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 (459,244 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:
Bandog
Member Avatar
Everything else is just a dog.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Feb 9 2013, 07:15 PM
Bandog
Feb 9 2013, 04:14 PM
Any theropod targeting flanks in these matchups is destined to fail.
Ummm, carnosaurs? Their slicing dentition and their wide gape, it seems that they target flanks and succeed...
I doubt any multi ton theropod will get past another's head and neck to reach the flanks. I am yet to see a theropod with the speed and agility to outmanouvre another like that. Do you think a carnosaur would cause more damage to the flanks than the neck?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It actually is, but it has proportionally logner jaws, resulting in a larger gape. It is the angle that we have to loook at. I think broly is really underrating the biting capabilities of crushers with relatively small gape, but as far as I know modern animals that mainly kill with their bite force usually target the skull, neck or limbs. I haf seldom seen crocodiles trying to bite a wilderbeests body, and I don't think they actually can do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Feb 9 2013, 07:16 PM
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 9 2013, 06:29 PM
Why is it gape small? I know it isn't as large as in Carnosaurs, but why does it mean that it's gape is would be that hindering, modern bone crushers are also able to bite opponents.
Posted Image
Is that a pathethic gape?
A crocodile isn't as specialized for crushing as a tyrannosaurid is...

Do you have any proof for that? If anything, it is the other way around, because crocodiles have no serrated teeth.
P.S. That's an alligator.
theropod
Feb 9 2013, 07:30 PM
It actually is, but it has proportionally logner jaws, resulting in a larger gape.

I'm positive about that, but I just wanted to show that being a bone crusher, does not equal having weak muscles for jaw opening.
According to the logic used here, crocodiles and alligators shouldn't be able to open their jaws wider than that.
However, other bone crushers neither have pathethic gapes:
Posted Image
I realise that gape is without a doubt an advantage in favour of Spinosaurus and it is an advantage, one of the advantages (not the major, the major one is of course size, tough it has other advantages aswell) what makes me think Spinosaurus wins this in at least half of the battles (or more, that's because I've voted for Spinosaurus), but Tyrannosaurus gape is not as bad as it handicaps it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
just to give an example fo the difference we are talking about:
Posted Image
based on this:
Posted Image
Don't tell me this is from wikimedia, it is, but it is a featured picture with good sources.

It's not so much that Tyrannosaurus had a small gape, it's rather than animals adapted for large gapes had exceptionally large ones. Still, Tyrannsoaurus would have problems biting other large theropods flanks.

I'm not sure about the gape of spinosaurus tough. it certainly didn't have the adaptions for a wide gape that Allosaurus had (which after all had an antarticular, that is not known from any other animal, and an inwards-turned joint).
We have to differentiate, because a weaker bite force can be caused by many factors. In spinosaurus, it is not necessarily an inferior leverage (that would allow a wider gape), it is rather the very long jaw (=not particularly resistant to stress+bad mechanical advantage at the jaws tip) and the reduced muscle size (there simply isn't as much space for musculature as in T. rex). I could imagine Spinosaurus in turn had a rather good leverage in order to handle it's struggling prey, hence a small gape angle, but still probably a wider gape than T. rex due to it's longer jaws. By no means we are talking about a similar difference to Allosaurus-T. rex here.
Edited by theropod, Feb 9 2013, 09:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
mega t.rex the magnificent
Feb 9 2013, 02:37 PM
Dark allosaurus
Feb 9 2013, 02:28 PM
How dafuq does T.rex have better weaponry?

Also spinosaurus weighs over twice as much
It has bone crunching teeth basically. And forget the gape.
That doesn't really count as better weaponry. Different teeth are designed to cope with different challenges and accomplish different things. Spinosaurus had teeth that were non-serrated, but they were like large spikes, capable of creating deadly puncture wounds in the hide of a large fish. Trust me, tyrannosaurus does not have better weaponry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 9 2013, 07:30 PM
It actually is, but it has proportionally logner jaws, resulting in a larger gape. It is the angle that we have to loook at. I think broly is really underrating the biting capabilities of crushers with relatively small gape, but as far as I know modern animals that mainly kill with their bite force usually target the skull, neck or limbs. I haf seldom seen crocodiles trying to bite a wilderbeests body, and I don't think they actually can do that.
They can do so to a zebra:



About 30 seconds into the video, you see a Nile crocodile biting directly into the zebra's lateral area. They are more then capable of such a task.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Superiron21
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
theropod
Feb 9 2013, 02:25 AM
Quote:
 
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?

In a letal area like the neck or the base of the skull, yes, but it first has the reach them, and before it gets overpowered.

for the first line: the problem is, you ahve to realise compared to spinosaurus T. rex is far inferior in terms of power, it isn't that strong when comapred to spinosaurus.

Quote:
 
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....

I am not saying that, what I am saying is that it is not fair to use Spinosaurus at a lower size estimate and at the same time start fantasizing about T. rex specimens some claim where bigger than sue while that is in the best case speculation and in the worst case BS.
I think when speculating about larger T. rexes, we should first think about larger spinosaurus. Both however would be pointless and therefore nobody here except for you does it.

Both could potentially grow larger, the likelyness that Spinosaurus got much larger is significantly higher than that of T. rex getting much larger (for we have a nice sample size of the latter but not the former), so you are better off when you don't start this debate.

Quote:
 
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.....

OK, I accept your opinion, however my point was simply that being a better fighter at parity that doesn't mean you can win against significantly larger opponents.

Quote:
 
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)...

I intentionally totally exagerated to make my point clear to you, it looks like you didn't understand it...

Quote:
 
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...

I am chooseing the biggest confirmed Spinosaurus (only confirmed adult S. aegyptiacus) and the biggest confirmed T. rex (out of 31 specimens most of which where adult), and not using particularly low ones for the former. I still haven't seen supstantial evidence in favour of 13-14m T. rexes, sorry.
Spinosaurs where not as gracile as many people think. Add that to a pretty massive crest on the back and you get an animal that doesn't just look very large, but that actually is very bulky and massively constructed as well.
Even very agressive predators do not play the agressor in a fight with such an opponent, agressivity is not a factor when one has obvious ohysical superiority on its side. It rather plays a role in fights between equals.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
if MOR was really 7% larger it would be 13,2m

Agreed

I hope you realise I did not acknowledge it to be that large but just correct your size figure.
@theropod Agility is good advantage and T.rex has it.... If Spino has the strenght that you claim( which I don't think is that much) I don't see in which aspects can Spino finish T.rex with it besides it's hands (I see them really dangerous but not so deadly) But on the other hand I do see at least 3 advantages that can give the victory to him as agility, bite, aggressiveness (that doesn't mean Size need to be equal to put that in as an advantage). Again Spino according to it's size is not robuster and in consequence stronger than T.rex (neck, jaws, bones)...
Size intimidation for me is the best advantage of Spino but If T.rex don´t move back( if the fight was for food, territory, ect...) Spino can't handle so much the T.rex only with it's size...

To the haters of T.rex who trie to understimate their weapons.. and trying to say that it's bite and it's jaws are not strong... I laugh of your stupid and pathetic arguments with no proves, research and with facts maked up by yoursfelves... sorry but your attempts are not gonna succeed... leave your hate appart and try to MAKE REAL arguments.... trolls......
Edited by Superiron21, Feb 10 2013, 02:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Of course it has the agility, but Tyrant and others have shown that agility is not an advantage that can be used to win agaisnt far larger opponents. agility would be helpful, if you could actually profit from it by reaching an area that is vulnerable to your bite. However T. rex is made for frontal combat, outflanking spinosaurus wouldn't be helpful. As most predators that are not specifically adapted for it, it lacks the gape to attack a larger opponents ribcage or abdomen. All it could do is try and bite the legs, but it would have little chance to succeed. The time it would need to lower its head, avoid being kicked or dodged and bite is more than enough time for Spinosaurus to turn around.
Why agility if it is of no use for you, if it is better to stay where you are?

Spinosaurus is not more robust than T. rex at parity, no, but this isn't parity, and what's more important for strenght than any other factor is muscle mass.

As I said, spinosaurus does undoubtedly have the ability to kill T. rex. If it catches it with its arms or jaws, it can push it over. You probably know it is probably that a fall would be deadly for a large theropod like T. rex. Spinosaurus doesn't even need its weaponery fro that, it can use its strenght alone. But it has the weaponery to do it. It has strong arms with huge claws that it could use to hook into and rip apart an opponents throat, and it has capable jaws, that if they couldn't be used to break or injure the spine or pierce blood vessels where at least potent enough to suffocate T. rex, using a throat hold.
In absolute terms, T. rex would need a twice more potent bite to win in the damage it can cause with it alone (because spinosaurus is about double the size and durability). At parity it would need to be 4 times more potent. I still think it comfortably wins in the bite department, but not enough to make up for inferior strenght, height, intimidation, reach and arm size.


Godzillaman: Could you post a link please? Noscript somehow doesn't allow me to play the video.
I don't doubt crocodiles still have the physical capability to do this to a smaller prey item like a zebra. However I don't think T. rex could do so with a significantly larger animal.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dinosaur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Feb 10 2013, 12:45 AM
mega t.rex the magnificent
Feb 9 2013, 02:37 PM
Dark allosaurus
Feb 9 2013, 02:28 PM
How dafuq does T.rex have better weaponry?

Also spinosaurus weighs over twice as much
It has bone crunching teeth basically. And forget the gape.
That doesn't really count as better weaponry. Different teeth are designed to cope with different challenges and accomplish different things. Spinosaurus had teeth that were non-serrated, but they were like large spikes, capable of creating deadly puncture wounds in the hide of a large fish. Trust me, tyrannosaurus does not have better weaponry.
T.rex can knock down spino, and make it roll over. Spinosaurus, if it rolls over, it breaks its back and dies, due to the spines which are fused to the vertebra.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 10 2013, 02:43 AM
Godzillaman: Could you post a link please? Noscript somehow doesn't allow me to play the video.
I don't doubt crocodiles still have the physical capability to do this to a smaller prey item like a zebra. However I don't think T. rex could do so with a significantly larger animal.
Here: Crocodile Vs Zebra
Edited by Godzillasaurus, Feb 11 2013, 12:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

t rex, stronger bite force it could crush spino's neck
Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nate
Feb 10 2013, 02:37 PM
t rex, stronger bite force it could crush spino's neck
There's more to a fight than mere bite force, and Spinosaurus won't just stand there and present it's neck. Read through the discussion...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Black Ice
Member Avatar
Drom King
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I hate when people but in just to repeat the same already refuted stuff without reading the threads....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Feb 10 2013, 01:39 PM
theropod
Feb 10 2013, 02:43 AM
Godzillaman: Could you post a link please? Noscript somehow doesn't allow me to play the video.
I don't doubt crocodiles still have the physical capability to do this to a smaller prey item like a zebra. However I don't think T. rex could do so with a significantly larger animal.


Here: Crocodile Vs Zebra
thanks, good point.

But as you see, the Crocodile in the video is definitely larger than the Zebra, and the ratio between its gape and the zebras girth is not the one we would see in T. rex and Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kunfuzzled
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Black Ice
Feb 10 2013, 04:24 PM
I hate when people but in just to repeat the same already refuted stuff without reading the threads....
Well to be honest this thread is 139 pages long.. lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.