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 (459,263 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
[ *  *  *  * ]
like this one?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Spinosaurus_Crane.jpg

or this?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think it was the first one. The second one doesn´t appear to be an original its mandible doesn´t even consist of multiple bones, and it too has a wrong shape, at least assuming Stromers spinosaurus wasn´t deformed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Jan 28 2013, 06:40 AM
I think it was the first one. The second one doesn´t appear to be an original its mandible doesn´t even consist of multiple bones, and it too has a wrong shape, at least assuming Stromers spinosaurus wasn´t deformed.
Yeah...the second one looks pretty sketchy in terms of completeness and originality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sure that isn´t just some inaccurate cast? even the rostrum looks odd, the crest doesn´t fit the shape of the one Dal Sasso described either...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I assume the first one is the "Drouot Spinosaurus", auctioned in hotel drouot. The second one is also auctioned there, but skull only.
check this out:
http://spinosauridae.fr.gd/Les-Spinosaurus-chim-e2-riques-de-Drouot.htm

Posted Image
The mandible seems to be cast from genuine fossils. It's one piece in the pic probably because it's a cast of a cast+sculpture to reconstruct the lower jaw.
It's a composite of multiple individuals I think.
I looks quite different than Stromer's Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Since all these material are of "French" origin, I think they are from Kem Kem beds of Western Sahara, like Morroco and Algeria. And it could be systemetically different than Spinosaurus aegyptiacus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Posted Image

i think green represents actual bones.
They all highly resemble MSNM V4047 and SAM 124, but the mandible is not very similar to S. aegypriacus. Whether it's due to individual variation, ontogeny, or specific difference is unknown.

I don't speak French, grey might have more info on these.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The largest part of the mandible being missing explains some of the oddities. Could the rest mean that there really was a species "S." marroccanus? But why does the rostrum curve upwards so strangely while MNSN doesn´t?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 28 2013, 07:02 AM
Posted Image
Posted Image

i think green represents actual bones.
They all highly resemble MSNM V4047 and SAM 124, but the mandible is not very similar to S. aegypriacus. Whether it's due to individual variation, ontogeny, or specific difference is unknown.

I don't speak French, grey might have more info on these.
Seems like we can expect some new material to be described soon. The legs do confuse me, everybody is talking about short legs and now there is the most long legged skeletal with parts of its legs preserved
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
The mandible is not as deep it seems. Maybe because it's younger?
I'm not sure about the strange upward turn of the rostrum, maybe also due to one of the three reasons i listed in the previous post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If I remember right those two both where pretty small individuals, less than 10m. Ontogeny seems a good explanation, but I whished thoise where properly described!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
I think green parts are preserved. The femora are pretty short. Tibia are largely unpreserved. There also could be discrepancy between the skeletal drawing and fossil assemblage.
And ontogeny is probably a good factor too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carnosaur Rex
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
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 !

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
@Verdugo Hey your work is wonderful... can I have a way to talk with you (PM doesn't work) by e-mail or facebook.... That'll be awesome!!!
Edited by Carnosaur Rex, Jan 28 2013, 10:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 28 2013, 01:48 AM
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.
Ursus arctos' post works well in this situation...

Ursus arctos
Jan 28 2013, 05:25 AM
221extra
Jan 26 2013, 05:36 PM
What is wrong?...IMO this downright arrogance & feeling of superiority of some members; in some cases acting like these Scientific references aren't up to there par or thinking because they're able to construct an argument in regards to certain physical features or whatnot of a certain animal, that mean's it's automatically right. ("invalidates the use of authority") rolleyes

It's a case of acting like "your shit don't stank".
You are too short of knowledge to understand.

Scientists are people too, often no better. Their ultimate authority comes from the arguments. Due to a lack of understanding (see first link) authority/status is used as a proxy by the masses.

http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8459150&t=9810927
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carnosaur Rex
Jan 28 2013, 10:40 AM
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 !

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
@Verdugo Hey your work is wonderful... can I have a way to talk with you (PM doesn't work) by e-mail or facebook.... That'll be awesome!!!
hey this is twice t rex spino
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 28 2013, 07:02 AM
Posted Image
Posted Image

i think green represents actual bones.
I'm not really good at french, but from what I understand it says:
"The parts marked green are the reconstructed parts"
Sorry if I'm wrong.
I'll maybe use google translator.

EIDT: I used it and I was right from the context, but a better translation would be:
"The parts shown green are the reconstructed parts"
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jan 29 2013, 12:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.