| 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 (459,234 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: | |
|---|---|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 09:31 PM Post #2206 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, the 1.5-meter skull is still not proven as there is no complete skull found. So it's conservative as of now. Conservative usually doesn't mean wrong in paleontology. And I don't care about conservative or not, I care about truth. 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. That's outrageous for you because you wish a 17 m Spino. It's not outrageous to Dal Sasso, he was friendly joking with Cau when I met them at the time. And it comes from Cau, perhaps the world foremost expert in theropods, not from Verudgo. Go out of your forum world man... 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. Tyrannosaurus was around 12-13 m full grown. If Spino is proved to have been 13-14 m or so, I would more likely favor the tyrannosaur. There's no matter of conservative or not conservative rules. 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. Oh yes you did. Because once I hint that it seems Cau could be proved right clearly disturbs you ! 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. Genius, it would support Cau's inferences that's all. Once you get a more open mind, you'll understand.... |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 3 2013, 09:42 PM Post #2207 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The skull size of Giganotosaurus is everything but confirmed, that's just one single source you are talking about which, of course, doesn't debunk the countless other sources.
And this is mere speculation, it might get larger as well, depending on what discoveries are made.
Have you ever seen a human infant? Or a Diplodocus juvenile? Also I have just tought about skull built, and it came to mind that Nanotyrannus (probably not T. rex, but nevertheless a subadult tyrannosaur) has a far more elongated skull than adult relatives have.
Not "we guys", maybe some others here, but I'm not afraid of anything, there simply is nothing to be afraid of. If the facts suggest something, I will accept it. However I do not automatically accept something because it is suggested by an authority, I only accept things that are yielded by a proper metodology. The better the metod, the more reliable the estimate. Caus metod is not better than Dal Sassos, and from what I know the unpublished stuff doesn't support anything below 15,8m, probably much more if stretched out.
This is frankly insulting, so don't bring it up again. You don't want to read how much bias I can read in your "who will whine if Spino turns up smaller"-questions, do you? This is just the same. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 09:56 PM Post #2208 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The skull size of Giganotosaurus is everything but confirmed, that's just one single source you are talking about which, of course, doesn't debunk the countless other sources. I cite a recent (2012) updated work about it. If you prefer older outdated estimates, then you're biased. And this is mere speculation, it might get larger as well, depending on what discoveries are made. Nothing indicates it could get larger, the more recent suggestions say it could be smaller (Cau). More often, sizes shrunk. That disturbs you. Are you a teenager ? I would understand why you so much like larger sizes... Have you ever seen a human infant? Or a Diplodocus juvenile? Oh yes ! The human infant and juvenile diplodocid are perfect analogous to theropods and their ontogenetic stages ! Read my quote from Cau, he is a theropod expert... Not "we guys", maybe some others here, but I'm not afraid of anything, there simply is nothing to be afraid of. If the facts suggest something, I will accept it. However I do not automatically accept something because it is suggested by an authority, I only accept things that are yielded by a proper metodology. The better the metod, the more reliable the estimate. Caus metod is not better than Dal Sassos, and from what I know the unpublished stuff doesn't support anything below 15,8m, probably much more if stretched out. Cau is no better than Dal sasso but it has strong basis too, which disturbs you again. Which 15,8 m estimate ? You talk about the life size GeoModel from the travelling exhibit, dating back 2006, so made before the discoveries of new Spino material ? Incoming material seems to confirm Cau's suggestions, but again, I don't argue anything. I just fight the optimistics attitudes. This is frankly insulting, so don't bring it up again. You don't want to read how much bias I can read in your "who will whine if Spino turns up smaller"-questions, do you? This is just the same. What is insulting ? That you have a bias against the tyrannosaur ? Yes you are biased ! I like Spino more than T. rex, but not for its capabilities in a fiction fight. I have little interest in these match actually, I just respond in this thread relative to the biology of Spino. And yes, despite my liking for this unique creature, I don't display an bias toward it. Edited by Monitor X, Mar 3 2013, 09:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 3 2013, 11:07 PM Post #2209 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok you troll, if you have such severe problems with civilised debates, I won't bother any more. All we have seen so far from that supposed great new study is a 16m long model, you don't have more than that. So if at all, this confirms Dal Sassos estimates which seems to disturb you. Considering you appearantly have to bring my age into this, I guess you aren't even a teenager... You are stubborn if you believe being newer always means being better. Had you spend some time actually reconstructing and examining the skull structures and sizes you would know that. Can you give me a counterexample concerning what I suggested about ontogeny? Doesn't seem like that. Why don't you just do some actual research instead of posting oversimplyfied rubbish and vague claims? You simply have a problem with said "optimistic attitudes", that's it. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 3 2013, 11:17 PM Post #2210 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I will not argue at length with you about me a troll or civilised debates. You did not understand what I've explained you previously : the 16 m Italian model is not based on the new findings I am hinting you but on Dal sass (2005), as it dates back 2006. The new Spino material has nothing to do with the model. Who told you such a wrong information ? For the remaining part, read the quote from Cau, and learn instead of trying learn to others in a forum because you own almost 6 000 posts. This just proves how much you spend time to argue and never to do some rationnal research. Yes I don't like optimistic attitudes, I like rigorous thoughts, open minds and facts. I'm opened to the Spino at 17 m but as time pass and given the incoming details, I "fear" it will not be the case. Cau's observations are a good glimpse at it. But you don't want this. And regarding your age, I ignored it, but seems like I was right. Oh yeah, I remember when I dreamt my 20 m Spino too... |
![]() |
|
| Spinodontosaurus | Mar 4 2013, 10:42 PM Post #2211 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Scott Hartman's Suchomimus is just under 15 meters long with a 175cm skull, whilst his Baryonyx has a longer tail and thus reaches ~17 meters with a 175cm skull. A 13 meter Spino as Cau proposes would have had a very short tail, as body size is far more close to certain than tail length atm. |
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Mar 5 2013, 05:12 AM Post #2212 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
1.5m skull is Cau's estimate, based on his estimate of megalosauroids' rostrums are roughly 2/3 of total skull length. 14.4m is 120% of 12m, which is his estimate for length of S. aegyptiacus holotype. But considering holotype has vertebra just as long, and some of cervicals longer than Sue, it's at least as long as Sue, probably longer. Sue is already at a lil over 12 meters long. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 5 2013, 07:01 AM Post #2213 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The holotype probably has a comparable torso lenght to sue, but somewhat longer neck and tail. Now the question, how much larger is MNSN V4047? https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2pQrrXWV1W0/UPLKH-2av2I/AAAAAAAABhY/eHzp8Zxdhb8/s661/Spinosaurus_skull_MSNM+V4047%26holotype.jpg I know many people don't like this particular version of my spinosaurus skull, but it shows the point as there is no significant difference concerning lenght proportions. If the dentary was really only 75cm long, that would mean the whole skull was maybe 120-130cm long, depending on the exact proportions that remain to be confirmed, and if the holotypes vertebrae where longer than sue's, that probably means it was overally longer. Let's say it had the same lenght as sue, that'd make MNSN V4047 at least 40-50% longer than it. If the dentary was actually 95cm long, that'd mean at least 16%, but the holotype was probably overally longer than sue, even tough not heavier... Let's say the holotype was the same weight as sue, that'd mean the largest specimen weighed in at 56-237% more than it. Any of these mean Spinosaurus has a really, really notable size advantage over T. rex. We can say the Spinosaurus holotype was lighter than Sue, and still Spinosaurus being about twice the size of T. rex would be reasonable. And before some troll claims i was biased, me and Mystery actually had quite a debate before I admitted the dentary being only 75cm long was at least as likely as 95cm. Edited by theropod, Mar 5 2013, 07:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MysteryMeat | Mar 5 2013, 07:50 AM Post #2214 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Besides the individual variation, which undoubtedly exist between these specimens, there could also be proportional differences due to ontogeny and even specific/generic differences. Your reconstruction did not account for the elongation of snout from subadult (?) to adult. This is hypothetical though. I did a rough skull reconstruction before, where I arrived at estimates of 125cm and 160cm skulls, which lead me to estimate the total length of 15-16meter. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 6 2013, 04:59 AM Post #2215 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurs are fascinating and were powerful animals, there's little doubt here. But they were not big game killers and not built to engage very intense, long battles with other multitons animals. The body was quite massive and even somewhat bulky but their jaws were simply too fin, despite a relative robustness. A 160 pound fisher often breaks off the snout of a 1 200 pound gharial. Check the thinest part in Spino's skull, it's really really narrow. No way it could endure the pressures, torsions and shocks of a battle with a massive-headed theropod. And whatever the actual length of the animal. Appreciate them for what they are, simply. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Mar 6 2013, 05:20 AM Post #2216 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus/gharial is frankly a ridiculous analogy, are you sure you are aware of what gharials skulls look like?. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Mar 6 2013, 05:28 AM Post #2217 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Never said the analogy is perfect, I say that both are not equiped to deal with heavyweight fights. Spino skull is more robust than gharial, much less than crocs and gators. The thinest part of Spino snout is far far too narrow. No need to be a genius to see that such a snout could be broken during a fight. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Mar 6 2013, 06:36 AM Post #2218 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, than Baryonyx/Spinosaurus is aswell a ridiculous analogy: http://whenpigsfly-returns.blogspot.de/2008/01/feeding-adaptations-and-strategies-of.html Here it was said that Baryonyx bite force was almost exactly comparable to a gaharial's. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Mar 6 2013, 11:55 AM Post #2219 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
theropod was calling the Spinosaurus-gharial analogy ridiculous because the Spinosaurus had a more robust jaw and therefore a stronger bite force... |
![]() |
|
| dinosaur | Mar 6 2013, 01:32 PM Post #2220 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Exactly!!!
|
![]() |
|
| 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