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 (459,249 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, 07:04 AM
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.
But we really don't know how much the sail weight (only the bones but how about the muscles?)... seriously how much do you think Spino weights? I think is in 9.-11 tons when T.rex has 7-9 tons? there´s no such a difference that you're claiming.. The diplodocus thing was not to say that is the same case that spino is to make you take in consideration that if spino is longer is not so much heavier and neither stronger than T-rex...
I agree that Spino is longer and little bit heavier but that enough to claim to give him the victory? I don't think so.... been bulkier means being stronger... and how about agility... T.rex is more agile than Spino isn´t it? agility is a good advantage... and the binocular vision? it gives T.rex the ability to see where to hit or to bite in a more precisely way...
Again that's not 100% all for T.rex I think that depends on who attacks first, which part of the body is attacking...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 08:57 AM
theropod
Feb 6 2013, 07:04 AM
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.
But we really don't know how much the sail weight (only the bones but how about the muscles?)... seriously how much do you think Spino weights? I think is in 9.-11 tons when T.rex has 7-9 tons? there´s no such a difference that you're claiming.. The diplodocus thing was not to say that is the same case that spino is to make you take in consideration that if spino is longer is not so much heavier and neither stronger than T-rex...
I agree that Spino is longer and little bit heavier but that enough to claim to give him the victory? I don't think so.... been bulkier means being strong... and how about agility... T.rex is more agile than Spino isn´t it? agility is a good advantage... and the binocular vision? it gives T.rex the ability to see where to hit or to bite in a more precisely way...
Again that's not 100% all for T.rex I think that depends on who attacks first, which part of the body is attacking...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
SanR
Feb 6 2013, 05:56 AM
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, he studies at the University of Iowa :P
Are you studying paleontology? how much time till you finish? well according to you which is the size of spino and aprox. the weight?
For you in this fight who do you consider could be victorious most of the times (I know that is not 100% for one side)
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 09:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Superiron, question for you, if T.Rex weighs 9 tons at 12.2 meters long, how much do you estimate Spinosaurus will weigh at the same length?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
TheROC
Feb 6 2013, 09:08 AM
Superiron, question for you, if T.Rex weighs 9 tons at 12.2 meters long, how much do you estimate Spinosaurus will weigh at the same length?
Well it could weight less than that T.rex that's for sure, T-rex is more robust and it's bones are too.....so....
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 09:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
That goes without saying, everyone agrees with it weighing less at parity, but again how much less?

If T.Rex is 9 tons, how many tons is Spinosaurus at the same length? What percentage of 9 tons?
Edited by TheROC, Feb 6 2013, 11:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
TheROC
Feb 6 2013, 11:08 AM
That goes without saying, everyone agrees with it weighing less at parity, but again how much less?

If T.Rex is 9 tons, how many tons is Spinosaurus at the same length? What percentage of 9 tons?
I think he is scared to answer.... :D

Anyone who believes an 18 meter Spino weighed 9 tons is a loon. That means at 12.2 meters it would only weigh 2.8 tons! Hahaha... A much more likely weight would be 16-18 tons. This would make Spinosaurus ~5.4-5.6 tons at 12.2 meters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why not just use the 9t Sue against a 15t spino, judging by the comments, that should be fair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
MightyMaus
Feb 6 2013, 11:55 AM
TheROC
Feb 6 2013, 11:08 AM
That goes without saying, everyone agrees with it weighing less at parity, but again how much less?

If T.Rex is 9 tons, how many tons is Spinosaurus at the same length? What percentage of 9 tons?
I think he is scared to answer.... :D

Anyone who believes an 18 meter Spino weighed 9 tons is a loon. That means at 12.2 meters it would only weigh 2.8 tons! Hahaha... A much more likely weight would be 16-18 tons. This would make Spinosaurus ~5.4-5.6 tons at 12.2 meters.

Man wtf are you saying? who told that Spino is 9 tons? thing you always say to me are insults... I think the 17 meters spino would weight more or less 11-12 tons.... 16-18 tons are outlandish IMO....
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 12:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 12:06 PM
MightyMaus
Feb 6 2013, 11:55 AM
TheROC
Feb 6 2013, 11:08 AM
That goes without saying, everyone agrees with it weighing less at parity, but again how much less?

If T.Rex is 9 tons, how many tons is Spinosaurus at the same length? What percentage of 9 tons?
I think he is scared to answer.... :D

Anyone who believes an 18 meter Spino weighed 9 tons is a loon. That means at 12.2 meters it would only weigh 2.8 tons! Hahaha... A much more likely weight would be 16-18 tons. This would make Spinosaurus ~5.4-5.6 tons at 12.2 meters.

Man wtf are you saying? who told that Spino is 9 tons? thing you always say to me are insults... I think the 17 meters spino would weight more or less 11-12 tons.... 16-18 tons are outlandish IMO....
You are still way off. If a 17m Spino only weighed 11 tons, it would weigh a mere 4 tons at 12.2 meters...less than half of what you think Tyrannosaurus weighed at that length....There is simply no way Spinosaurus was half Tyrannosaurus weight at parity lengths.

A 17 meter Spinosaurus weighed 14 tons at the absolute least.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
MightyMaus
Feb 6 2013, 12:13 PM
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 12:06 PM
MightyMaus
Feb 6 2013, 11:55 AM
TheROC
Feb 6 2013, 11:08 AM
That goes without saying, everyone agrees with it weighing less at parity, but again how much less?

If T.Rex is 9 tons, how many tons is Spinosaurus at the same length? What percentage of 9 tons?
I think he is scared to answer.... :D

Anyone who believes an 18 meter Spino weighed 9 tons is a loon. That means at 12.2 meters it would only weigh 2.8 tons! Hahaha... A much more likely weight would be 16-18 tons. This would make Spinosaurus ~5.4-5.6 tons at 12.2 meters.

Man wtf are you saying? who told that Spino is 9 tons? thing you always say to me are insults... I think the 17 meters spino would weight more or less 11-12 tons.... 16-18 tons are outlandish IMO....
You are still way off. If a 17m Spino only weighed 11 tons, it would weigh a mere 4 tons at 12.2 meters...less than half of what you think Tyrannosaurus weighed at that length....There is simply no way Spinosaurus was half Tyrannosaurus weight at parity lengths.

A 17 meter Spinosaurus weighed 14 tons at the absolute least.
more believable 14 tons but I´m still believing that because is not so robust Spino's bones and constitution could max 12-13 but that's your opinion and I respect that...
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 6 2013, 12:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mega t.rex the magnificent
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Feb 6 2013, 08:16 AM
Pardon?
Tyrannosaurus will win easily. Its teeth are larger than spino's and they crush. To me, crushing is better than slicing. Also, Tyrannosaurus is more muscular and bulkier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheROC
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
17 meters and 12 tons, would then require a 12.2 meter one to be ~4.44 tons.

That does not fly with me, sorry. That would mean Spinosaurus would weigh no more at that size than what an elephant seal can reach.
Edited by TheROC, Feb 6 2013, 01:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SanR
Member Avatar
Unicellular 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.


Notice the second part of my post... Plus I actually didn't mean when using MSMN V4047 we should use those larger ones I meant when using extremely liberal estimates for it then we should compare that with a liberal estimate for Tyrannosaurus OR a fragmentary giant.

I don't believe in either of the liberal estimates I was trying to show that we couldn't compare liberal to average.
Edited by SanR, Feb 6 2013, 05:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Superiron21
Feb 6 2013, 08:41 AM
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..
But the others aren't bad studied either. UCPC 2 has also been already described in detail, in the same paper as MSMN V4047.
We also have size estimates for MNHN SAM 124 (Holotype sized).
MightyMaus
 
You are still way off. If a 17m Spino only weighed 11 tons, it would weigh a mere 4 tons at 12.2 meters...less than half of what you think Tyrannosaurus weighed at that length....There is simply no way Spinosaurus was half Tyrannosaurus weight at parity lengths.
Not too far off, at 11m, it would have a mass comparable to the conservative estimates of Suchomimus (3t).
@SanR
Or we can use a large Tyrannosaurus specimen (like Sue), instead of an average one, if we use liberal estimates for Spinosaurus. Would that be fair?
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.