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 (459,266 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
[ *  * ]
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 07:27 PM
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).
Yes I know, I originally posted this image before, I just reposted it on that quote to show someone. I said if it was proportioned the same, I didn't say it was the average; in the original post I said it was liberal and in this post I didn't say anything about average. Itt is a thumb claw and the others would be smaller - I said this too. I also posted that the claws would be a deciding factor if Spino could reach T.rex's head. The original post was before Jinfeng showed that theropod had limited arm motion. I know wikipedia is unreliable sometimes but it said 'this trait is not universal, spinosaurids had well developed arms' and if the higher estimates (I'm not saying they are or they aren't) are true for Spinosaurus then it would be able to reach T.rex's head without much arm motion anyway.
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 27 2013, 08:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:59 PM
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 !

no lie, you would know that nothing I or others have extrapolated in this regard is in conflict with what Sakamoto wrote if you wheren't so fast in claiming I was wrong.
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:59 PM

Posted Image

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

I'm well aware of that, even tough i tought differently some time ago, it seems like carcharodontosaurs had a stronger bite than spinosaurus
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:59 PM


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".

I have posted proof for Carcharodontosaurus bite force to have been far stronger than that, based on more recent, more precise figures, so you might have to reconsider your and greys information and look whether it was simply guessed
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:59 PM


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

Maybe I should do it your way and write everything fragillimus does is far better than what you do...
lol


Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:37 PM
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

you will never learn it, will you? that a scientist deduces it does not make it a fact, it makes it a deduction.

I can too make a deduction, and that's even a fact: that based on Irritator and Suchomimus the dentary would have to be that long.
I too have references for it:

1. Ernst Stromer: Wirbeltier-Reste der Baharije-Stufe (unterstes Cenoman)
Das Original des Theropoden Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, nov. gen., nov. spec.

2. Smith et al. : NEW INFORMATION REGARDING THE HOLOTYPE OF
SPINOSAURUS AEGYPTIACUS STROMER, 1915


3.Dal Sasso et al. : NEW INFORMATION ON THE SKULL OF THE ENIGMATIC THEROPOD SPINOSAURUS,
WITH REMARKS ON ITS SIZE AND AFFINITIES

4. Sues et al. : Irritator challengeri, a Spinosaurid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of
Brazil

5. sereno et al. : A Long-Snouted Predatory Dinosaur from Africa and the Evolution of Spinosaurids


Here you have a nice list of papers to read and check the accuracy of my reconstruction with, should you then notice inaccuracies, please tell me.

So the next time, check things yourself before claiming it to be inaccurate, and differentiate between opinions and facts. The dentary is the shape of BSP 1912 VIII 19 scaled to match the respective lenght of Irritator or Suchomimus, unlike you, I do not just make things up. Cau might think differently, but based on named animals it is not likely that if the holotype had a 75cm dentary MSNM V4047 would be only 20% bigger, rather 45%. With a 95cm dentary it would be ~16%
If these figures do not fit your personal and andrea Cau's view of this animals proportions, you should probably measure his scale and look why it is different instead of claiming me to produce inaccurate work.




Edited by theropod, Jan 27 2013, 08:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 27 2013, 05:45 PM
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...
I think it earlier too had much more scenes, but for some reason, they deleted a lot of them, to press it in 4 episodes. Also, it was originally called, "Regim of the dinosaurs".
Grey
Jan 27 2013, 07:14 PM
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.
You can find it in this book.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 27 2013, 05:55 PM
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.
I never said I took them seriously. I simply stated that spinosaurus wasn't as weak as previously thought by many people. WE estimated its bite at 2 to 3 tons, but that doesn't really make it an invalid estimation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
what kind of damage could have produced the spino bite on t rex, this is the question
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey thinks everything not published except for some very special things concerning tooth function and C. megalodon is worthless, so yes, to him it does make it invalid, especially as one statement by sakamoto was interpreted by grey to be in conflict with this...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I just noticed that this thread now has more posts than Lion vs Tiger...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 28 2013, 12:33 AM
I just noticed that this thread now has more posts than Lion vs Tiger...
Do you think is a good thing, i do not
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 28 2013, 12:22 AM
Grey thinks everything not published except for some very special things concerning tooth function and C. megalodon is worthless, so yes, to him it does make it invalid, especially as one statement by sakamoto was interpreted by grey to be in conflict with this...
Check my history of contributions to the forum from discussions with scientists, unrelated to megalodon. Then shut your trap.

Peer reviewed, and discussions are the most prevailing sources to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If they where, you would be open to logical arguments, even if something has not before been stated by a scientist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 28 2013, 01:37 AM
If they where, you would be open to logical arguments, even if something has not before been stated by a scientist.
Logical argument has no scientifical weight facing a peer reviewed or a lengthy discussion with one field authority.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I knew you would say that

"logical argument has no weight"

authority>>>>>>logic

just about every scientist that i know would certainly say that's wrong, but hey, you think otherwise!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
blaze
Jan 27 2013, 11:31 AM
JFC was a POS, right there among the most horribly stereotyped and dumb dinosaur "documentaries" ever made, I'm someone that can shut its brain and enjoy dumb movies/shows but JFC was too much, the only thing based on fossils were the basic shape of the dinosaurs (I say basic because most of the models were bad) and nothing more, those weren't theories, a theory comes to being from a heavily tested hypothesis which is a very educated guess, what was shown in JFC never reaches such level of research and looked like nothing else than the producers coming up with "cool" ideas for people that have no previous knowledge of this animals (like those who made the show).

Never use that show as evidence for anything, in fact, never take what a dinosaur documentary says at face value, none of them are perfect and most take lots of "creative liberties" but those that have been coming from the Discovery channel as of late are pure entertainment with little science behind them.
Thanks for your opinion I really appreciate an IMPARTIAL point of view....
Edited by Superiron21, Jan 28 2013, 02:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
This thread beat 'Lion vs Tiger'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 28 2013, 02:00 AM
I knew you would say that

"logical argument has no weight"

authority>>>>>>logic

just about every scientist that i know would certainly say that's wrong, but hey, you think otherwise!
Theropod, I would favor any paleontologist author over you. I don't give a coin of your works, can you understand ? B-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.