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 (459,260 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maelstrom
Jan 30 2013, 05:55 AM
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.
I used these numbers for Baryonyx:
Posted Image
http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/My_theropod_is_.pdf
(The resarched ones, not the estimated ones, using the flawed method)
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Jan 30 2013, 05:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 30 2013, 05:58 AM
I used these numbers for Baryonyx

http://dinoweb.ucoz.ru/_fr/4/My_theropod_is_.pdf
(The resarched ones, not the estimated ones, using the flawed method)
Paul gave a 1700 kg estimate for a 9.5 m individual? In that case Spino would be 18.26 m and 12.09 tonnes, still in the range of possibilities. I noticed a tilde before Paul's length estimate, does that mean it is uncertain? If so using the other length Spino would be 16.34 m and 12.07 tonnes - again in the range of possibilities.
Edited by Maelstrom, Jan 30 2013, 06:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Jan 30 2013, 05:34 AM
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.
I dont trust the Seebacher method, not because of the method, but the starting assumptions. In the table they seem to drastically overestimate some dinosaurs, and underestimate others. For instance they have a Velociraptor at 3.1 meters and 44kg, and a Deinonychus at 3 meters and 104kg.

Also:

Dicraesaurus at 12.0m and 4.4 tons.

Haplocanthosauru at 14.0m and 14.5 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Creed
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Now that I really think of this thread Idc who wins.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kurtz
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So at least a couple of tons difference most of times.
T Rex take this 9/10
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://blog.geomodel.it/archive/2010/December/gemodel-spinosaurus-aegyptiacus/&usg=ALkJrhjruCM3QaIfa3KfZLPBhzEOCE0Lug

Lastes life size model, "most accurate in the world"
15.8-16 meters long.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
MightyMaus
Jan 30 2013, 07:15 AM
theropod
Jan 30 2013, 05:34 AM
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.
I dont trust the Seebacher method, not because of the method, but the starting assumptions. In the table they seem to drastically overestimate some dinosaurs, and underestimate others. For instance they have a Velociraptor at 3.1 meters and 44kg, and a Deinonychus at 3 meters and 104kg.

Also:

Dicraesaurus at 12.0m and 4.4 tons.

Haplocanthosauru at 14.0m and 14.5 tons.
I think it works better for theropods than sauropods.
Velociraptor is listed as "Velociraptor antirrhopus"
I don't think it's a valid species...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
To have a neutral and not bias conclusive idea, we have to await the on going studies on the new material, because we massively speculate on Spinosaurus.

At first, will this last description confirm the very large size ?

If Cau, Dal Sasso and Magnuco agreed on the Milan reconstruction, it seems it's the case.

But at this size, is it a match for the largest tyrannosaurids and carcharodontosaurids ?

I recall one member, I think Verdugo, who posted an actual graphic paper where Carcharodontosaurus is considered stronger than Spinosaurus.

But if the future description confirms what Planet Dinosaur depicted of Spinosaurus, I think objectively it will be indeed too much for any theropod to handle.

This video is interesting in this purpose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qo038S3AVk&feature=youtu.be


The host came to the conclusion that Spinosaurus is definitely the top dog among all theropods in terms of being a killing machine.

Of course this is not exactly a peer reviewed job, but this does not prevent it to be serious and valuable.

Especially, look at the part where the host experiment Spinosaurus teeth model.
What you can see is that of course these teeth are unable to rip, tear or slice, we all knew that, but they are extremely potent at piercing through a though hide, seemingly much more easily than crocs teeth. Which could explain the relatively small bite force of Spinosaurus that is seemingly predictable.

But you can see that once locked on its prey or target, the latter couldn't escape from it.

The question, would the skull of Spinosaurus be able to resist to the tremendeous torsions provoked by the extremely powerful neck of such a thing like Tyrannosaurus ?

Spinosaurus skull appears remarkably dense and solid in its constitution, but would it be enough ? Are the teeth going to resist the huge torsions ?

The best we have to do is waiting.

Still, I'm persistent that if Tyrannosaurus manage, once again depending of Spinosaurus real dimensions and proportions, to bite its neck, this is over.

Some supporters of Spinosaurus seems to forget the unmatched bite force and massive long teeth of Tyrannosaurus in this contest.

Posted Image

Edited by Grey, Jan 30 2013, 10:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MysteryMeat
Jan 30 2013, 07:29 AM
MightyMaus
Jan 30 2013, 07:15 AM
theropod
Jan 30 2013, 05:34 AM
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.
I dont trust the Seebacher method, not because of the method, but the starting assumptions. In the table they seem to drastically overestimate some dinosaurs, and underestimate others. For instance they have a Velociraptor at 3.1 meters and 44kg, and a Deinonychus at 3 meters and 104kg.

Also:

Dicraesaurus at 12.0m and 4.4 tons.

Haplocanthosauru at 14.0m and 14.5 tons.
I think it works better for theropods than sauropods.
Velociraptor is listed as "Velociraptor antirrhopus"
I don't think it's a valid species...
To my knowledge, Velociraptor antirrhopus is actually Deinonychus antirrhopus. It was one suggested that it was the same genus and this is from that not long established assumption that Crichton and then Spielberg made their Jurassic Park raptors, actually Deinonychus antirrhopus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 30 2013, 10:46 AM
To have a neutral and not bias conclusive idea, we have to await the on going studies on the new material, because we massively speculate on Spinosaurus.

At first, will this last description confirm the very large size ?

If Cau, Dal Sasso and Magnuco agreed on the Milan reconstruction, it seems it's the case.

But at this size, is it a match for the largest tyrannosaurids and carcharodontosaurids ?

I recall one member, I think Verdugo, who posted an actual graphic paper where Carcharodontosaurus is considered stronger than Spinosaurus.

But if the future description confirms what Planet Dinosaur depicted of Spinosaurus, I think objectively it will be indeed too much for any theropod to handle.

This video is interesting in this purpose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qo038S3AVk&feature=youtu.be


The host came to the conclusion that Spinosaurus is definitely the top dog among all theropods in terms of being a killing machine.

Of course this is not exactly a peer reviewed job, but this does not prevent it to be serious and valuable.

Especially, look at the part where the host experiment Spinosaurus teeth model.
What you can see is that of course these teeth are unable to rip, tear or slice, we all knew that, but they are extremely potent at piercing through a though hide, seemingly much more easily than crocs teeth. Which could explain the relatively small bite force of Spinosaurus that is seemingly predictable.

But you can see that once locked on its prey or target, the latter couldn't escape from it.

The question, would the skull of Spinosaurus be able to resist to the tremendeous torsions provoked by the extremely powerful neck of such a thing like Tyrannosaurus ?

Spinosaurus skull appears remarkably dense and solid in its constitution, but would it be enough ? Are the teeth going to resist the huge torsions ?

The best we have to do is waiting.

Still, I'm persistent that if Tyrannosaurus manage, once again depending of Spinosaurus real dimensions and proportions, to bite its neck, this is over.

Some supporters of Spinosaurus seems to forget the unmatched bite force and massive long teeth of Tyrannosaurus in this contest.

Posted Image

They only favor spinosaurus because it's bigger mainly, then there's the whole everyone wants it to have a ridge of muscle like acrocanthosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mega t.rex the magnificent
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Carnosaur Rex
Jan 30 2013, 03:52 AM
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.
So you are saying that giganotosaurus is smaller than both tyrannosaurus and spinosaurus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't have an opinion about the spines and I've not seen something substantial about a muscular ridge on its back, time to time suggested but never established. Most of the professionnal reconstructions still depict a robust sail.

And bigger, perhaps, but how bigger then, and with which proportions ?

The modern datas regarding Spinosaurus are all contradictory, that's the main problem.

Whereas there is a linear updated progression in Tyrannosaurus and the giants carcharodontosaurids.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Jan 30 2013, 11:42 AM
I don't have an opinion about the spines and I've not seen something substantial about a muscular ridge on its back, time to time suggested but never established. Most of the professionnal reconstructions still depict a robust sail.

And bigger, perhaps, but how bigger then, and with which proportions ?

The modern datas regarding Spinosaurus are all contradictory, that's the main problem.

Whereas there is a linear updated progression in Tyrannosaurus and the giants carcharodontosaurids.
Spinosaurus spines were quite thin
Posted Image
As for the size, I don't know, most if not all the pages of this debate are really just posters debating on which relative of spinosaurus to use for a reconstruction or the similar. Little actual debating.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Black Ice
Jan 30 2013, 11:51 AM
Grey
Jan 30 2013, 11:42 AM
I don't have an opinion about the spines and I've not seen something substantial about a muscular ridge on its back, time to time suggested but never established. Most of the professionnal reconstructions still depict a robust sail.

And bigger, perhaps, but how bigger then, and with which proportions ?

The modern datas regarding Spinosaurus are all contradictory, that's the main problem.

Whereas there is a linear updated progression in Tyrannosaurus and the giants carcharodontosaurids.
Spinosaurus spines were quite thin
Posted Image
As for the size, I don't know, most if not all the pages of this debate are really just posters debating on which relative of spinosaurus to use for a reconstruction or the similar. Little actual debating.
You do realize that the very same image shows how broad Spinosaurus' spines are do you?

You can't just ignore the side view...the spines being thin at front view only suggest a thinner structure than a bison hump, it doesn't debunk a muscular ridge, which is thinner than a hump but thicker than a sail...
Edited by SpinoInWonderland, Jan 30 2013, 12:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jan 30 2013, 12:54 PM
Black Ice
Jan 30 2013, 11:51 AM
Grey
Jan 30 2013, 11:42 AM
I don't have an opinion about the spines and I've not seen something substantial about a muscular ridge on its back, time to time suggested but never established. Most of the professionnal reconstructions still depict a robust sail.

And bigger, perhaps, but how bigger then, and with which proportions ?

The modern datas regarding Spinosaurus are all contradictory, that's the main problem.

Whereas there is a linear updated progression in Tyrannosaurus and the giants carcharodontosaurids.
Spinosaurus spines were quite thin
Posted Image
As for the size, I don't know, most if not all the pages of this debate are really just posters debating on which relative of spinosaurus to use for a reconstruction or the similar. Little actual debating.
You do realize that the very same image shows how broad Spinosaurus' spines are do you?

You can't just ignore the side view...the spines being thin at front view only suggest a thinner structure than a bison hump, it doesn't debunk a muscular ridge, which is thinner than a hump but thicker than a sail...
Muscles don't attach paralleled from spines. At least... Not the ones that produce physical force. The sides can be as broad as they want, but if they front is thin, too much muscle would bend the bone. Added there's much more options than just either a sailor ridge of muscle,
Quote:
 
The distinctive spines were about 5.4 feet (1.65 m) long and were likely to have been connected by skin. Because the spines were connected by tissue, the structure may also have been more of a large hump than a sail, according to German paleontologist Ernst Stromer.

There has been much scientific debate regarding the evolution and purpose of the Spinosaurus' sail. It is possible that the sail served multiple purposes, including regulating body temperature by absorbing heat, and attracting mates. Because of its size, the Spinosaurus did not have many predators, but the sail could have been used to ward off enemies, as the dinosaur appeared to be twice its size when the sail was fully extended. Paleontologists theorize that the sails were brightly colored, much like the fins of some modern-day reptiles.

The dinosaur's upper spine was fairly flexible and its vertebrae had ball-and-socket joints, so it was likely able to arch its back to a point and may have been able to spread the sail when threatened or looking to attract a mate.

The Spinosaurus' sail was unusual, although other dinosaurs — including the Ouranosaurus, which lived a few million years earlier in the same general region as Spinosaurus, and the South American Amargasaurus — might have developed similar structures emanating from their vertebrae.
Edited by Black Ice, Jan 30 2013, 01:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.