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 (459,274 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
in my reconstruction th holotype ended up with a skull only slightly bigger than that of suchomimus, while its vertebrae are far larger according to fragillimus. That would make mnsn more than 45%bigger actually, it seems hard to believe but the dentary is about the same size as in sucho or irritator, even tough it might have fluctuated a bit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 25 2013, 05:00 AM
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.
wich type of sharks lived more than 65 million years in lakes? prey and hunting today is the best way to prove what an animal is capable doing in fights.... lions, tigers..... and that spino was with other theropods doesn't mean that Spino could interact with them (according to his presence in lakes and near.... that shouldn´t happen).. maybe could be the opposite, besides Spino only advantage I consider is intimidation but If were about a prey Spino would have loose even with carcha... that we don't know... not to mention that have to coexist with another excelent preys like triceratops or ankylosaurus to mention a few.... what about the infectious saliva that should be a cool advantage for T.rex.
I don't see any robust neck and torso according to it's body in the image... according to it´s size spino´s torso and neck were more narrowed than T-rex and Giga.... sorry pal but it'r relatives porved were baryonix and suchominus... then the lenght that you told me doesn't match? because they used sucho and baryonix to measure spino's size.....
Edited by Superiron21, Jan 25 2013, 09:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^ Infectious saliva? Where'd you pull that from?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Asaurus
Jan 25 2013, 09:12 AM
^ Infectious saliva? Where'd you pull that from?
that´s still in debate but could be possible...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Asaurus
Jan 25 2013, 09:12 AM
^ Infectious saliva? Where'd you pull that from?
that´s still in debate but could be possible...
Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey. This theory was first proposed by William Abler.[112] Abler examined the teeth of tyrannosaurids between each tooth serration; the serrations may have held pieces of carcass with bacteria, giving Tyrannosaurus a deadly, infectious bite much like the Komodo dragon was thought to have. However, Jack Horner regards Tyrannosaurus tooth serrations as more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded.[113] All forms of saliva contain possibly hazardous bacteria, so the prospect of it being used as a method of predation is disputable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Asaurus
Jan 25 2013, 09:12 AM
^ Infectious saliva? Where'd you pull that from?
that´s still in debate but could be possible...
Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey. This theory was first proposed by William Abler. Abler examined the teeth of tyrannosaurids between each tooth serration; the serrations may have held pieces of carcass with bacteria, giving Tyrannosaurus a deadly, infectious bite much like the Komodo dragon was thought to have. However, Jack Horner regards Tyrannosaurus tooth serrations as more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded. All forms of saliva contain possibly hazardous bacteria, so the prospect of it being used as a method of predation is disputable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Triple post. ^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Any bite and saliva is potentially toxic, so if Tyrannosaurus had a toxic bite, allosauroids and others possibly had too.

The Komodo has lots of a potent bacterias but it turns out its bites are lethal primarily because of some venomous amount, though this is still disputed to my knowledge.

However, dinosaurs appears to have been very durable creatures, and T.rex specimens show deep wounds and scars from probable intra-specific bites, without having consequently succumbed.

In such a clash of the giant, the animals would die most likely, at least most of the time, because of the direct damages inflcted by the bite and teeth, not because of the infection.

I have hard time at no to judge Spinosaurus bite force as wel as the width of its skull.

Looking at some skulls models made by users here, though not weak as some argue, it does not stand the comparison in my opinion with full grown T.rex skulls in sheer robustness.

However, others models I've seen shows a somewhat more robust shape. Still, can this be confirmed ?

Same for the bite force, I've seen numerous times the mention of 2 tons or more of bite force for Spinosaurus.

I have to recall that this figure was made by some poster, not resulted from an experimented scholar work.

Sakamoto seem to think that Spinosaurus bitten weaker than carcharotosaurids, which are supposed to have bitten three times weaker than Tyrannosaurus according to Therrien et al.

And this is from a work of Sakamoto about Baryonyx bite force that the prediction of Spinosaurus biting at 2 tons or more was made on this forum.

Two possibilities : Sakamoto only guessed his remark in askabiologist about Spinosaurus bite or the calculation from a member (too much often taken as a fact by users here) is flawed.

What is certain is that at now, we don't have posterior part of the skull of Spinosaurus allowing to know the volume of its skull and bite force and we don't have more elements allowing to establish the true size of the owner of the snout found by Dal Sasso in 2005.

However, look at this :


Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Tyrannosaurus :

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

If Spinosaurus turns out to be such shaped like this life-sized recreation (that Dal Sasso, Magnuco and Cau claim to be the most reliable in the world and based on incoming research about new elements of the vertebral column and limbs), if it appeared to have been definitely like this, what do you think about the fight against Tyrannosaurus here ?


IMO, what I see here is not the weak fish-eater some argues (look at the robust front arms and massive body), nor the gigantic unstoppable warrior dwarfing any other theropod thinked by others either. It would be a powerful, dangerous foe that T.rex would have to deal with, but T.rex has definitely the weaponry to subdue that thing. Spinosaurus neck is easily reachable. T.rex, full grown and in its robust form, takes this more ofen than not.

This is my initial opinion at this very first glance, depending if this reconstruction (made by the actual world authorities in spinosaurid research) turns out to be confirmed as reliable in its depiction of Spinosaurus. If true, a large T.rex most likely takes it.
Edited by Grey, Jan 25 2013, 11:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
Shark Toothed Reptile
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Superiron21
Jan 25 2013, 09:32 AM
that´s still in debate but could be possible...
Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey. This theory was first proposed by William Abler. Abler examined the teeth of tyrannosaurids between each tooth serration; the serrations may have held pieces of carcass with bacteria, giving Tyrannosaurus a deadly, infectious bite much like the Komodo dragon was thought to have. However, Jack Horner regards Tyrannosaurus tooth serrations as more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded. All forms of saliva contain possibly hazardous bacteria, so the prospect of it being used as a method of predation is disputable.

komodo dragons do not kill with infectious bacteria, they kill with VENOM: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090518-komodo-dragon-venom.html

remember that next time. And theres no evidence that t.rex had a bite like a komodo, that was just fakely theorized by jfc
Edited by Carcharadon, Jan 25 2013, 11:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Superiron21
 
dude... seriously you think spinosaurs has the strenght to kill t-rex?


Yes.

It's a 12-tonne theropod vs a 6-tonne one...


Superiron21
 
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...


They were much smaller than Spinosaurus, thus they are weaker. Common sense man...

Superiron21
 
Spino is larger yeah but I don´t think is much taller than T-rex...


Do I need to make a size comparison to embarass you? Spinosaurus was taller than Tyrannosaurus, AT HIP HEIGHT.

Superiron21
 
heavier? yea yea.-... T-rex bones are robust and consequently stronger are you counting the sail as giving spino strenght that only gives spino tons but not strenght......


Sail? It's more likely a muscular ridge.

Read carefully.

The spines of Spinosaurus do not actually resemble the spines of the sailbacked animals. They are too broad, and the spaces between the spines are too small to effectively span skin in between.

Sailbacks don't have broad spines, they have thin rods. If Spinosaurus had a sail, it would have thin rods, but that is not the case.

Spinosaurus:
Posted Image

Dimetrodon:
Posted Image

In fact, the spines of Spinosaurus resemble those of bison more than those of Dimetrodon.

However, a hump would have been too heavy for a biped.

Thus, the most likely, is that Spinosaurus had a muscular ridge.
Similar to that Acrocanthosaurus likely had, but much taller.

This is further supported by the fact that broad spines are used as muscle attachments in living animals.


Superiron21
 
that´s the real difference when you said about aparatosaurus (i don´t know how to write it sorry) the strenght is in it´s tail and neck...


And it's torso as well. Actually, most of Apatosaurus' strength is at it's torso and legs.

Superiron21
 
and muscles of T-rex were stronger to carry that big head....


Spinosaurus needed stronger muscles to carry itself, let alone move. And Spinosaurus needed to take on Bahariasaurus, Sauroniops, and Carcharodontosaurus.

Superiron21
 
man could you please understand that spino is not designed to fight big theropods?


Dinosaur George is not a reliable source.

Superiron21
 
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...


Giant theropods =/= Modern Predators

Superiron21
 
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.....


It was not proven, stop making up BS.

And JP3 Spinosaurus was only between 13.3 and 13.4 meters long, even IPHG 1912 outsizes it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Too much Tyrannosaurs fanboyism just hit this thread. I will make it VERY simple. Tyrannosaurus was the strongest, best, most awesome theropod...AT PARITY. But when your opponent is literally over TWICE your size, you are very unlikely to win. And btw, the Spinosaurus in my scale was not oversized at all. 18 meters for Spino to 12.2 meters for Sue. Tyrannosaurus was an awesome predator, but pitting it against an enemy twice its size is simply unfair.
Edited by MightyMaus, Jan 25 2013, 12:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There is fanboyism in both sides.

If look at Magnuco and others reconstruction, based on data in future publication, Spinosaurus does not seem to outclass any others theropods, but rivals them.

I don't know yet if it will be confirmed or not, but nobody can argue that Spinosaurus was such larger than any other.

If the reconstruction in Milan turns out to be true, I objectively gives this to Tyrannosaurus.

You people must learn to, even if favoring by pure personnal liking one of the animals, to consider all possibilities and the most serious provided.

I definitely favor the life-sized reconstruction made by actual most experienced spinosaurids experts than any of your scales guys.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 25 2013, 01:33 PM
There is fanboyism in both sides.

If look at Magnuco and others reconstruction, based on data in future publication, Spinosaurus does not seem to outclass any others theropods, but rivals them.

I don't know yet if it will be confirmed or not, but nobody can argue that Spinosaurus was such larger than any other.

If the reconstruction in Milan turns out to be true, I objectively gives this to Tyrannosaurus.

You people must learn to, even if favoring by pure personnal liking one of the animals, to consider all possibilities and the most serious provided.

I definitely favor the life-sized reconstruction made by actual most experienced spinosaurids experts than any of your scales guys.
It assumes that the short legs belonged to the same specimen as the 175-cm skull...

It's just a speculative reconstruction like any other... rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
It is terrible that we'll have to wait for a new paper for as long as 2014 for Spinosaurus.

Until then, I really don't think its worth even discussing the outcome of a thread like this. We're living in pure uncertainty, and I don't feel comfortable making any kind of predictions, even if I make the caveatof 'if this is true, then this will be so' etc.

Edited by TheROC, Jan 25 2013, 01:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It also assumes that Spinosaurus was drastically different from relatives, which is not proven at all. Assuming that Spinosaurus was an oddball is far more speculative than assuming that it had the proportions of related spinosaurids...
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.