| 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 (459,214 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: | |
|---|---|
| Teratophoneus | May 21 2013, 03:49 AM Post #2506 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not understand why there's all these people who vote T. rex. Spinosaurus weighed almost twice T. rex and was 6 (or more) meters longer and 3 meters higher. I do not see how a Tyrannosaurus of 12.3 meters and 7 tonnes beat Spinosaurus, at 17 meters and 12 tonnes ... makes no sense.
Edited by Teratophoneus, May 21 2013, 03:50 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 21 2013, 04:20 AM Post #2507 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are much worse bias out there. Someone even made a video of Tyrannosaurus killing Amphicoelias fragillimus(which would exceed 200 tonnes based on Haplocanthosaurus!) |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 21 2013, 06:43 PM Post #2508 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Do you mean the one with the ninja Tyrannosaurus or with the extremely small Amphicoelias? |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 21 2013, 06:50 PM Post #2509 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The ninja Tyrannosaurus one. The small Amphicoelias one could be explained as an inexperienced juvenile Amphiocelias altus. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | May 21 2013, 10:18 PM Post #2510 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Or it could be explained as a dumb cartoon made by an ignorant individual genuinely entrenched in the awesomebro culture. Things like that should be ignored, don't get too angry about those dumb videos. btw, Spinosaurus spines are broad but not broad where it counts to serve as attachement points for big muscles accross their entire height but you probably didn't mean this. Haplocanthosaurus is not a good model for A. fragillimus. Haplocanthosaurus D13, D6 and D1 (top), Apatosaurus (middle) and Diplodocus (bottom) D9, D5 and D1. The shape is nothing like it and most of the height of the vertebrae comes from the neural arch |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 21 2013, 10:40 PM Post #2511 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I mean like this: Large back muscles attached to the spines from the base up until around ~40% of the spine's height, the remainder of the height until the very top is attachment for smaller muscles. At the very top, there is little muscle, and a rather thin ligament layer. Fats and other soft tissues smoothen out the distinctions between the lower large muscles and the smaller muscles higher up. Just imagine it as an elongated triangle with a rounded top in cross-section. It's better than flagellicaudatans though... Also I did not scale from the vertebra directly, I scaled A. altus via the femur, then scaled A. fragillimus from the resulting estimate for A. altus... |
![]() |
|
| blaze | May 21 2013, 10:59 PM Post #2512 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, I was thinking that you meant that. About the vertebra, I'm not saying anything about the size, just saying that Haplocanthosaurus is not a good model, the shape is completely different, A. fragilimus shape is more reminiscent to that of derived diplodocidae, I think it was Mike Taylor who said this but I'm not sure, that the basal position of A. fragillimus is mostly an artifact of how little characters you can score for it in a phylogenetical analysis, we can only score those visible from the anterior (or is it caudal?) view that have not been lost to erosion. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 21 2013, 11:06 PM Post #2513 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe Amphicoelias altus could be put into the analysis, it's bones are still within reach of researchers. |
![]() |
|
| DarkGricer | May 21 2013, 11:46 PM Post #2514 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are correct. The spines are attached to the vertebrae. BUT, they are not attached to the spinal chord. The vertebrae are, though. The spinal chord is not the same as the vertebrae. If you break your spinal chord, you're pretty much dead. If you break a vertebrae, ow, it hurts, anything else? And if you really would rather have tiny arms rather than a sail/hump/spaceshutttle/bannana/refrigirator/whatever on your back, just think about it for a moment. Almost everything you do in your life requires those long, flexible arms you have. With tiny arms, you coul dbarely even eat your cereal, and you'd have to put your face in the bowl in order to do it. With a sail/hump/spoon/Tiger/atomic bomb/whatever on your back, there would be a couple of things that wouldn't be easy, but you could still do them, unlike with your tiny Rex arms. Not to mention, that's simply your opinion. It has nothing to do with whether T.rex wins or Spino wins. |
![]() |
|
| Vita | May 22 2013, 07:30 AM Post #2515 |
![]()
Cave Canem
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For post ever here. I voted to the t-rex just because it's a t-rex. Deal with it. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 22 2013, 07:39 PM Post #2516 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
After 2500 posts that topic is now getting visitors from the guys who don't post in dino related topics… That topic became really long. Anyway, nice "suprise attack" (am I allowed to call it like that?) Vita. I hope the others don't take it too seriously. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, May 22 2013, 07:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 22 2013, 07:42 PM Post #2517 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm sorry, but isn't that a type of bias? Rooting for one side just because it's(or has) a particular something? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 22 2013, 07:44 PM Post #2518 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That wasn't ment to be serious. |
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | May 22 2013, 07:54 PM Post #2519 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry, I was in a bad mood. |
![]() |
|
| Vita | May 22 2013, 09:57 PM Post #2520 |
![]()
Cave Canem
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, I'm completely out of my element here but I lurk occasionally. |
![]() |
|
| 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