| 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 (459,247 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: | |
|---|---|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 7 2013, 05:30 PM Post #2011 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I use an 11,7t and 16m Spinosaurus (that was the figure yielded when scaling up from an 11m, 3,8t Suchomimus, with a 1,19m skull), vs a 6,3t Tyrannosaurus. I took that weight for Tyrannosauurs, because that is what Mazzetta gave that in his paper as an average figure for Tyrannosaurus: ![]() http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/papers/Mazzetta-et-al_04_SA-dino-body-size.pdf
I ment the estimates. Frank Fang for example is not an expert. No expert has given size figures for the fragmentary Tyrannosaurus specimen, but MSNM V4047 has been scientifically estimated at 14-18m. But yeah, the fragmentary Tyrannosaurs are real.
"To me" is pretty much the same as "in my opinion". Both bites have their pros and cons, so I won't ridicule him because of that. @brolyeuphyfusion, I agree. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 7 2013, 11:40 PM Post #2012 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Could you please give me the title of that paper?
Actually, even if it's supposed 1,5m lenght was measured the same way as sue at 1,4m, it was 13,2m, not 13,8m. and you might be interested in the following other figures from the theropod database: FMNH PR2081: >maxilla 861 >dentary 1.01 m MOR 008: >maxilla 720 mm >dentary 880 mm now please take this skull photograph: ![]() put it into gimp, and measure it. Check whether its maxilla is really only little less than half the whole skull lenght while sues is more than 60%, and check whether it's dentary is proportionally 20%shorter, because when I emasured it it didn't seem to be. maybe you should really consider the possibility that 1,5m is not the same measurement and this specimen is actually not larger than sue?
And many other specimens of spinosaurus are hopefully gonna be found, what is your feeling, will there be any 30m ones among them? I have a question for you, what if UCMP 137538 wasn't an IV-2 but an IV-1 or a III-1 or something like that?
The specimens are real, their sizes are not I am using the only confirmed adult Spinosaurus, at estimates that are indicated by it's relatives proportions, and comparing it to a large T. rex, maybe the largest of 31. Maybe I should use an average T. rex...
first of all, this animal: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuNb9QNvq132saWSenwpAkinVNF8WTXrK1ejRfhsATP0QVFn36 would rather easily tear both of these to pieces: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGTjPjKON9OdkPreBsIHhUTjUjHfuuJVVgUEa0Xf7mqB8uQRU Secondly, domestic dogs are among the worst analogies one can use for dinosaurs, they aren't even bahaving naturally in many cases. And Size is and will always be one of the most important factors in a fight. That doesn't mean it guarantees victory, but being far larger is a huge advantage. As I already said, it makes an animal stronger, more durable, usually taller, and gives a better reach, as well as making the respective weaponery larger (not in this case as we cannot properly compare it and Spinosaurus obviously doesn't have similarly letal jaws). Edited by theropod, Feb 7 2013, 11:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 8 2013, 01:01 AM Post #2013 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
MOR 008 is incomplete. Dentary is not complete, tip is missing. Neither is maxilla, and restoration might not be completely accurate. It is also restored with an overbite. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 8 2013, 01:15 AM Post #2014 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By the canibalism paper, he obviously ment this (what you already know): http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013419#pone-0013419-g002 About Larson, I don't know, but it has to be one of these: Larson, 2008. One Hundred Years of Tyrannosaurus rex: The Skeletons. in Larson and Carpenter (eds.). Tyrannosaurus rex: The Tyrant King. Indiana Univ Press. ISBN-13 978-0-253-35087-9. Larson, 2008. Variation and Sexual Dimorphism in Tyrannosaurus rex. in Larson and Carpenter (eds.). Tyrannosaurus rex: The Tyrant King. Indiana Univ Press. ISBN-13 978-0-253-35087-9. Larson, 2008. Atlas of the Skull Bones of Tyrannosaurus rex. in Larson and Carpenter (eds.). Tyrannosaurus rex: The Tyrant King. Indiana Univ Press. ISBN-13 978-0-253-35087-9. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 8 2013, 01:24 AM Post #2015 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Superiron21 You're reading the theropod database wrong, Larson (2008) only gives what elements where preserved, it doesn't estimate its size, size and mass in the theropod database are separated from the preserved elements, its dimensions and the sources for them. The "~14.1m?" estimate was done by Mortimer based on Sue at 12.8 and by how much Horner (? Mortimer says anonymous, 2000) guessed to be bigger than it (12.8 x 1.1 = 14.08) but notice it has a "?" is because it must be taken with caution, because at the time that guess was made, the bones were still on the ground or in the matrix, who knows if it's been prepared already but the point is that the material, as far as anyone not directly working on it knows, has never been measured. Who knows if there's anyone doing that, probably the material has been prepared already and found the original claim to be false, making it an incredibly unremarkable bunch of bones, too fragmentary compared to lots of other T. rex specimens to actually matter that they just forgot about it. Edit: too slow, Jinfengopteryx , you beat me to the chapters in The Tyrant King haha Edited by blaze, Feb 8 2013, 01:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 8 2013, 03:06 AM Post #2016 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Anyway, in order to be 7% larger than sue the dentary would have to be 20% smaller than sues compared to the overyll skull lenght. It actually didn't appear shorter even at equal skull lenght, the same for the maxilla. The 1,5m are probably the lenght of the mandible or measured along the survace of the bone. |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Feb 8 2013, 03:20 AM Post #2017 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unless I am very much mistaken, the estimate of 150cm for MOR 008 comes directly from the museum skull, does it not? Museum casts etc. have a habit of being innacurate. |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 8 2013, 04:14 AM Post #2018 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
First all of the people who thinks a Great Dane can tear a pitbull are completely wrong and show no experience knowing those animals... like the "smart guy" who knows 100% how the dinosaurs behave (did he lived in that era?) The size of that animal is not that important one bite of the pitbull and the Great Dane can't handle it you both don't count a very important aspect agressiveness... (I know is not the best comparisson) but here also compare a grizzly vs polar bear...do you like that comparisson? but not in all cases size matters... there are more factors that can decide a fight If what you claim of spino being stronger than T.rex.. in wich aspect do you think Spino can use it's strenght to attack T.rex besides it's claws? Again as I said I don't see many weapons that Spino can use besides I´ve already mentioned to beat T.rex... For the ucmp 137538 according to the paper IV-2 and that wasn't a newspaper article.... that's for sure..and for mor1126 you are right but measuring with sue as 12.3 is aprox.. 13.6 and is bigger than Sue... and the Mor008 thing we have that mor008 is 7% larger than sue but is not confirmed but you can't say that is shorter than sue because MOR 008 is incomplete. Dentary is not complete, tip is missing. Neither is maxilla, and restoration might not be completely accurate. It is also restored with an overbite. like MisteryMeat said.. with the new sue size the aprox. size is 13.3 again is not confirmed..... I think in a near future we can know the true about this.... I said that both Spino and Rex has no limit size... and both spec could be found in the future... BOTH @blaze yeah I know that the paper doesn't say the size... that we can assume to what is described of the fragmentary.. but like you said is a ? and is not sure but is a really good the size according to sue being 12.3 is 13.6 not 14.1 then you have a point.... Edited by Superiron21, Feb 8 2013, 04:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 8 2013, 04:29 AM Post #2019 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^That totally depends on how complete the skull is. MOR 008 is not complete, but not that fragmentary. However media reports have a habit of exagerating, rounding and being so unprecise that the result is inaccurate. Here I have indicated just some ways one could possibly measure the skull of tyrannosaurus: ![]() ![]() I'm not even 100% sure which one exactly Brochu reported, but if it wasn't the straight one near the bottom edge the resulting skull size would be outlandish (and I mean too low, not too high). That's why I usually treat every figure where not specified as maximum skull lenght, even from peer reviewed work, and that's also why I do not trust the claim of MOR 008 to be larger than sue just because according to a press release one dimension of its skull was larger than a possibly completely different one of sue's. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 8 2013, 04:42 AM Post #2020 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So why do you keep bringing up that for T. rex, but you don't account for the even more likely possibility that MNSN was not the largest Spinosaurus?
Grizzly vs polar bear? Please, everyone who has some knowledge on these two animals would tell you at parity it would be a close match, whichever one has somewhat of a size advantage wins that fight. I don't care whether people think I have knowledge on domestic dogs, but I have enough knowledge about animal fights (at least normal animals, I'm aware pittbull fanboys think it could attack and kill everything and it probably doesn't exhibit natural behaviour, as I already said) to know in a fight between two predators, one of which is twice the size but less agressive and not as formidable at parity, it will usually still be the larger one that wins.
I do acknowledge, but still size is linked to a huge lot of advantages that spinosaurus obviously has in this fight, and no matter how many advantages an ant has over a sauropod at parity, it stands no chance to beat it. If the size difference is large enough, it is the deciding factor. It is not confirmed whether it is here, but it could be, and it is likely imo you should have a look at the size a spinosaurus' claws at a large size estimate would have probably had, those alone could have potentially been deadly.
I would probably consider it's jaws, the massive body alone, maybe even the tail... If spino gets the first bite, it might not instantly kill T. rex. However if it can close its jaws on the opponent, it won't just let go and give it the chance to bite back (should it then still be able to do so which I wouldn't be too shure), it could simply use the arms, the jaws and the body, overpower it with relative ease and then finish it off. Spinosaurus is more likely to get the first bite in this scenario, as T. rex will probably have problems even reaching it.
if MOR was really 7% larger it would be 13,2m |
![]() |
|
| Superiron21 | Feb 8 2013, 09:47 AM Post #2021 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think spinos jaws are powerful enough to close and mantain that strenght to handle that much power of the neck and all the body of T.rex, but let's change the scenario.. If T.rex bite Spino=game over.... agree?
Course I agree that the limit of spino is not confirmed... you're continuing saying that T.rex has the size limit already on the top.. which is not true.. please tell me if I´m wrong....
Don't take it so serious... I´m only saying that size doesn't matter in all fights... even in Grizzly vs polar bear... in this case also there are some factors as bite, arms, and aggressiveness not only size advantage... I see as an advantage but not the most important.... I know pitbull can't beat any animal in the world but in this "fight" I think he can handle the G.D. with it's advantages... after all they are animals and predators also... Don't agree with "one of which is twice the size but less agressive and not as formidable at parity, it will usually still be the larger one that wins." aggressiveness in an animal is very important to decide a fight and also you're contradicting that phrase because if an animal has 2 advantage eventhought the other animal is bigger but again if the other one has 2 advantages as it's bite and aggressiveness that could give a big advantage over the other... (the pitbull pic you compare with G.D. is too underrated in my opinion... from what I´ve seen Pitbull is a little bite larger and more aggressive looking.. the pic doesn´t show that) however I don't want to argue on this dog topic anymore just want to tell you my opinion.....
Man I think you're completely wrong about that... are you comparing an ant to a T.rex and a sauropod to a Spino... that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from you.. sorry but I want to tell you that (no offense)... Again you're choosing the the biggest vs not the biggest.. like some buddy said 17-18 vs 13-14 would be fair.... Spino is bigger cause it's sail, but without it he's an animal less robust than T.rex.... T'rex composition is robuster (bones and body) comparing to Spino... Spino is heavier but not stronger not even what you claim.... but again that's your opinion and I respect it...
Agreed Edited by Superiron21, Feb 8 2013, 10:36 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| mega t.rex the magnificent | Feb 8 2013, 01:52 PM Post #2022 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Come on dude! I ain't no troll! Just explaining. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 8 2013, 07:33 PM Post #2023 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But mega t.rex, you know that Spinosaurus likely had a gripping bite, rather than a slicing bite? |
![]() |
|
| mega t.rex the magnificent | Feb 8 2013, 11:55 PM Post #2024 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Correct. But I was referring to other carnosaurs. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 9 2013, 02:13 AM Post #2025 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^you know spinosaurus was no carnosaur? |
![]() |
|
| 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)











2:23 AM Jul 14