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 (459,275 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:
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:09 AM
do you have data that is 20% bigger and according to research the subadult is 14 m and I don´t think that´s 14 m long spino....
It says holotype next to it...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:08 AM
Superiron, here is a comparison between Sue and MSMN V4047 with a 1.75 m skull and assuming spinosaur proportions. The spinosaur's legs are slightly too tall in this skeletal, but it wouldn't make a considerable difference.

Posted Image
I see it a little oversized (no offense but yeah it´s 17 m long but not that tall my friend)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:10 AM
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:09 AM
do you have data that is 20% bigger and according to research the subadult is 14 m and I don´t think that´s 14 m long spino....
It says holotype next to it...
yeah I see that the holotype is 14 m long but the image that you showed me is oversized imo...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:13 AM
yeah I see that the holotype is 14 m long but the image that you showed me is oversized imo...
Yes but that is your opinion, you can't really choose what sizes you want. If Spinosaurus has same body proportions as it's relatives it would be about 16-18 m in length and 11-17 tonnes in weight, because you choose to not believe in them does not mean that they are wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:10 AM
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:08 AM
Superiron, here is a comparison between Sue and MSMN V4047 with a 1.75 m skull and assuming spinosaur proportions. The spinosaur's legs are slightly too tall in this skeletal, but it wouldn't make a considerable difference.

Posted Image
I see it a little oversized (no offense but yeah it´s 17 m long but not that tall my friend)
you're giving me the DelSasso specimen... (MSNM V4047) (~17 m, ~8 tons) (skull ~1.75 m) premaxillae, partial maxillae, partial nasals (Dal Sasso et al., 2005) IMO that size could have some mistakes with so little % of the skull.... I can give you the ucmp137538 that is only a toe but We can assume that should be like this....
Posted Image
Edited by Superiron21, Jan 25 2013, 04:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:16 AM
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:13 AM
yeah I see that the holotype is 14 m long but the image that you showed me is oversized imo...
Yes but that is your opinion, you can't really choose what sizes you want. If Spinosaurus has same body proportions as it's relatives it would be about 16-18 m in length and 11-17 tonnes in weight, because you choose to not believe in them does not mean that they are wrong.
no... First I don't choose... second that specimen is not the holotype... could have some mistakes cause it's little info about it... third do you think spino could weight 17 tons? sorry pal but that animal can´t even move.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:24 AM
you're giving me the DelSasso specimen... (MSNM V4047) (~17 m, ~8 tons) (skull ~1.75 m) premaxillae, partial maxillae, partial nasals (Dal Sasso et al., 2005) IMO that size could have some mistakes with so little % of the skull.... I can give you the ucmp137538 that is only a toe but We can assume that should be like this....
Posted Image
It annoys me when people make that argument, the thing is that we have enough T.rexs to determine a average, we only have a few Spinosaurus specimens so we can't say that they are maximum as MSMN V4047 is the adult one. It is a lot less fragmentary than a toe bone, toe bones fluctuate withing species; meaning that it is much easier to extrapolate with skull material than a single phalanx. Why would we compare the Spinosaurus holotype with Sue, who is a large individual in her own right?

Quote:
 
no... First I don't choose... second that specimen is not the holotype... could have some mistakes cause it's little info about it... third do you think spino could weight 17 tons? sorry pal but that animal can´t even move.....


I don't personally believe in 17 tonnes, but when giving a range of estimates you take conservative and liberal ones, both can be attained by simple isometric scaling ((L/L)^2*m).
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 25 2013, 04:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:31 AM
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:24 AM
you're giving me the DelSasso specimen... (MSNM V4047) (~17 m, ~8 tons) (skull ~1.75 m) premaxillae, partial maxillae, partial nasals (Dal Sasso et al., 2005) IMO that size could have some mistakes with so little % of the skull.... I can give you the ucmp137538 that is only a toe but We can assume that should be like this....
Posted Image
It annoys me when people make that argument, the thing is that we have enough T.rexs to determine a average, we only have a few Spinosaurus specimens so we can't say that they are maximum as MSMN V4047 is the adult one. It is a lot less fragmentary than a toe bone, toe bones fluctuate withing species; meaning that it is much easier to extrapolate with skull material than a single phalanx. Why would we compare the Spinosaurus holotype with Sue, who is a large individual in her own right?
wo wo take it easy pal... yourself answer me og what we have of T-rex we can assume that the ucmp 137538 COULD BE like this... is the same that you're saying you can´t be so sure about the lenght and weight with so little info about it....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 25 2013, 12:59 AM
Rex is probably taller than other giant theropods at length parity.
I am saying the proportion might be off, like the feet is too long compare to the lower leg.
Also that Spino is in almost standing pose, and rex in the in mid-stride.
totally agreed...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 AM
wo wo take it easy pal... yourself answer me og what we have of T-rex we can assume that the ucmp 137538 COULD BE like this... is the same that you're saying you can´t be so sure about the lenght and weight with so little info about it....
Sorry if i'm coming off of as aggresive - the 'annoys me' part is more of a 'subconcious facepalm' lol. My point was that the estimates for MSMN V4047 are more reliable than UCMP 137538 and because it is fragmentary does not mean that we have to use holotype - a subadult.
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 25 2013, 04:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:00 AM
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 03:47 AM
dude... seriously you think spinosaurs has the strenght to kill t-rex? well that´s your "poin of view" but can you give me real data that proves that because all the data that spinosaurus has (with less 15% of the specimen) everything is about suchominus and baryonix and those were not strong... Spino is larger yeah but I don´t think is much taller than T-rex... heavier? yea yea.-... T-rex bones are robust and consequently stronger... muscles of T-rex were stronger to carry that big head.... man could you please understand that spino is not designed to fight big theropods? that´s proved... you said this is not fighting bite force... but they´re not humans to play wwe the bite is the most important thing even today with most of predators... Spino´s bite could never penetrate an structure that big of T-rex even his hands can´t deal with it...that was proved according to the few parts spino skeleton has, maybe make injuries but not deadly.... man jp3 spino was not the animal that lived many millions of years ago... that was the wrong vision of the spino... please wake up and do real research according to the real spinosaurus.....
Which data proves that Spinosaurus was weak and not designed to fight big predators?
first the shape of it´s snout... (bite force weak may not weaker than previously) second it´s diet.... fish and little preys according to it´s enormous size (that was proved in the location of the spino were)... third form it's relatives was assumed that spino (torso and neck are a little narrowed according to it´s size in comparisson to giga and T-rex wasn´t so strong... again everything is speculation cause there´s no complete skeleton but maybe new spinos skeleton will be discovered in a few years...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 04:39 AM
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:34 AM
wo wo take it easy pal... yourself answer me og what we have of T-rex we can assume that the ucmp 137538 COULD BE like this... is the same that you're saying you can´t be so sure about the lenght and weight with so little info about it....
Sorry if i'm coming off of as aggresive - the 'annoys me' part is more of a 'subconcious facepalm' lol. My point was that the estimates for MSMN V4047 are more reliable than UCMP 137538 and because it is fragmentary does not mean that we have to use holotype - a subadult.
NP...Maybe the hollotype is the best idea but with the full-grown size....Do you have the real full grown size of the holotype? according to the ucmp 137538 could be reliable if you compare with the other T-rex specimens... but that will be answered soon...
Edited by Superiron21, Jan 25 2013, 04:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 04:46 AM
first the shape of it´s snout... (bite force weak may not weaker than previously) second it´s diet.... fish and little preys according to it´s enormous size (that was proved in the location of the spino were)... third form it's relatives was assumed that spino (torso and neck are a little narrowed according to it´s size in comparisson to giga and T-rex wasn´t so strong... again everything is speculation cause there´s no complete skeleton but maybe new spinos skeleton will be discovered in a few years...
I have already explained before about the bite force, it was weaker than Tyrannosaurus but not weak in general. It's diet wasn't exactly little, it preyed on huge armored fish, sharks and possible crocodiles. Just because Spino had smaller prey than T.rex does not mean it was worse adapted to taking on large predators. Spinosaurus's location supported that it must have had some form of defense against large predators, it coexisted with several large predators (Carcharodontosaurus, Deltadromeus, Bahariasaurus, Rugops etc) while T.rex co-existed with no other large predator. Spinosaur torso's are not narrowed at all, they have quite narrow skulls but their bodies are quite wide. Look at this Suchomimus skeletal:

Posted Image

Spinosaurus was a spinosaurine rather than a baryonychine, it was more generalized than relatives like Suchomimus and Baryonyx, it's skull was much more robust and remains of other spinosaurines - like Irritator - suggested that it's torso was slightly more robust.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
LOL not this again.
Holotype does not have a long head compare to body length. But it depends on the reconstruction of skull, which is uncertain.
I don't think holotype is 14m though, and I believe 4047 has different proportions, possibly more elongated snout.
It's not fair to compare average rex size to one specimen of Spinosaurus that is very incomplete.
However, it's very likely that Spinosaurus MSNM V4047 still outweighs the largest rex specimen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 05:00 AM
it coexisted with several large predators (Carcharodontosaurus, Deltadromeus, Bahariasaurus, Rugops etc)
Before someone asks for a source:
Posted Image
From "A New Species of Carcharodontosaurus (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Cenomanian of Niger and a Revision of the Genus"
by Stephen L. Brusatte and Paul C. Sereno
(It doesn't show direct evidence if Bahariasaurus coexisted with Spinosaurus, but it could've been a synonom to Deltadromeus, which was found in the Kem Kem beds, according to that extract and even if it wasn't, they likely met, because most large animals today don't have that much of a limited habitat, we can be quite sure that Spinosaurus had lot's of buddys.)
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.