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 (459,250 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:
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Feb 6 2013, 02:38 AM
I think something went wrong with your quotes. I'll try not to quote too much of what you wrote to avoid the confusion:

Quote:
 
I think I answer about the size above... I don't think Spino is twice big as T-rex... first because we don't know yet the size limit of T-rex nor Spino...

Well, that's a matter of opinion, for sure it was significantly bigger, and twice as big is absolutely possible.

Quote:
 
I can say that like spino T-rex can use it´s tail and body to attack Spino

of course, but spinosaurus has a size advantage. Blunt trauma requires force, and that's a factor Spinosaurus is superior in.

Quote:
 
Brother I´m only giving my opinion like you... We´re only speculating... According to power and durability Spino is not in habit to fight or hunt large preys so in here I don't think Spino has these advantages not other than it's size how can he manage to resist that long with a big theropod...

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.


I don't think Spino is 50% bigger than T.rex.... Spino's bones are not more robust that those of T-rex... then the robust give an animal a considerable weight.. then spino's weight is not so higher than T-rex. durability is also caused by the enviroment and the things you're used to do..
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 05:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 6 2013, 02:57 AM
Superiron21
 
Diplodocus is about the same length as Brachiosaurus, but weighted probably less than half as much: would you really call them the same size?
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.
Del SAsso's spec can have margain of mistake (is not 100% sure cause the fragmentary is not even at 20% complete).. and is only one of many.. we really don't know the size limit of spino nor T.rex... There´s plenty of fossils that are underground and are waiting to be taken out..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 03:40 AM
Del SAsso's spec can have margain of mistake (is not 100% sure cause the fragmentary is not even at 20% complete).. and is only one of many.. we really don't know the size limit of spino nor T.rex... There´s plenty of fossils that are underground and are waiting to be taken out..
Just because the extrapolation is from a fragmentary bone does not mean that the calculation is wrong and that Spino was not significantly larger then T.rex, it is pretty obvious since I have read a range from 7-21 (link) tonnes with convincing evidence and from comparing sacrals (it was made by member SanR, I think she studys at the same place as Fragillimus).

I am not saying that it is true but it has some convincing evidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That only holds true if it had the same proportions as Baryonyx. If anything, I prefer scaling from skull length, the results are much less outlandish.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Feb 6 2013, 04:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Maelstrom
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 6 2013, 04:13 AM
That only holds true if it had the same proportions as Baryonyx. If anything, I prefer scaling from skull length, the results are much less outlandish.
I know, it does seem very outlandish and I don't believe in it, but my point was that it had convincing evidence so it is not automatically wrong and still a possibility, it was addressed to superiron who said because something is fragmentary it is not right.
Edited by Maelstrom, Feb 6 2013, 04:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Maelstrom
Feb 6 2013, 03:48 AM
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 03:40 AM
Del SAsso's spec can have margain of mistake (is not 100% sure cause the fragmentary is not even at 20% complete).. and is only one of many.. we really don't know the size limit of spino nor T.rex... There´s plenty of fossils that are underground and are waiting to be taken out..
Just because the extrapolation is from a fragmentary bone does not mean that the calculation is wrong and that Spino was not significantly larger then T.rex, it is pretty obvious since I have read a range from 7-21 (link) tonnes with convincing evidence and from comparing sacrals (it was made by member SanR, I think she studys at the same place as Fragillimus).

I am not saying that it is true but it has some convincing evidence.
I see too outlandish that comparisson.... they're using fragmentary of the bigger spec. but sue is not the biggest one.. there are more spec.. like ucmp137538 but some of you are gonna attack me because it's a bone but if we compare to the size of sue could reach 14-15 meters... but there are others like mor1126 or mor008.... spino only have 2 spec (I buy the holotype more than Del Sasso because it was more researched) that we have research to argue...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 05:29 AM
Maelstrom
Feb 6 2013, 03:48 AM
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 03:40 AM
Del SAsso's spec can have margain of mistake (is not 100% sure cause the fragmentary is not even at 20% complete).. and is only one of many.. we really don't know the size limit of spino nor T.rex... There´s plenty of fossils that are underground and are waiting to be taken out..
Just because the extrapolation is from a fragmentary bone does not mean that the calculation is wrong and that Spino was not significantly larger then T.rex, it is pretty obvious since I have read a range from 7-21 (link) tonnes with convincing evidence and from comparing sacrals (it was made by member SanR, I think she studys at the same place as Fragillimus).

I am not saying that it is true but it has some convincing evidence.
I see too outlandish that comparisson.... they're using fragmentary of the bigger spec. but sue is not the biggest one.. there are more spec.. like ucmp137538 but some of you are gonna attack me because it's a bone but if we compare to the size of sue could reach 14-15 meters... but there are others like mor1126 or mor008.... spino only have 2 spec (I buy the holotype fully-grown more than Del Sasso because it was more researched) that we have research to argue...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 03:36 AM
theropod
Feb 6 2013, 02:38 AM
I think something went wrong with your quotes. I'll try not to quote too much of what you wrote to avoid the confusion:

Quote:
 
I think I answer about the size above... I don't think Spino is twice big as T-rex... first because we don't know yet the size limit of T-rex nor Spino...

Well, that's a matter of opinion, for sure it was significantly bigger, and twice as big is absolutely possible.

Quote:
 
I can say that like spino T-rex can use it´s tail and body to attack Spino

of course, but spinosaurus has a size advantage. Blunt trauma requires force, and that's a factor Spinosaurus is superior in.

Quote:
 
Brother I´m only giving my opinion like you... We´re only speculating... According to power and durability Spino is not in habit to fight or hunt large preys so in here I don't think Spino has these advantages not other than it's size how can he manage to resist that long with a big theropod...

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.


I don't think Spino is 50% bigger than T.rex....again we don't know the size limits of those titans Spino's bones are not more robust that those of T-rex... then the robust give an animal a considerable weight.. then spino's weight is not so higher than T-rex. durability is also caused by the enviroment and the things you're used to do.. and I´m not saying that T-rex could win 100%... spino could win too(that depends on the enviroment, situation, who attacks first.. in wich part the attack is ect...) but in the majority (not so much difference) I think yes..
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 05:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SanR
Member Avatar
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Maelstrom
Feb 6 2013, 03:48 AM
Just because the extrapolation is from a fragmentary bone does not mean that the calculation is wrong and that Spino was not significantly larger then T.rex, it is pretty obvious since I have read a range from 7-21 (link) tonnes with convincing evidence and from comparing sacrals (it was made by member SanR, I think she studys at the same place as Fragillimus).

I am not saying that it is true but it has some convincing evidence.
Thanks for posting that, I want people to know I don't believe that 21 tonnes is the most accurate estimate; I was showing a methodology and at the end it says that it would be better to use it in a range of estimates from conservative to liberal rather than a fixed estimation. I don't think there is any obvious errors and the math is simple and correct, but it assumes that Spinosaurus's vertebrate were exactly the same as Baryonyx.

I agree with Superiron, if you want to use that estimate then using a liberal estimate of Tyrannosaurus or a fragmentary giant specimen would be fair. Then again the margin of error from scaling would be higher with those Tyrannosaurus individuals then with MSMN V4047.

PS - I don't study with Fragillimus.
Edited by SanR, Feb 13 2013, 01:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
SanR
Feb 6 2013, 05:56 AM
I agree with Superiron, if you want to use that estimate then using a liberal estimate of Tyrannosaurus or a fragmentary giant specimen would be fair. Then again the margin of error from scaling would be higher with those Tyrannosaurus individuals then with MSMN V4047.
There's a difference between them.
The Spinosaurus paratype is much better described and there are published lengths for it. The ones for the larger Tyrannosaurs are rather selfmade.
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 05:29 AM
I see too outlandish that comparisson.... they're using fragmentary of the bigger spec. but sue is not the biggest one.. there are more spec.. like ucmp137538 but some of you are gonna attack me because it's a bone but if we compare to the size of sue could reach 14-15 meters... but there are others like mor1126 or mor008.... spino only have 2 spec (I buy the holotype more than Del Sasso because it was more researched) that we have research to argue...

Yes, that Spinosaurus is fragmentary, but not that fragmentary, it at least has a very complete rostrum and it isn't less good described than the Holotype, so I don't see why the Holotype is more resarched. For the paratype, we at least have it's fossils.
Incidentally, there are more than 2 Spinosaurus specimen actually, the theropod database lists much more. I know they sometimes list way too many paratypes, as seen in Giganotosaurus, but they are not the only ones. Here what Carrano listed:
Holotype.
BSP 1915, a partial skull and skeleton
(destroyed)

Hypodigm.
NHMUK R16420, the anterior portion of a skull, R16421, the anterior end of a dentary;
MSNM V4047 (S. cf. S. aegyptiacus), a partial skull;
MNHN SAM 124-128 (type, S. maroccanus), fragmentary jaws
UCPC 2, a midline nasal crest

Source:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2011.630927

When excluding MNHN SAM 124-128 (no S. aegyptiacus), we still have 4 specimen (including the destroyed Holotype).
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Feb 21 2013, 09:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
sorry, compeltely missed this:
Quote:
 
Now that's on debate cause if spino is proved longer but not so heavier... Spino's size was calculated by it's relatives and you can't say that is even 75% true... Diplodocus is about the same length as Brachiosaurus, but weighted probably less than half as much: would you really call them the same size? and Spino's bones are not so robust then Spino is not the size that most of you are claiming everything is speculation..

I'm talking about the same size weightwise, not lenghtwise. It is pretty much agreed upon that Spinosaurus was longer than T. rex. Even very conservative estimates put it at ~14m which is a good deal longer.
Unfortunately I didn't read any convincing argument for Spinosaurus not to have been significantly longer, and heavier.

Also, the difference in built is not even remotely comparable to your analogy. Diplodocus consists mostly of tail. Spinosaurus following conservative reconstructions has a very short tail, and is still longer than T. rex. Spinosaurs wheren't what you call gracile in built either. Not as massive as tyrannosaurs, but still bulky.
Being bulkier is not really an advantage against an adversary that conservatively has several metres and several tons on you, and that less conservatively is twice your own weight. It is indeed an advantage at weight parity, at least for durability, and clearly an advantage at lenght parity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mega t.rex the magnificent
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Therefore, the winner is tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pardon?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

suchomimus is quite bulky.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 6 2013, 06:29 AM
SanR
Feb 6 2013, 05:56 AM
I agree with Superiron, if you want to use that estimate then using a liberal estimate of Tyrannosaurus or a fragmentary giant specimen would be fair. Then again the margin of error from scaling would be higher with those Tyrannosaurus individuals then with MSMN V4047.
There's a difference between them.
The Spinosaurus paratype is much better described and there are published lengths for it. The ones for the larger Tyrannosaurs are rather selfmade.
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 05:29 AM
I see too outlandish that comparisson.... they're using fragmentary of the bigger spec. but sue is not the biggest one.. there are more spec.. like ucmp137538 but some of you are gonna attack me because it's a bone but if we compare to the size of sue could reach 14-15 meters... but there are others like mor1126 or mor008.... spino only have 2 spec (I buy the holotype more than Del Sasso because it was more researched) that we have research to argue...

Yes, that Spinosaurus is fragmentary, but not that fragmentary, it at least has a very complete rostrum and it isn't less good described than the Holotype, so I don't see why the Holotype is more resarched. For the paratype, we at least have it's fossils.
Incidentally, there are more than 2 Spinosaurus specimen actually, the theropod database lists much more. I know they sometimes list way too many paratypes, as seen in Giganotosaurus, but they are not the only ones. Here what Carrano listed:
Holotype.
BSP 1915, a partial skull and skeleton
(destroyed).

Hypodigm.
NHMUK R16420, the anterior portion of a skull, R16421, the anterior end of a dentary;
MSNM V4047 (S. cf. S. aegyptiacus), a partial skull;
MNHN SAM 124-128 (type, S. maroccanus), fragmentary jaws
UCPC 2, a midline nasal crest

Source:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2011.630927

When excluding MNHN SAM 124-128 (no S. aegyptiacus), we still have 4 specimen (including the destroyed Holotype).
I didn't say that were only 2... I think you misunderstood... I said that only 2 are well known Del Sasso and the holotype.. I also said that for me the holotype is better spec than Del Sasso..... however the 2 are really well studied but again is fragmentary and there is not enough research and specs to compare... to know that size.... the diffrence is that we have many specs of T.rex to compare and give a lenght of 14-15 meters and I know that could be wrong but there is a possibility that T.rex could reach that size... Man there's plenty of specs of T.rex and Spino underground that could give a better explanation and to know what's the real size limit of spino and T.rex...
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 09:08 AM.
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.