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 (459,267 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:
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
But it's so anthropomorphic it's like watching a comedy starring dinosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 27 2013, 05:42 PM
But it's so anthropomorphic it's like watching a comedy starring dinosaurs.
It was obviously made like that to show the message that dinosaurs were more intelligent than generally believed...and also it was a dinosaur story converted into a documentary...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Jan 27 2013, 02:48 PM
MightyMaus
Jan 27 2013, 11:52 AM
I would like to state that Spinosaurus's only disadvantages in this fight are bite force and agility. Every single other aspect of the fight is in Spinosaurus's favor.
Although spinosaurus had a disadvantage in the realm of bite forces, it actually had a stronger bite than what we have previously thought. The bite of a spinosaurus has recently been estimated at around 2 to 3 tons.
By who ? Oh yes, us. B-)

Don't take these numbers too seriously. Yet, Spinosaurus bite had not to be underestimated, but tyrannosaurids and carcharodontosaurids could already survive to the bites of their own kind.
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 05:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Godzillaman
Jan 27 2013, 02:48 PM
Although spinosaurus had a disadvantage in the realm of bite forces, it actually had a stronger bite than what we have previously thought. The bite of a spinosaurus has recently been estimated at around 2 to 3 tons.
Those bite force estimates were only linearly scaled be members of this forum. Spino's bite force hasn't been tested professionally; only assumptions from skull structure - which are not exactly very reliable anyway. I would say 2 tonnes is feasible but 3 tonnes is too much.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Posted Image

Just thought this pic of MSNM V4047 looked especially impressive! For some reason it looks larger than 1 meter to me? Imagine the whole skull!
Edited by MightyMaus, Jan 27 2013, 06:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
MightyMaus
Jan 27 2013, 06:04 PM
Just thought this pic of MSNM V4047 looked especially impressive! For some reason it looks larger than 1 meter to me? Imagine the whole skull!
Member, Fragillimus, estimated the living skull at 1.94 - 2 m rather than 1.75 m. Not sure of the accuracy of his claims but he seemed to have a good argument.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MightyMaus
Jan 27 2013, 06:04 PM
Posted Image

Just thought this pic of MSNM V4047 looked especially impressive! For some reason it looks larger than 1 meter to me? Imagine the whole skull!
Honestly, I'm no tyrannosaur fanboy and I love Spino but I think this is way more striking to the mind.

Posted Image

It hurts me to write that but Spino's snout looks ridiculous here...
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 06:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 27 2013, 06:27 PM
MightyMaus
Jan 27 2013, 06:04 PM
Posted Image

Just thought this pic of MSNM V4047 looked especially impressive! For some reason it looks larger than 1 meter to me? Imagine the whole skull!
Honestly, I'm no tyrannosaur fanboy and I love Spino but I think this is way more striking to the mind.

Posted Image

It hurts me to write that but Spino's snout looks ridiculous here...
He was only trying to give us an idea of how large Spinosaurus skull could have been, not to compare it to that of Tyrannosaurus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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.

First, that is not Cau opinion. Do you seriously think that an ACTUAL SCIENTIST would make up things base on nothing like you did ?. The hypothetical (since MSNM size has never been found) size of MSNM dentary is base on scaling up 20% from the holotype, which means when you scale up the dentary by 20% from the holotype, it is still only as long as that of Sue, but still shallower and dimensionally smaller. This what Andrea Cau CLAIMS
Andrea Cau
 
It is said that the two units in question are representative of the "average" of their species. In particular, it is likely that the holotype of Spinosaurus was at a different level of maturity compared to the exemplar of Tyrannosaurus compared (which is a fully mature adult): this can be deduced from incomplete ossification of the dorsal vertebrae (in fact I used the ' only fully ossified suture at the level of the center-arc). This is indirectly confirmed by producing the Spinosaurus exhibited in Milan, which, when compared with the remains of the holotype counterparts, it is about 20% larger (Maganuco, pers. Comm.).

The dorsal vertebrae of Spinosaurus are slightly longer than those of Tyrannosaurus, but are significantly lower in the size of the center and neural arch. The dental holotype of Spinosaurus is shorter than that of Tyrannosaurus, but probably comparable in length if estimated on the item of Milan. In any case, the dental Spinosaurus is often less in amplitude than that of Tyrannosaurus.

Bibliography:
Brochu CR, 2003. Osteology of Tyrannosaurus rex: insights from a nearly complete skeleton and high-resolution computed tomographic analysis of the skull. Memory Soc Vert. Paleontol. 7, 1-138.
E. Stromer 1915. Ergebnisse der Forschungsreisen Prof. E. Stromers in den Wu is Stena is gyptens. II. Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-stoves (unterstes Cenoman). 3. Das Original des Theropoden Spinosaurus aegyptiacus November January, nov. spec. Abhandlungen der Ko is niglich Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Mathematisch physikalische-Class, 28 (3) :1-32 Abhandlung.

Posted Image
^ Don't you see he had references for his claims ?

"That's the fact" ??. Do you have any scientists or scientific proofs to back that ?. Do you have any measurements to claim that MSNM dentary is THAT MUCH longer and deeper than Sue ? Do you have any scientists to back your skull reconstruction as the MOST ACCURATE so far ? . What makes you think that your own Spinosaurus skull is better than this one

Posted Image

As long as you don't have any measurements or scientists to back yourself up that MSNM dentary is THAT MUCH longer and deeper than that of Sue. I wouldn't take it seriously

And Spinosaurus is only 14m. Cau has DEBUNKED it. If you don't know what "debunk" means, go search google for it, i wouldn't waste my times explaining that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:37 PM
And Spinosaurus is only 14m. Cau has DEBUNKED it. If you don't know what "debunk" means, go search google for it, i wouldn't waste my times explaining that
Oh no, not the bias all over again.

Just because he thinks he's debunked it, doesn't mean that he actually did....

Proportions of relatives still suggest the 16-18 meter estimates...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Cau seems quite related to Dal Sasso and his current works on Spino, I wouldn't reject his rigorous approach...just like the initial estimates of 16-17 m.

The problem once again is that I feel a great lack of true objectivity in this thread. Personnally, I want the truth, not my favorite, I love both, I was fanboy of both at different age when younger...
Edited by Grey, Jan 27 2013, 06:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 27 2013, 06:45 PM
Cau seems quite related to Dal Sasso and his current works on Spino, I wouldn't reject his rigorous approach...just like the initial estimates of 16-17 m.

The problem once again is that I feel a great lack of true objectivity. Personnally, I want the truth, not my favorite, I love both, I was fanboy of both at different age when younger...
Verdugo claims that the 14.4-meter estimates debunked the 16-18 meter ones...

He basically claims Cau's estimates as solid proven fact while saying that all other estimates are debunked...

Surely even you would have to disagree with that...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
-I remember that was the result we got in the spinosaurus bite force thread based on a figure from Sakamoto

Fuckin damn lie, this is what Sakamoto said in 2012 !

Posted Image

T rex bite force >>>> Giga or Carcharodontosaurus bite force >>>> Spinosaurus bite force. Is that so hard to understand ?

I remember @Grey has posted proofs for Carcharodontosaurus (or Giganotosaurus whatever) having bite force 3 times less than T rex. And Spinosaurus bite force has already much weaker than that 2 tonne force "by a HUGE differences".
Quote:
 

Everything about Tyrannosaurus is small compared to Spinosaurus, except for its bite. I'll give you a scale....
Posted Image

Who made that scale ?. Who made that Spino reconstruction, Fragillimus i guess rolleyes
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 27 2013, 06:48 PM
Grey
Jan 27 2013, 06:45 PM
Cau seems quite related to Dal Sasso and his current works on Spino, I wouldn't reject his rigorous approach...just like the initial estimates of 16-17 m.

The problem once again is that I feel a great lack of true objectivity. Personnally, I want the truth, not my favorite, I love both, I was fanboy of both at different age when younger...
Verdugo claims that the 14.4-meter estimates debunked the 16-18 meter ones...

He basically claims Cau's estimates as solid proven fact while saying that all other estimates are debunked...

Surely even you would have to disagree with that...
Well, Cau did not really debunk it but he's one of the most rigorous and rational modern researcher. His points are valid and as he's related to Dal Sasso, who's working on the new material from the Kem Kem, I'm somewhat confident in the man.

I'd like Spinosaurus at a 18 m robust piscivore, but I, and I feel real spinosaurids experts, expect real corresponding material.


Verdugo, yeah that was from Therrien et al. 2005. I couldn't read it yet, but I remember to have read of him that spinosaurids had exceptionnally fast, snapping jaws but not powerful at all.
However this is a different work, not related to those of Sakamoto.

I strongly believed that Spinosaurus would have the second bite force among giants theropods, due to its very dense skull, but in the light of these works and words, I reastically place carcharodontosaurids over in the biting department. Their skulls have clearly large space for jaws muscles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Verdugo
Member Avatar
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 26 2013, 05:53 AM
Kurtz
Jan 26 2013, 05:47 AM
Do you think that arms of spino can wreslte the t rex? lol
Claws are different to arms. This is what I meant by Spinosaurus claws being 'good' in a fight:

Posted Image
First, claws and teeth don't scale up proportionally. Smaller T rex can have bigger teeth, bigger claws than larger T rex, it doesn't matter.

I don't try to prove that Spinosaurus has small claws, but you're trying to apply that is an average size Spinosaurus claws while you only scaled it up base on a single Baryonyx claws.

Second, it is the thumb claw, right ?. Other Spinosaurus claws would be much smaller than that thumb claws actually

Third, arms motion shouldn't be less important than claw size, i don't know about Spinosaurus arms motion, but most Theropod seem to have very limited arms motion (as @Jinfeng has showed).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.