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 (459,252 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:
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 2 2013, 11:55 PM
I don't see the suggestion of a robust skull but weak bite here anywhere, I think we are talking about an animal with a relatively strong skull and bite, but not quite as strong as that of some other theropods, like Carcharodontosaurs or of course T. rex (and I'd say T. rex probably had a bite twice stronger than Carcharodontosaurus). Basing on Irritator it does have quite some space for adductor msuculature in its temporal region.
I agree with that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 2 2013, 11:57 PM
and while its jaws are not the perfect killing tools they are still fearsome and potentially deadly. Imo it would use them to clamp down on the throat like modern felines do on large preys if their bite force is not sufficient, the main work in fighting would be done by its sheer mass and the massive arms, but a bite could help a lot in wrestling and securing too.
I wouldn't really say that. The long arms were most likely an evolutionary advantage for catching fish. I strongly believe that the jaws did most of the actual killing, at least until a source comes up to prove otherwise.

Now, because the jaws of spinosaurus evolved to work the same way as in slender-snouted crocodilians, the teeth and jaws probably weren't as successful as, for example, carnosaurs. But the teeth and jaws were, IMO, much closer to that of the false gharial as opposed to the Indian gharial.

Put it this way, all large theropods represent modern crocodlians. Spinosaurus has a similar jaw structure to that of the false gharial, while some of its relatives like suchomimus had a skull much more similar to an Indian gharial.
Edited by Godzillasaurus, Feb 3 2013, 12:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I would be interested in the skull volume of these animals.

According to McHenry, the skull of FMNH PR2081 Tyrannosaurus at 1,50 m long has a considerably larger volume than the 1,84 m skull of a Kronosaurus individual (158 vs 113 litres respectively).

I would be interested in the probable skull volume of Spinosaurus and the largest carcharodontosaurids.

Honestly, I doubt Tyrannosaurus to be rivaled here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coherentsheaf
Member Avatar
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Grey
Feb 3 2013, 12:12 AM
I would be interested in the skull volume of these animals.

According to McHenry, the skull of FMNH PR2081 Tyrannosaurus at 1,50 m long has a considerably larger volume than the 1,84 m skull of a Kronosaurus individual (158 vs 113 litres respectively).

I would be interested in the probable skull volume of Spinosaurus and the largest carcharodontosaurids.

Honestly, I doubt Tyrannosaurus to be rivaled here.
On the other hand despite having a skull volume that much larger, the Kronosaurus still had a similar bite force (the posterior bite force of the Kronosaurus was even higher than in the case of the T.rex ). I think skull volume is not necessarily the best metric for determining bite force.
Edited by coherentsheaf, Feb 3 2013, 12:22 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grey
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
coherentsheaf
Feb 3 2013, 12:21 AM
Grey
Feb 3 2013, 12:12 AM
I would be interested in the skull volume of these animals.

According to McHenry, the skull of FMNH PR2081 Tyrannosaurus at 1,50 m long has a considerably larger volume than the 1,84 m skull of a Kronosaurus individual (158 vs 113 litres respectively).

I would be interested in the probable skull volume of Spinosaurus and the largest carcharodontosaurids.

Honestly, I doubt Tyrannosaurus to be rivaled here.
On the other hand despite having a skull volume that much larger, the Kronosaurus still had a similar bite force (the posterior bite force of the Kronosaurus was even higher than in the case of the T.rex ). I think skull volume is not necessarily the best metric for determining bite force.
Of course, Kronosaurus is a particular case. But beside the bite force question, I'm curious toward determine the skull volume in those other genera.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Skull volume doesn't necessarily reflect stress resistance, even less that in a certain direction. But I would too doubt T. rex to be rivalled in this point.
That isn't necessarily an advantage however, it jsut reflects it's killing style.

Some volumetric data would indeed be interesting, however not so much for our sad little fight scenarios but for morphometric analyses of theropods and other animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Feb 2 2013, 11:45 PM
This isn't supposed to guarantee the spinosaurus a victory due to the heavy build and even stronger bite of tyrannosaurus, but, with a morphology similar to crocodiles, spinosaurus would have been a dangerous animal.
I haven't saidI think it wins (I actually agree with DinosaurMichael in this battle), I just wanted to say that they can kill each other, so I think it depends on who gets the first bite. I think while T-rex has the faster killing bite, Spinosaurus has the longer range, due veing taller and having a longer snout, so this could go either way.

EDIT: WOW, 130 pages!
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Feb 3 2013, 03:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think the false gharial is a decent analogy, but not perfect: Posted Image

However I must admitt in dorsal view the analogy is indeed fitting, and like the supposed for spinosaurus, false gharials prey on small fish, But also larger animals, like deer, monkeys and humans. This demonstrates their weaponery can be used effectively in killing, and we should assume the same for spinosaurus, especially as it obviously has more robust mandible, dentition and rostrum.
Edited by theropod, Feb 3 2013, 06:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 3 2013, 03:54 AM
Godzillaman
Feb 2 2013, 11:45 PM
This isn't supposed to guarantee the spinosaurus a victory due to the heavy build and even stronger bite of tyrannosaurus, but, with a morphology similar to crocodiles, spinosaurus would have been a dangerous animal.
I haven't saidI think it wins (I actually agree with DinosaurMichael in this battle), I just wanted to say that they can kill each other, so I think it depends on who gets the first bite. I think while T-rex has the faster killing bite, Spinosaurus has the longer range, due veing taller and having a longer snout, so this could go either way.

EDIT: WOW, 130 pages!
No, you didn't say that. I just said it to explain that the tyrannosaurus could still win, even given the spino's weapons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 3 2013, 06:15 AM
I think the false gharial is a decent analogy, but not perfect: Posted Image

However I must admitt in dorsal view the analogy is indeed fitting, and like the supposed for spinosaurus, false gharials prey on small fish, But also larger animals, like deer, monkeys and humans. This demonstrates their weaponery can be used effectively in killing, and we should assume the same for spinosaurus, especially as it obviously has more robust mandible, dentition and rostrum.
I agree. In fact, spinosaurus had an even thicker skull (at least laterally) than that of a false gharial. Given its size, strength, and overall relation to a false gharial, spinosaurus is a wimpy sardine-eater no longer.

To get a good feel of the raw power that is housed in a false gharial, have a look at this: False Gharial Kills Man
Edited by Godzillasaurus, Feb 3 2013, 06:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carnosaur Rex
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
MMM that's a difficult one, cause they never have been in contact; but if the battle was for food, territory,defending it's child's I think those could cause a conflict between those titans... in one side we have Spinosaurus size and it's sail as intimidation, his arms could hurt the T.rex. then we have the powerful jaws of T-rex, neck that could charge Spino (I think that could be a little difficult becasue T.rex need to charge in the correct side, but to an animal the size of spino is really difficult to be knocked down, the hit need to be in it's hip...) then it's binocular vision for me is a good advantage in view to bite more precisely (to know how far is the rival) I give it for T.rex but not always cause scenarios and situations could change the advantages and in consequence the winner could be the other one....
Edited by Carnosaur Rex, Feb 4 2013, 04:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Feb 3 2013, 06:55 AM
theropod
Feb 3 2013, 06:15 AM
I think the false gharial is a decent analogy, but not perfect: Posted Image

However I must admitt in dorsal view the analogy is indeed fitting, and like the supposed for spinosaurus, false gharials prey on small fish, But also larger animals, like deer, monkeys and humans. This demonstrates their weaponery can be used effectively in killing, and we should assume the same for spinosaurus, especially as it obviously has more robust mandible, dentition and rostrum.
I agree. In fact, spinosaurus had an even thicker skull (at least laterally) than that of a false gharial. Given its size, strength, and overall relation to a false gharial, spinosaurus is a wimpy sardine-eater no longer.

To get a good feel of the raw power that is housed in a false gharial, have a look at this: False Gharial Kills Man
You mean ventrodorsally or in lateral view. Spinosaurus has a deeper skull than a false gharial, however not broader.

Impressive crocodilian!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mega t.rex the magnificent
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Mega t.Rex the magnificent is now 20 years old today!! Yay!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 4 2013, 05:23 AM
Godzillaman
Feb 3 2013, 06:55 AM
theropod
Feb 3 2013, 06:15 AM
I think the false gharial is a decent analogy, but not perfect: Posted Image

However I must admitt in dorsal view the analogy is indeed fitting, and like the supposed for spinosaurus, false gharials prey on small fish, But also larger animals, like deer, monkeys and humans. This demonstrates their weaponery can be used effectively in killing, and we should assume the same for spinosaurus, especially as it obviously has more robust mandible, dentition and rostrum.
I agree. In fact, spinosaurus had an even thicker skull (at least laterally) than that of a false gharial. Given its size, strength, and overall relation to a false gharial, spinosaurus is a wimpy sardine-eater no longer.

To get a good feel of the raw power that is housed in a false gharial, have a look at this: False Gharial Kills Man
You mean ventrodorsally or in lateral view. Spinosaurus has a deeper skull than a false gharial, however not broader.

Impressive crocodilian!
Yes, probably similar to how carcharodontosaurus had a very deep, yet dorsally thin skull.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
mega t.rex the magnificent
Feb 4 2013, 05:25 AM
Mega t.Rex the magnificent is now 20 years old today!! Yay!!
And he still talks about himself in the third person! ;)

Congratulations! :)
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.