half a ton. Keeping in mind the size of the fish it preyed on, the jaw apparatus must have been quite capable of withstanding forces at least, meaning it would be a useful grabbling tool in a fight. Edited by theropod, Jan 24 2013, 07:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Jan 24 2013, 07:28 AM Post #1556 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If Theropod models are accurate, Tyrannosaurus skull is far more massive despite being shorter and likely much heavier than Spinosaurus. In fact I wonder if the skull of the later is not far fin, an adult man wouldn't fit at all in that mouth. That being said, comparing the skulls is an important factor in that fight but not a decisive as WE DON'T KNOW THE REAL SIZE AND PROPORTIONS OF SPINOSAURUS. Regarding the bite force issue, it seems to me that Sakamoto, on askabiologist, said that Spinosaurus would have definitely a weaker bite force than Tyrannosaurus and carcharodontosaurids... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Jan 24 2013, 07:58 AM Post #1557 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
regarding my reconstruction, only the known parts are of course certain, and how they scale is a different question. carcha is fairly complete, sue is complete but crushed and the top view might not be totally accurate but gives a good impression of its width. spino is a real problem as we don't even know how exactly the dentary matches the rostrum and the other fragments. the whole posterior cranium is speculative and based on relatives, so it might have been completely different. however neither irritator nor suchomimus seem to have had a wider cranium. Its possible that having a wider snout, the posterior part of spinosaurus was too more expanded, you could use your imagination there. The rest is based on Suchomimus and irritator and while not factual as good as any other guess. Certainly it was in any case by far narrower than t.rex's skull. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jan 24 2013, 09:33 AM Post #1558 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus may have been stronger than tyrannosaurus when much larger and heavier, but tyrannosaurus is more powerful pound for pound. I do see what you are saying. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Jan 24 2013, 09:34 AM Post #1559 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Save for the sharp, conical teeth that make up its weaponry. |
![]() |
|
| MightyMaus | Jan 24 2013, 10:37 AM Post #1560 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where did I state a theoretical fact? Spinosaurus at its upper size range was much stronger than Tyrannosaurus. That fact is unavoidable. Spinosaurus's arms are verrry strong, lifting two tons(you said this) means Spinosaurus could pick up a small car in each hand.... It has the power in its body to easily control and push a teensy little 6 ton rex around. As for your Pitt bull-Great dane comparison, I would definitely back a 200lb GD over a 100lb Pitt Bull. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




totally impossible dream haters dream...




2:23 AM Jul 14