| 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 (459,235 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: | |
|---|---|
| SpinoInWonderland | Mar 3 2013, 08:33 PM Post #2191 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am not stating it as fact, only a possibility. I agree with the 175-cm skull length figure. And 1.5-meter skull length makes more sense for IPHG 1912, applying it to MSNM V4047 would give it quite a cramped rear portion. MSNM V4047's rostrum is about a meter long. And too cautious forumers(like Verdugo for example) shouldn't be given special treatment either. Both extremes should get the same treatment, to be fair and unbiased. Just saying. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 08:34 PM Post #2192 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Living in Switzerland, I have no problem to travel in Italy for paleo exhibits or talks. And at the internet era, it is not difficult to get contact with paleontologists. You should try instead of all the time split your "science" on forums and youtube. Yes, I've read many of your comments in topix and youtube without ever respond, and I'm really angry to see how much you can be biased and without any respect for scientifical considerations. Spino could be big-headed, following the reasons explained by Cau in his blog. Of course, you may ignore it, as it does not correspond to your likings. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 3 2013, 08:38 PM Post #2193 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The second giganotosaurus specimen isn't a paratype, as it was described later than the holotype, and its 1,95m lenght based on wrong scalebars in the first place, which definitely isn the case for dal Sassos skull. Sues skull has never been downsized to my knowledge, even tough there are slightly differing lenght figures, it is important to differentiate between different estimations, different measurements and rebuttals of other figures. And I have to say this, Broly is absolutely right about a 14,4m spinosaur not having a 1,75m skull if it has the same proportions as its relatives. Caus figures are problematic, because he doesn't use related animals, but actually the proportions, both cranial and postcranial, of unrelated taxa. Spinosaurs have a significantly larger tl-sl ratio than most other theropods, and based on all spinosaur skulls that I have seen (including one of the undescribed spinosaurus specimens, suchomimus and irritator) so far the skull lenght would end up at 1,75m or greater btw concerning my reconstruction of the mandible, you might want to have a look at this, especially the images you can see there: http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/for-a-few-spinosaurus-more/ is there anybody who wants to tell me I made a ridiculously wrong mandible while seeing this? http://qilong.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/spinosaurus-aegyptiacus-skull-composite.jpg |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Mar 3 2013, 08:39 PM Post #2194 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My comments, in topix? Really? I don't even post in topix. Sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone else. And I was dealing with total Tyrannosaurus fanboys in youtube, I had to dumb down my explanations for them to understand. Also I had to fight fire with fire sometimes. And It's okay to be skeptical of the big-headed model, we don't have complete skeleton, I am not biased against it, just skeptical of it. I'm sure that some harmless skepticism doesn't hurt. And as a question, are you a paleontologist/paleozoologist/professional paleoartist? You go to paleoexhibits and discussions with real experts, don't you? |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 08:40 PM Post #2195 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's what I say. A possibility. Just like the 1,5 m proposal by Cau :
http://theropoda.blogspot.fr/2012/08/la-coda-destra-della-taglia-theropode.html#comment-form I don't know who Verdugo is. I've not been submerged by his posts on the internet sources like yours, saying this... Cautiousness suggestions have always to be favored, the history of paleontology is full of examples of taxa overestimated, the opposite being much more uncommon. That was my point. I accept all given figures at now, though my experience lets me think Cau's will be confirmed. Unlike you, I don't favor one thing and gradually make it as a fact. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 08:46 PM Post #2196 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My point is still standing. Giga's skull (holotype and the one based on the dentary) have been downsized. Sue's too (1,5-1,43 m). The estimates of Spino have been based on Baryo and Sucho which are relatives yes. But you all the time forget one thing guys, and that's the point of Cau : these individuals of Sucho and Baryo used for Spino are neither at adult stages. And you know that at adult stage, typically the skull becomes shorter in theropods, all theropods. That's why : WE DON T KNOW THE SIZE (AND ACTUAL SHAPE) OF AN ADULT SPINOSAURUS SKULL. So beware. One question. If the animal is confirmed to have been a smaller 13-14 m spinosaurid, with a smaller skull size, who will cry on this board ? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Mar 3 2013, 08:50 PM Post #2197 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The 1.5-meter skull is possible but it would have to be considered as conservative. And calling a 17-meter Spinosaurus a kiddy monster myth is really unscientific, no offense. That's basically calling Dal Sasso a overenthusiastic kid! Oh how would he react to that?! Also, the sample size is small, it's literally only one. 17 meters is within the range of possibility even if the specimen we have turns out smaller somehow. Spinosaurus is very fragmentary, no reconstruction aside from Stromer's is debunked as of now. Spinosaurus is a very mysterious animal, we don't even know what the structure on it's back really is, for one. Verdugo is the member here who accepts the 14.4-meter Spinosaurus as solid fact, and rejects all others and claims them as debunked. And I don't speak of anything in paleontology as fact except if several complete skeletons, or a mummy, proves it. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 09:03 PM Post #2198 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The 1.5-meter skull is possible but it would have to be considered as conservative. That line is non-sense man. Conservative is a statement when there is no certainty. If Spino is proven to be 1,5 m, it will not be conservative, it will be factual. And calling a 17-meter Spinosaurus a kiddy monster myth is really unscientific, no offense. That's basically calling Dal Sasso a overenthusiastic kid! Oh how would he react to that?! Cau and Dal sasso are actually good friends so don't worry for their social interractions. What is unscientific is to make facts of theories Also, the sample size is small, it's literally only one. 17 meters is within the range of possibility even if the specimen we have turns out smaller somehow. I accept 17 m. Cau doesn't. I accept too 14 m and 1,5 m skull, based on solid reasons too. Here, strangely, you don't accept it anymore. Spinosaurus is very fragmentary, no reconstruction aside from Stromer's is debunked as of now. That's my initial point. Verdugo is the member here who accepts the 14.4-meter Spinosaurus as solid fact, and rejects all others and claims them as debunked. And I don't speak of anything in paleontology as fact except if several complete skeletons, or a mummy, proves it. So Verdugo is as biased as you as I've seen in many posts in youtube, topix or whatever...You actually make facts, see your first response to my post. Total rejection to Cau's argumets. Bias. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 3 2013, 09:03 PM Post #2199 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't remember any 1,5m sue skull, ever. Brochu described it as 1,39-1,4m from Pmx-Qj Holtz once gave a 1,53m measurement from Pmx to Occ, but I guess it might have been measured along the curve of the cranium. also measurements depend on how to dewarp the crushed skull. I want to recall this: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8XrH_eNQQY4/URP4ghKc3II/AAAAAAAABoI/CmSayzxPrZA/s904/FMNH_PR_2081_skull.png https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-sxQqYAE0EXo/URP4giVB47I/AAAAAAAABoI/S2awM5Nxl8s/s1198/FMNH_PR_2081_skull_dorsal.png With Giganotosaurus carolinii it is a different story. The estimates are first of all far older, from a time where everythign was doen manually, meaning a lot of inaccuracies. Their scalebar in the paper was undersized for about 12% based on the actually reported length of the quadrate. of course an estimate that bases on wrong scalebars in the first place can be debunked, that doesn imply perfectly accurate reconstructions where automatically unreliable just because size shrinking happens quite frequently. I have provided a lot of stuff in support of Dal Sassos estimates, both lenght and skull lenght. That doesn't mean they are true, but it means they are not less likely than a speculated estimate based on unrelated taxa and mainly intended to show error margins in size estimations, by someone who totally disaproves for theropods above 13m, which are approved for by most authorities I know. Sorry, but these are not more likely. And you are wrong in your statements about broly. He explicitely said it was possible but had to be regarded as conservative. In which universe does that imply total rebuttal? And especially, why should broly be biased if he doesn't accept Cau's figure, but Cau is not if he doesn't accept Dal Sassos, even tought there are good points in the latters favour?
Typically adults have proportionally smaller skulls than subadults, this ought to make up for them typically being more longirostrine. As far as I know it isn't sure whether BMNH R9951 is actually subadult, Mortimer doesn't state it.
I'm not saying Cau's estimates are necessarily wrong, but they are not more likely than those Dal Sasso made, and you don't have to be biased just to favour those.
not me. Another question, what if it is confirmed to be a large 16-18m spinosaurid, with a skull the same size and shape as indicated by scaling from relatives? I know many people who would cry in that case, Because it would almost certainly imply the mighty king's defeat... Edited by theropod, Mar 3 2013, 09:08 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 3 2013, 09:10 PM Post #2200 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
and a 1,5m skull is not a proven fact and remains conservative until someone finds a reasonably complete spinosaurus skull, that's a fact. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Mar 3 2013, 09:15 PM Post #2201 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But that's in relation to the body, so this would mean that Spinosaurus had a shorter skull relative to the body, that would make it even larger. Or do juvenile animals have a proportionally shorter rostrum? P.S. There are fakers, so not all comments you see made by a guy called brolyeuphyfusion are from broly. For example someone has copied his name and posted comments under science blogs. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Mar 3 2013, 09:16 PM Post #2202 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@komodo: My responses are in red The 1.5-meter skull is possible but it would have to be considered as conservative. That line is non-sense man. Conservative is a statement when there is no certainty. If Spino is proven to be 1,5 m, it will not be conservative, it will be factual. Well, the 1.5-meter skull is still not proven as there is no complete skull found. So it's conservative as of now. And calling a 17-meter Spinosaurus a kiddy monster myth is really unscientific, no offense. That's basically calling Dal Sasso a overenthusiastic kid! Oh how would he react to that?! Cau and Dal sasso are actually good friends so don't worry for their social interractions. What is unscientific is to make facts of theories Well, calling the 17-meter Spinosaurus a kiddy monster myth is an outrageous move. That's the kind of thing that comes out of Verdugo's posts. Also, the sample size is small, it's literally only one. 17 meters is within the range of possibility even if the specimen we have turns out smaller somehow. I accept 17 m. Cau doesn't. I accept too 14 m and 1,5 m skull, based on solid reasons too. Here, strangely, you don't accept it anymore. I have no problems with the 14-15 meter estimates, what I have problems with is people comparing the conservatives of Spinosaurus with the liberal figures for Tyrannosaurus, particularly the unconfirmed "larger than Sue" specimens. Spinosaurus is very fragmentary, no reconstruction aside from Stromer's is debunked as of now. That's my initial point. And I didn't actually try to challenge it, what I addressed is that the newer publication supporting a lower size estimate, which is not proven as of now. Verdugo is the member here who accepts the 14.4-meter Spinosaurus as solid fact, and rejects all others and claims them as debunked. And I don't speak of anything in paleontology as fact except if several complete skeletons, or a mummy, proves it. So Verdugo is as biased as you as I've seen in many posts in youtube, topix or whatever...You actually make facts, see your first response to my post. Total rejection to Cau's argumets. Bias. I have no problems with the 14-15 meter estimates as I previously said, my first response just addresses the statement of the new publication supporting 14-15 meters. What should be said is that it doesn't support any estimate as of now. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 3 2013, 09:18 PM Post #2203 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Juveniles usually have a proportionally shorter rostrum, and a generally larger skull in relation to the body. most likely, rostrum to body lenght stays about the same, when both the posterior cranium gets shorter in relation to the rostrum, and the whole skull gets shorter in relation to the body. But this doesn't mean that's always the case, nor are the specimens in question so young that it necessarily has significant impact on the figures. Also, is really every spinosaur found so far a subadult? I cannot believe that. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Mar 3 2013, 09:21 PM Post #2204 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus skull isn't 1.75 m, neither is 1.5 m. It would be 1.5-1.75 m. Same with body length, it would measure between 12.5-17 m in length. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 09:21 PM Post #2205 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No need to explain by a+b the science behind Giga and Sue skull measurements. The point is that even farily known skull are often downsized. At now, Giga skull is stated only comparable in size to T. rex. If fairly known since years skulls are downsized, Spino's skull could as well shrunk with time passing. Typically adults have proportionally smaller skulls than subadults, this ought to make up for them typically being more longirostrine. As far as I know it isn't sure whether BMNH R9951 is actually subadult, Mortimer doesn't state it. Never seen anything like this. Source ? What about suggests this to Cau on his blog if you're really sure of your science ? I'm not saying Cau's estimates are necessarily wrong, but they are not more likely than those Dal Sasso made, and you don't have to be biased just to favour those. I accept both as I said, but the hints coming from Italy let me think Cau will be finally right. It's you guys who are afraid of this eventuality. Another question, what if it is confirmed to be a large 16-18m spinosaurid, with a skull the same size and shape as indicated by scaling from relatives? I know many people who would cry in that case, Because it would almost certainly imply the mighty king's defeat... Actually Spino is my favorite dinosaur and one of my favorite animals of all time (no wonder I make hundred of miles for see its remains and authors) so I wouldn't be disturbed by this, although, contrary to the kids on this board (I've just read several threads, and some comments are really pathetics) I don't love it for its speculative badassness... However, in your line, I read somehow a bias against the north american largest tyrannosaur... |
![]() |
|
| 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