| 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 (459,250 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: | |
|---|---|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 03:36 AM Post #1966 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 03:40 AM Post #1967 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.. |
![]() |
|
| Maelstrom | Feb 6 2013, 03:48 AM Post #1968 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 6 2013, 04:13 AM Post #1969 |
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Maelstrom | Feb 6 2013, 04:20 AM Post #1970 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 05:29 AM Post #1971 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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... |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 05:30 AM Post #1972 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 05:51 AM Post #1973 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 05:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| SanR | Feb 6 2013, 05:56 AM Post #1974 |
![]()
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 6 2013, 06:29 AM Post #1975 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
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.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 6 2013, 07:04 AM Post #1976 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
sorry, compeltely missed this:
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. |
![]() |
|
| mega t.rex the magnificent | Feb 6 2013, 08:11 AM Post #1977 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Therefore, the winner is tyrannosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 6 2013, 08:16 AM Post #1978 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pardon? |
![]() |
|
| TheROC | Feb 6 2013, 08:40 AM Post #1979 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() suchomimus is quite bulky. |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 6 2013, 08:41 AM Post #1980 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| 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)









2:23 AM Jul 14