| 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 (459,223 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 | Apr 5 2013, 02:22 AM Post #2371 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So Tyrannosaurus is going to just suddenly bite the Spinosaurus like a ninja strike? Really? And also, Spinosaurus is visually much larger and would intimidate the Tyrannosaurus, giving the spinosaur a psychological advantage, also it means that Spinosaurus would more likely be the aggressor, not Tyrannosaurus. And the gape of Tyrannosaurus, being relatively low due to the jaw muscles being more adapted for powered bites than jaw opening, limits the areas of Spinosaurus' body that it can effectively bite. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Apr 5 2013, 02:27 AM Post #2372 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"More advanced" doesn't mean anything when they're only very distantly related. They can't be compared like that because they evolved differently. Intelligence doesn't really play a role here as animals generally fight with instincts, not intelligence. Eyesight isn't really an advantage here. And it's pretty hard for Spinosaurus to be faster than Tyrannosaurus, considering the size difference, but speed isn't much here as this is a fight, not a race. Agility is the advantage that is usually mistaken for speed, but it's not much of an advantage in fights between creatures of this scale. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 5 2013, 02:29 AM Post #2373 |
|
Deleted User
|
Just because spino is slow and can't dodge it does not mean that the trex would do it ninja like. Spino on the other hand can't ever get a good bite because of it's jaws and its not agile the only real weapon it has is power and its claws. |
|
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Apr 5 2013, 02:42 AM Post #2374 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus can get a good bite, it's jaw structure actually allows for a decent bite force, check out the the thread "Spinosaurus bite force", it's opportunities for that are quite limited though. Also, it can dodge by rearing up, placing it's head and neck out of Tyrannosaurus' reach. Spinosaurus isn't going to be moving at slow-mo, how would it catch swimming fish then if it did? The claws can only be used even slightly effectively if the dinosaur rears up, however, it's overall body strength should give Spinosaurus the advantage. And btw, Tyrannosaurus' only real weapons are it's head and it's jaws, and the jaws are limited by their gape against a larger opponent, the battering ram-head is going to be Tyrannosaurus' best weapon here, too bad for the tyrannosaur, it has less strength than it's opponent. Tyrannosaurus isn't going to be very agile here either, neither of them are going to run circles around the other. |
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Apr 5 2013, 04:41 AM Post #2375 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At now, it is absolutely dismissed. Where the f*** comes your claim of Torvosaurus or Edmarka surpassing Tyrex in the biting department now ? From you ? Manabu Sakamoto : Megalosaurs (including Torvosaurus) are only known from partial skulls so it would be extremely difficult to estimate mechanical advantage accurately, even more so for bite force. Having said that, mechanical advantages calculated for Eustreptospondylus and Dubreuillosaurus (both preserve more skull elements) are comparable if not higher than that of T. rex (Sakamoto, 2010). But like Mike's already mentioned, T. rex has other features that indicate that it had larger, stronger jaw muscles compared to megalosaurs, maybe giant carcharodontosaurs like Carcharodontosaurus and Giganotosaurus, and DEFINITELY Spinosaurus. http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=8982 The more you write, the more you get ridiculouse brolyeuphyfusion, you little biased fanboy kid. Have you speak to a doctor about your problem with Tyrex ?
Edited by Monitor X, Apr 5 2013, 04:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Apr 5 2013, 04:44 AM Post #2376 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There's no bite force known for Spinosaurus jokerman. But : In order to estimate bite force with any reasonable confidence, we'd need to have a rough idea of how much jaw muscles Spinosaurus had. Unfortunately there are no good cranial materials to reconstruct jaw muscles in Spinosaurus - the bits at the back of the skull where the muscles would have attached are not known for Spinosaurus. Therefore we won't know for sure. However, we can fairly confidently assume that Spinosaurus would have similar skull proportions to those of close relatives like Baryonyx or Irritator. These theropods had long narrow skulls with not much space for jaw muscles. From what we know of Spinosaurus skull materials, we can be sure that it also had smallish jaw muscles (for an animal of that size). Extrapolating from size estimates (I presume body size, e.g. body mass, body length, whatever) would not give you a good estimate for Spinosaurus, for the very reasons I outlined above, i.e., spinosaurs had smaller jaw muscles compared to other theropods of similar sizes. Using body size will grossly overestimate bite force. http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=9468 And now you shut up again you joke. And actually, bite is the main weapon for all large theropods. Stop to envision theropods as Transformers you joke. I don't know how old you are kid, but think like this, you'll never be a professionnal paleobiologist for sure ! Edited by Monitor X, Apr 5 2013, 04:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MightyMaus | Apr 5 2013, 06:57 AM Post #2377 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus is inferior in fighting skill, bite force, and tooth design. But it was roughly twice the size of Tyrannosaurus and overall 1.5 times as powerful, so it wins quite easily. Tyrannosaurus's main weapon, its bite, would not be too effective on the large bodied Spinosaurus due to its small gape. If we assume the sizes are 14t for Spino and 6.5t for Tyranno, the result is IMO 90/10 Spinosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Apr 5 2013, 05:05 PM Post #2378 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And you again, calling others "kids" and "jokes" because they don't believe in a weak Spinosaurus. Stop with the useless insults, they achieve nothing. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Apr 5 2013, 05:14 PM Post #2379 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You obviously want to stick to the idea of Tyrannosaurus having the top bite force, that's sensationalistic mainstream belief. What Sakamoto meant is that it's unclear, Torvosaurus' bite force can't be calculated with certainty. You probably didn't notice that I said "could possibly have rivaled if not exceeded", meaning that it's a possibility, not a solid fact. But you do like putting words in my mouth, do you? Then you have the gall to call me a "little biased fanboy kid" for it. Therefore, I edited your quote so that insult is directed towards you, not me. I'm not little at all, I'm not a kid either, and I'm not a biased fanboy at all. There's no need to speak to a doctor about it, I don't have a problem with Tyrannosaurus, it's you that has a problem with anyone who doesn't try to defend Tyrannosaurus' "title"... |
![]() |
|
| Fist of the North Shrimp | Apr 5 2013, 09:33 PM Post #2380 |
|
vá á orminum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
LOL@ broly. Your notion on Torvosaurus is not supported by any evidence. Again your bigotry towards certain opinions and animals is astonishing. I think you showed signs of betterment but I guess I was wrong. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Apr 5 2013, 09:56 PM Post #2381 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
with its arms or body or whatever, not the arms alone and I'm not so sure whether both arms really weighed less than rexys head...
You mean driectly below the body, palms pointing down... And as I said, not functioning the same way you know from cats doesn't mean not being weapons at all
OK, lets see, hmm, what were rexy's jaws for....ritual fighting-YEAH!, and of course carcass dismemberment
And what you don't see is that lacerations are usually caused by something sharp and the claws of spinosaurs are meathooks, not knives. If spinosaurus got a hold on its opponents with these arms, they will not deal that much direct damage (still much considering their size), but they won't let go and the strenght of spinosaurus will do the rest. End result: rexy gets thrown over and dies. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 6 2013, 06:13 AM Post #2382 |
|
Deleted User
|
Head and jaws is all it needs to injure the spinosaurus. |
|
|
| Tyrant | Apr 6 2013, 08:23 AM Post #2383 |
![]()
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So I suppose a tyrannosaurus could wrestle down a hypothetical one or two ton animal down with its tiny ass arms because its heavier?
Trex's head is like half a ton, I seriously don't think spinosaurus's short arms are that damn heavy.
Are they weapons? Yes. Are they effective on large animals? Probably not.
Wow you're doing this again.... Tyrannosaurus's head is about one eighth of its length and its jaws have been proven to easily crush the bones of most animals so its obviously used to kill. Spinosaurus's arms are larger than most theropods but are still small for their size and we have evidence of these claws being used to kill large animals. Why do you keep making these horrible comparisons? Seriously a spinsaurus's claws would at best give trex some nasty lacerations but that would hardly effect the health of the animal in a the short time span these two would be fighting those its a non factor, why is this concept so hard to grasp? |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Apr 6 2013, 09:15 AM Post #2384 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spinosaurus is almost 2 times heavier than T.rex. How the hell is it going to injure an opponent that big? T.rex's bone crushing bite means nothing in this fight if the opponent is too big. Edited by Ausar, Apr 6 2013, 09:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Monitor X | Apr 6 2013, 10:39 AM Post #2385 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Please, can you say me if it is wortwhile to discuss with this guy ? I have never seen such a bad faith among dinos forumers... |
![]() |
|
| 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)




From you ?



2:23 AM Jul 14