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 (459,219 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:
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
That is incorrect, the study found the opposite. They found that all spinosaurs EXCEPT Spinosaurus were mostly semi-aquatic. Spinosaurus was by far the least semi-aquatic of all spinosaurs.
Edited by MightyMaus, Apr 15 2013, 10:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MightyMaus
Apr 15 2013, 03:51 AM
Just as Spinosaurus, weighing 12-16 tons, would likely not blink an eye at taking down a 10 ton herbivore.
  • Spinosaurus likely doesn't have a mass of 12-16 tonnes, a range of 10-14 tonnes is more likely
  • It depends on the 10-tonne herbivore you are talking about. A Diplodocus or a Triceratops would not have much problems giving a Spinosaurus a run for it's money
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
A 10 tonne sauropod wouldn't really have much it could do against a theropod that was at probably larger than it.

Something the size of Nigersaurus (although i'm not sure whether it ever could have encountered a Spinosaurus, it probably would have encountered Suchomimus) would be pretty much screwed if it encountered a Spinosaurus.
That's not to say Spino' specialised in sauropod killing. But it had the size to take on smaller sauropods.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Apr 15 2013, 07:21 PM
A 10 tonne sauropod wouldn't really have much it could do against a theropod that was at probably larger than it.

Something the size of Nigersaurus (although i'm not sure whether it ever could have encountered a Spinosaurus, it probably would have encountered Suchomimus) would be pretty much screwed if it encountered a Spinosaurus.
That's not to say Spino' specialised in sauropod killing. But it had the size to take on smaller sauropods.
Posted Image
I said Diplodocus, not Nigersaurus. I'm pretty sure that Diplodocus was larger than Nigersaurus...

And MightyMaus stated that Spinosaurus would easily kill a 10-tonne herbivore...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MightyMaus
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Apr 15 2013, 11:06 PM
Spinodontosaurus
Apr 15 2013, 07:21 PM
A 10 tonne sauropod wouldn't really have much it could do against a theropod that was at probably larger than it.

Something the size of Nigersaurus (although i'm not sure whether it ever could have encountered a Spinosaurus, it probably would have encountered Suchomimus) would be pretty much screwed if it encountered a Spinosaurus.
That's not to say Spino' specialised in sauropod killing. But it had the size to take on smaller sauropods.
Posted Image
I said Diplodocus, not Nigersaurus. I'm pretty sure that Diplodocus was larger than Nigersaurus...

And MightyMaus stated that Spinosaurus would easily kill a 10-tonne herbivore...
It would easily kill all the 10 ton herbivores in its environment. Assuming it weighed more than 10 tons itself, which I find very likely. Spino lived with sauropods and hadrosaurs for the most part, and they don't do well against theropods as large, or larger than themselves.

And seriously man, a 10 ton Diplodocus would be absolutely destroyed by a 12+ ton Spinosaur. I love sauropods, but they are not supernatural beings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Even if Spinosaurus was utterly incapable of taking prey larger than itself (and it may well have; Baryonyx stomach contents contained bones from Iguanodon) then it still would most likely have been capable of taking prey the size of Tyrannosaurus. Whether it did so regularly is a debate for another thread, but it is not far-fetched to assume that Spinosaurus was able to attack large-sized animals.

I am not arguing with the fact that Spinosaurus was semi-aquatic, nobody here is. What I'm saying is that Spinosaurus appears to be more terrestrial than, for example, Irritator or Cristatusaurus. Additionally, Spinosaurus never encountered hadrosaurs (as far as the fossil record indicates). The closest hadrosaur to Spinosaurus geographically was probably "Kritosaurus" australis, but there's a good 15-MY temporal gap between them. Fragmentary hadrosaur bones from southern Argentina and arguably Africa, too, are dated at around 95-90 MY old, but they are a good distance from the area in which Spinosaurus remains have been found. Spinosaurus may have co-existed with iguanodont-like ornithopods, and if it did then there is certainly no indication that Spinosaurus would have been incapable of eating them.
Edited by Shaochilong, Apr 16 2013, 01:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MightyMaus
Apr 16 2013, 12:50 AM
And seriously man, a 10 ton Diplodocus would be absolutely destroyed by a 12+ ton Spinosaur. I love sauropods, but they are not supernatural beings.
Actually, the Diplodocus would put up quite a fight. Spinosaurids weren't really adapted for gigantic prey of that scale...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Just to clear the nickname-debate up:

T. rex is not and has never been a nickname. That's an absolutely valid taxonomic abreviation of the generic + specific name, T(yrannosaurus)(.) rex
you can find this spelling in most major works.
Here's Tomas Holtz's lecture on taxonomy:
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104taxon.html

to quote him:
Quote:
 
Species names can be abbreviated by using only the first letter of the genus name, followed by a period (NEVER by a hyphen): H. sapiens and T. rex are correct; H. Sapiens or T-Rex are WRONG!! (Subtle hint: do not use the incorrect form on your homework or tests);


"T-Rex" is incorrect, only a nickname, similer to "rex" or "rexy"
Doesn't mean you cannot use it here tough, this is not a peer reviewed publication, it is an absolutely informal discussion page. Just, as Holtz writes, don't use it in your palaeontology exams please.


@brolyslastpost: Gigantic when compared to most animals, but smaller than Spinosaurus, so where's the problem?

@everybodyelse: It is common sense that the Spinosaurus shown in the scale above would have killed the sauropod in there with ease. medium sized herbivores (for that times standarts, hence <10t, would not have been a great problem for it to prey on)
I doubt it took prey larger than itself, most theropods probably didn't do that on their own, I highly doubt Spinosaurus was a pack hunter and it is not well equipped for taking down gigantic herbivores. Its sheer size and strenght would have enabled it to prey on small sauropods and decent sized ornithopods tough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Apr 15 2013, 11:06 PM
Spinodontosaurus
Apr 15 2013, 07:21 PM
A 10 tonne sauropod wouldn't really have much it could do against a theropod that was at probably larger than it.

Something the size of Nigersaurus (although i'm not sure whether it ever could have encountered a Spinosaurus, it probably would have encountered Suchomimus) would be pretty much screwed if it encountered a Spinosaurus.
That's not to say Spino' specialised in sauropod killing. But it had the size to take on smaller sauropods.
Posted Image
I said Diplodocus, not Nigersaurus. I'm pretty sure that Diplodocus was larger than Nigersaurus...

And MightyMaus stated that Spinosaurus would easily kill a 10-tonne herbivore...
Sorry, I miss-understood what was being discussed. I thought the topic was focussing on how easily Spinosaurus could have hunted certain sauropods, not how easily it could have hunted specific 10 tonne herbivores. That's why I brought up Nigersaurus as it came close to living alongside Spinosaurus.


In general though, sauropods do seem to rely on their size for protection, with the notable exception of some later titanosaurs that developed a form of armour. A 10 tonne sauropod, whilst not a regular meal, would be a good deal easier than Tyrannosaurus hunting a Triceratops imho.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Apr 16 2013, 02:00 AM
T. rex is not and has never been a nickname.

I said T-rex is a nickname, not T. rex.
MightyMaus
Apr 15 2013, 10:00 AM
That is incorrect, the study found the opposite. They found that all spinosaurs EXCEPT Spinosaurus were mostly semi-aquatic. Spinosaurus was by far the least semi-aquatic of all spinosaurs.
Do you have proof for that statement? When did they exclude Spinosaurs?

lack of corresponding adaptations in the postcranial skeleton of spinosaurs

They for sure have not talked about Spinosaurus itself in this line. Spinosaurus' postcranium is not really well known.
All the lines talked about the group, but Spinosaurus was nowhere excluded.
Quote a line please!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
As usual, I agree with Spinodontosaurus. While Spinosaurus was most likely not a sauropod killer, it would have been perfectly cabable of taking down a small sauropod if it needed to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vivyx
Member Avatar
Felines, sharks, birds, arthropods
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Apr 11 2013, 10:39 PM
Dog
Apr 11 2013, 08:54 PM
dinosaur
Jan 14 2013, 06:55 AM
Posted Image


T.Rex nearly broke spinos neck.
Lol, you are using Dinosaur King as a source.



LOL, I guess that Saurophaganax can decimate entire groups of dinosaurs, even large sauropods, with giant fireballs now, using that very same "source"....
Lol.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Apr 16 2013, 02:11 AM
theropod
Apr 16 2013, 02:00 AM
T. rex is not and has never been a nickname.

I said T-rex is a nickname, not T. rex.
Spinodontosaurus
 
'T-rex' is just a miss-spelling of the Jurassic Park inspired nickname T. rex.

I didn't mean you jingoferx...


MightyMaus
Apr 15 2013, 10:00 AM
That is incorrect, the study found the opposite. They found that all spinosaurs EXCEPT Spinosaurus were mostly semi-aquatic. Spinosaurus was by far the least semi-aquatic of all spinosaurs.

Could you post the title of that study or a link? Your statement confuses me a bit, was spinosaurus included in the study, but found and explicitely stated to be less semi-aquatic (I suppose based on some kind of mass spectrometer-analysis and the isotopes in the bones), or wasn't it even included (which is conceivable due to the very scarce remains).

Could you quote it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
T. rex is the nickname given to it in Jurassic Park. It just so happens that it is a nickname that is actually a correct way of identifying the animal. Except everybody started spelling it wrong, hence the widespread usage of 'T-rex' and variations of.


EDIT: I recall being sent a copy of the paper itself sometime ago, but also recall not really understanding it at the time. I'll try and dig it up from my emails. But yes, iirc, the study concluded that, based on oxygen isotope ratios in the teeth of various theropods, that spinosaurids were more semi-aquatic than other theropods.

There was less difference between the ratios in Spinosaurus and its contemporary theropods than there was between other spinosaurids and their contemporary theropods. This could mean one of two things, either theropods from Spinosaurus' time were more aquatic than normal or Spinosaurus was less aquatic then other spinosaurids.

I have, however, read that the isotope ratios could just as well be different in spinosaurids due to obtaining it from their prey; mostly aquatic animals such as fish. Thus, the lower difference in Spinosaurus might imply a diet consisting of less aquatic prey than other spinosaurids.

EDIT 2:
Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods.
Relevant quote:
Quote:
 
This semiaquatic oxygen isotope signature is not clearly observed for Spinosaurus from Tunisia and Morocco, even though this genus possesses highly advanced specializations for fish catching in jaw elongation and tooth morphology.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Apr 16 2013, 05:49 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not so knowledgeable on these techniques, but if the spinosaurus in question had happened to have died after a drought or dry season, preying on terrestrial prey for some time, wouldn't that affect the results, or is only long-term diet relevant?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.