| 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 (459,239 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: | |
|---|---|
| dinosaur | Feb 13 2013, 01:30 PM Post #2131 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ban me? Why? |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Feb 13 2013, 01:47 PM Post #2132 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
that is consistent with the life size model in Italy, which is 15.8 meters long, and it seems that the model has even short lower legs than in Hartman's drawing. |
![]() |
|
| mega t.rex the magnificent | Feb 13 2013, 01:58 PM Post #2133 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry to interrupt, but: brolyeuphyfusion, Asaurus, Jinfengopteryx, Godzillaman, Dark Allosaurus, and eveyone i know, where ever you are, we got to do something! I'm starting to lose patience here! Dinosaur has so many biased statements that's gone WAY OUT OF HAND!
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Feb 13 2013, 02:13 PM Post #2134 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@broly That's not a fact but neither is the other option, that's why I said "might". @MisteryMeat Realized that after scaling it haha. @mega t.rex Just ignore him, it goes without saying but, don't feed the troll. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 14 2013, 12:03 AM Post #2135 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If there is a lot new material, we will likely know hte size of that specimen and scale it tot he size of the largest known one. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 14 2013, 12:06 AM Post #2136 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree, that "largest to largest" or "smallest to smallest" method is not always the best idea to go with (tough a good one), especially when on side there are ridiculous estimates (like 20t for a 14m Spinosaurus). The most ridiculous estimate for Tyrannosaurus is actually 18t (which is similary impossible). |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Feb 15 2013, 11:43 PM Post #2137 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is the method that people on this forum tend to accept the most. Most members determine the winner based on who had a greater mass and volume at each animal's highest (I admit, I need to stop doing this as well). But the thing is, this match would be a mismatch in favor of tyrannosaurus if each dinosaur was at parity. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 16 2013, 01:21 AM Post #2138 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think it is a parity fight (IMO, 6,3t vs 11,7t would be fair), I simply think the 20t estimate for Spinosaurus has to be ignored. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Feb 16 2013, 01:26 AM Post #2139 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree. The 20 ton estimate for spinosaurus is beyond ridiculous. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 16 2013, 01:59 AM Post #2140 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course, so is the method it was yielded by. The isometric figures for Dal Sassos estimate ought to be right tough, didn't Therrien & Henderson provide them as well? Highest vs highest isn't a universal, unfailing solution, it is something we can go by if we don't have sufficient info to compare them on a better basis, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt and only in the context of how these estimations where achieved. In this case, the 21t spinosaurus has to be compared to the rare ridiculous proposals of a 10t+ T. rex. Average vs average would be fairest, both for specimens and estimates. My average figure based on geometric similarity with Baryonyx and Suchomimus and ignoring both the highest (1.95m) and lowest skull lenght figures (1,5m) yielded approximately 17m, and a weight 3,69 times as much as the subadult Suchomimus specimen estimated at 11m in lenght (btw the explanation for the odd scalebars is probably simply that sereno scaled the skeletal to match the total stretched out body lenght basing on the total stretched out body lenght's of other theropods). That would mean it had a lower total lenght in life, maybe comparable to the 16m model. leg lenght and thus height is unclear and we will see about it. Suchomimus was estimated at 2,9-4,8t, sticking to a lower to average range of 3-3,5t this makes Spinosaurus 11-13t. Hartman stated the weight estimates for FMNH PR centered around 6t, I suggest using his own estimate as his skeletal is imo the best we have. I would like to use average sizes for the species, but in Spinosaurus sample size is basically 1, and in T. rex, even toguh sample size is 31, I don't have reliable average sizes or the means to calculate them (I presume it is 11-12m, and somewhat more gracile than sue). |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Feb 16 2013, 03:00 AM Post #2141 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think i can safely say that this thread would be sooooooooo much worse if that t.rex fanboy on YT named red t-rex happened to join in the forum and came across in this thread.......... can you even imagine it................. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 16 2013, 03:48 AM Post #2142 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not if you ignore his comments. To theropod, what were the results you yielded with Suchomimus and the ones with Baryonyx (I know, the average was 17m, but I would like to hear the values for both, so min and max aswell). |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 16 2013, 08:29 PM Post #2143 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
suchomimus yielded 16,2-16,6m, baryonyx yielded 17,5 and 18m. |
![]() |
|
| Godzillasaurus | Feb 17 2013, 02:03 AM Post #2144 |
|
Reptile King
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't intend to be nosey, but what do these results prove? Both of these animals were baryonichines as opposed to spinosaurines. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 17 2013, 02:14 AM Post #2145 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And to our misfortune we don't have any proper postcranial remains from spinosaurines, except for the ones of spinosaurus itself, which are either undescribed or have been bombed a long time ago. There is no proof, but Baryonychines are all we have, and we don't have reason to believe spinosaurs had vastly different proportions. |
![]() |
|
| 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