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 (459,261 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
[ *  * ]
Kurtz
Jan 30 2013, 01:14 AM
So Grey how large was the spino?
I know you didn't ask me but because Spino is so fragmentary no one really knows. Everyone would give you a different estimate, no one is necessarily right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kurtz
Jan 30 2013, 01:14 AM
how large was the spino?
Spinosaurus maroccanus: 12 meters long, 6.1 tonnes

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus(IPHG 1912): Around 14 meters in length, mass would be at around 7-8 tonnes...

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus(MSNM V4047): Around 16-18 meters in length, mass would be 10-14 tonnes depending on the spinosaur you scale from.

There are also the private specimen of juvenile Spinosaurus, that is about 8 meters in length.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
14 tonnes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kurtz
Jan 30 2013, 01:37 AM
14 tonnes?
It is one of the estimates you can get by scaling up from relatives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carnosaur Rex
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
mega t.rex the magnificent
Jan 30 2013, 12:14 AM
Posted Image

Something tells me that:
Giganotosaurus is the largest in terms of weight
Spinosaurus is the largest in terms of length
Tyrannosaurus is the largest in terms of height
I don't agree with you on the Giga's part, Giganotosaurus is not heavier than T-rex nor Spino.
Edited by Carnosaur Rex, Jan 30 2013, 03:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 30 2013, 01:49 AM
Kurtz
Jan 30 2013, 01:37 AM
14 tonnes?
It is one of the estimates you can get by scaling up from relatives.
From which one? I scaled from Suchomimus and Baryonyx and I didn't get more than 12t.

P.S. About your authority discussion, sure, amatuers can too make calculation, but please use other methods than, scientists don't often use methods like the square-cube law and they rarely give weights, even tough they could easily get one via square cube law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 30 2013, 04:12 AM
From which one? I scaled from Suchomimus and Baryonyx and I didn't get more than 12t.
It depends on which mass estimate you use for Suchomimus and Baryonyx, I think reasonable estimates for each would be:

Suchomimus ~ 3.8 tonnes (Using the Seebacher method you get 3.8 tonnes for Suchomimus)
Baryonyx ~ 2 tonnes

With those weight estimates Spino would be 14 tonnes with Suchomimus and 16 tonnes with Baryonyx at 17 m; I agree that these estimates can only reach a certain degree of reliablility though.

Reference
http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/A_new_method_to.pdf

EDIT: I found the Seebacher method is quite conservative and might actually underestimate Suchomimus, because it gives the following results:

Tyrannosaurus: 6650 kg
Carcharodontosaurus: 6173 kg
Giganotosaurus: 6594 kg
Spinosaurus: 7981 kg (at 17m)
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 30 2013, 04:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've scaled the Suchomimus to 16m, because that's what you get when scaling up Suchomimus' skull length to Spinosaurus' skull length. About Baryonyx, it was actually estimated at 1,7t (by Paul 1988), there I too used skull length (0,91m). Seebachers estimate are not too conservative. They could maybe even be a bit too high. because they don't always include the air sacks in the right way. But I think when saying this, he was reffering to small, lightly built species, because his estimates for large theropods match with those of other scientists (like Mazzetta's estimate for Giganotosaurus, or most estimates for an average Tyrannosaurus). So I think you can take them for large theropods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think it is generally too conservative, but with all those animals it depends on te reconstruction as most are pretty fragmentary, for example, a weight estimate based on a graphical metod for carcharodontosaurus can only be reliable IF te reconstruction it bases on is reliable, which is even pess certain than an accurate lengt estimate. The spinosaurus weight estimte doesn't make sense assuming proportions similar to those in Suchomimus, that's the problem, ad we should assume it's relatives proportions unless something suggest otherwise. This means, the most likely explanation for the disparity here is that the image used was not taking this int account.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 30 2013, 05:26 AM
I've scaled the Suchomimus to 16m, because that's what you get when scaling up Suchomimus' skull length to Spinosaurus' skull length. About Baryonyx, it was actually estimated at 1,7t (by Paul 1988), there I too used skull length (0,91m).
Scaling Irritator gives a 17.5 m estimate for Spinosaurus, wouldn't that be better than scaling Suchomimus? The reason I didn't scale weights for Irritator because I couldn't find a reliable weight estimate, the one source I did find indicated a mass of 19-25 tonnes if scaling with Irritator - obviously that's too much.

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritator
https://sites.google.com/site/paleofilescom/irritator

Quote:
 
I don't think it is generally too conservative, but with all those animals it depends on te reconstruction as most are pretty fragmentary, for example, a weight estimate based on a graphical metod for carcharodontosaurus can only be reliable IF te reconstruction it bases on is reliable, which is even pess certain than an accurate lengt estimate. The spinosaurus weight estimte doesn't make sense assuming proportions similar to those in Suchomimus, that's the problem, ad we should assume it's relatives proportions unless something suggest otherwise. This means, the most likely explanation for the disparity here is that the image used was not taking this int account.


That could be a likely explanation; do you know what reconstruction they used?
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 30 2013, 05:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If you scale the weight from Suchomimus, you have to assume similarity in body shape, that also means body proportions. Also, the estimates of Irritator seem to be based on Spinosaurus itself.

@theropod, Seebacher didn't show any estimate for Spinosaurus, Dal Sasso did. He used his method on his Spinosaurus skeleton.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Irritator is only known from an isolated kull, so it's lenght is unknown and not a proper basis fo calculations. we should either take the closest (tough still far) in terms of size or the most complete, thus eiher suchomimus orf baryonyx. I don't rememvevany other spinosaurid remains with extensive postcrania, but I'll do some further research on that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 30 2013, 05:48 AM
If you scale the weight from Suchomimus, you have to assume similarity in body shape, that also means body proportions. Also, the estimates of Irritator seem to be based on Spinosaurus itself.

@theropod, Seebacher didn't show any estimate for Spinosaurus, Dal Sasso did. He used his method on his Spinosaurus skeleton.
I know, what I mean is hat the skeletal he used has different propotions. He might have imagined t as a more slender animal to sav weight...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It isn't extremely slender, just his Spinosaurus has a short body, when comparing to the other dinosaurs he has shown in his size comparision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Quote:
 
If you scale the weight from Suchomimus, you have to assume similarity in body shape, that also means body proportions. Also, the estimates of Irritator seem to be based on Spinosaurus itself.


I see your point, I wasn't trying to say the scaled-from-Suchomimus estimates were accurate, I was showing how it could be reached. How about Baryonyx? Wikipedia referenced lengths up to 9.5 m, making Spinosaurus 17 m+ and 11.7 tonnes. Sounds reasonably possible to me.
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.