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 (459,239 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:
dinosaur
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Godzillaman
Feb 13 2013, 11:41 AM
Asaurus
Feb 13 2013, 11:39 AM
dinosaur
Feb 13 2013, 11:29 AM
Asaurus
Feb 13 2013, 11:00 AM
Quote:
 
If u think u can do better than that puto, UR GONNA LOSE!


What the heck is that supposed to mean? Either way, it in no way proves you correct, again, that site broly was on did NOT concern dinosaurs so you have no reason to call brolyeuphyfusion an idiot, and you've yet to provide a reasonable explanation on why a T.rex would win to a larger Spinosaurus (pictures and drawings from DeviantArt aren't gonna help you). So unless you have any logical reasons for thinking a Tyrannosaurus can win to a Spinosaurus that's 4 meters longer, and several times heavier, don't expect a reply from me.
That's right back off! Nobody talks back to me gets away with it!

Besides, if I show u guys real data, u and the others will say something like, its just a video Or, that is delusional. I just can't seem to explain with data, other than images
Quote:
 
That's right back off! Nobody talks back to me gets away with it!
Who the heck do you think you are? A king?

Quote:
 
Besides, if I show u guys real data, u and the others will say something like, its just a video Or, that is delusional. I just can't seem to explain with data, other than images
No, if you show us real data that can be supported, and if you can hold your own against criticism to it, you would be taken seriously.
Why doesn't Taipan just ban this idiot!? I hated that troll that kept posting inappropriate pictures all over the forum a couple days ago, but I would take him over this guy any day!
Ban me? Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MysteryMeat
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Feb 13 2013, 10:41 AM
Dal Sasso estimate uncertainty of 16-18m long is only a question of tail length, and as can be seen from his skeletal, to take a differently proportioned skeletal (like Hartman's) and scale it to those lengths will make it bigger than its supposed to be.

In Hartman's, a ~14m Spinosaurus has a snout-sacrum length of ~7.35m, in Dal Sasso's, a ~17m one has a snout-sacrum length of ~8.15m. Let's remove the skull, which is ~1.75m in both so we end up with 5.6m and 6.4m respectively, if we scale Hartman's drawing to match Dal Sasso's the total body length sans skull will be 14m, now we add the 1.75m skull again and we end up with a total length of 15.75m, the difference is only because of the shorter tail compared to the 17m version of Dal Sasso.

Without modifying the skeletal to have the skull proportions of Dal Sasso's, the maximum size you can scale Hartman's Spinosaurus to compare it to any other theropod is 16m, beyond that, not even the upper estimate of Dal Sasso's work will back you up because it only means a longer tail than the lower estimate, rather than bigger body overall.
Posted Image

As shown, Spinosaurus head is too big (2m), T. rex might also have a head a little too big and the legs might be a bit oversized too but I didn't wanted to modify the skeletals, also remember that the leg proportions of Spinosaurus might change this summer, and for the body, it isn't set in stone either, it might be smaller.

The fight is not really that one sided nor is this a match in which one contender is twice the weight of the other.

@Godzillaman
I wasn't referring to you, don't worry.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mega t.rex the magnificent
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! :angry: :angry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Feb 13 2013, 11:50 AM
blaze
Feb 13 2013, 10:41 AM
also remember that the leg proportions of Spinosaurus might change this summer
The legs are from a different specimen and should not mixed up with IPHG 1912 and/or MSNM V4047...different specimens have different sizes...
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Feb 13 2013, 09:00 AM
Whilst high, the 9.5 tonne estimate is still within the boundaries of possibility, obtained by a fairly reliable method, the 21 tonnes for Spinosaurus by Therrien & Henderson (2007) is ridiculous, creating a formula to estimate the mass of all theropods by means of an equation for skull length derived from a sample whose only large theropods included short tailed tyrannosauroids is wrong in so many levels, it pretty much ignores every other aspect of their morphology.
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 14 2013, 12:06 AM
blaze
Feb 13 2013, 09:00 AM
Whilst high, the 9.5 tonne estimate is still within the boundaries of possibility, obtained by a fairly reliable method, the 21 tonnes for Spinosaurus by Therrien & Henderson (2007) is ridiculous, creating a formula to estimate the mass of all theropods by means of an equation for skull length derived from a sample whose only large theropods included short tailed tyrannosauroids is wrong in so many levels, it pretty much ignores every other aspect of their morphology.
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).
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Feb 16 2013, 01:21 AM
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.
I agree. The 20 ton estimate for spinosaurus is beyond ridiculous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carcharadon
Member Avatar
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.................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
suchomimus yielded 16,2-16,6m, baryonyx yielded 17,5 and 18m.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 16 2013, 08:29 PM
suchomimus yielded 16,2-16,6m, baryonyx yielded 17,5 and 18m.
I don't intend to be nosey, but what do these results prove? Both of these animals were baryonichines as opposed to spinosaurines.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
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.

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.