| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,251 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Godzillasaurus | Feb 4 2013, 06:31 AM Post #1951 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That post doesn't go here. There are PLENTY of places in the "Spam Zone" for that. |
![]() |
|
| mega t.rex the magnificent | Feb 4 2013, 08:04 AM Post #1952 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oops sorry.
|
![]() |
|
| Black Ice | Feb 4 2013, 08:28 AM Post #1953 |
![]()
Drom King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Has a unanimous winner been decided yet.
Edited by Black Ice, Feb 4 2013, 08:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Feb 4 2013, 11:37 AM Post #1954 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Apparently not... |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Feb 5 2013, 04:13 AM Post #1955 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The winner of this matchup has not been decided yet due to either a lack of evidence or a substantial amount of evidence pointing to either animal winning. At first, I agreed that the tyrannosaurus would probably win. However, recent consideration has allowed me to change my vote. The bite of spinosaurus was not as weak as previously thought, and its skull was not even close to as thin as that of a gharial. |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 5 2013, 11:12 AM Post #1956 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
not so unanimous but I think T.rex proved be better figher in this great fight and has a lot of advantages(aggressiveness, intelligence, stronger bite, robust body,powerful neck that a big hit with that massive skull would be very dangerous) in comparisson with Spino althought Spino has a lot of weapons like it's lenght, arms, jaws not so powerful as other giants theropods...that's why he has those huge arms that could do a lot of damage in a fight like wounds but in this case not so powerful to manage an animal as a T-rex |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Feb 5 2013, 12:09 PM Post #1957 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually the fights decided imo, spinosaurus is just too big for t.rex. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Feb 5 2013, 12:15 PM Post #1958 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yea, but it is still sort of turning into another endless debate. I used to think t-rex would win, but now I believe that the spinosaurus will take the cake. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 6 2013, 12:32 AM Post #1959 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At parity-yes, but at the real sizes of these two animals, hardly, and if yes only at a very low estimate for spinosaurus
while likely, it remains to be proven, and I have serious doubts whether agressiveness will help if you are the smaller creature, you will naturally not be the agressor.
Irrelevant in most fight scenarios and up to today very poorly understood
undoubtedly true
That might be helpful for comparative durability and also power if you are about the same size, but it obviously is not a factor here
You think headbutting of a twice smaller T. rex will seriously injure Spinosaurus? Unless at parity T. rex skull is a 4 times deadlier weapon, Spino can do the same to spino with it's body or tail. I don't think you are putting these things into perspective, you seem to have the impression that T. rex was a very strong animal when compared to Spinosaurus, while in terms of physical power it is dwarfed here. In every regard related to power or durability Spinosaurus has an advantage here. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 6 2013, 12:42 AM Post #1960 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I doubt a headbutt would be effective. Tyrannosaurus skull maybe adapted to absorb a lot of force while biting, but it's skull bones weren't very well connected: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1547/1451.full.pdf They need to be, because if it had a more robust skull, it would be damaged when biting, but in exchange, the skull was overall less stable, so a headbutt won't be very effective. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 6 2013, 12:46 AM Post #1961 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^I think you might be misinterpreting the mechanical properties of T. rex skulls. The bones not being very well connected to absorb force doesn't make the skull less stable, it will just yield a bit more, ultimately making it MORE resistant. That might even make it ideal for headbutting. The paper doesn't suggest it had a weak skull, it just suggests the skull doesn't have features (such as well fused bones) that are usually associated with a strong one. |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 02:24 AM Post #1962 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 02:30 AM Post #1963 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@theropod Agreed my friend... @Jinfengopteryx as theropod said "The bones not being very well connected to absorb force doesn't make the skull less stable, it will just yield a bit more, ultimately making it MORE resistant. That might even make it ideal for headbutting." not only that... it's muscles are important in this case... take a look at this
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 6 2013, 02:38 AM Post #1964 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think something went wrong with your quotes. I'll try not to quote too much of what you wrote to avoid the confusion:
Well, that's a matter of opinion, for sure it was significantly bigger, and twice as big is absolutely possible.
of course, but spinosaurus has a size advantage. Blunt trauma requires force, and that's a factor Spinosaurus is superior in.
That's why I think you are not putting them into perspective. Power and durability are correlated with size. If animal A is 50% larger than animal B, it is very likely stronger and more durable. As said, all the points you bring up are valid, as long as it is about a parity fight. And the thruth is, that big theropod you are referring to is in any case significantly smaller than Spinosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 6 2013, 02:57 AM Post #1965 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Diplodocus looses a lot of weight, because of it's long tail. Unless is you believe in Dal Sasso's very long tailed Spinosaurus, that's probably not going to hold true for this case. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







I can say that like spino T-rex can use it´s tail and body to attack Spino (like you said Spino can do it too) but they're not so powerful weapons as a hit with it´s skull... I admit could be difficult for T.rex to knock down that big animal
2:23 AM Jul 14