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 (459,210 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Carcharodontosauridae
Jun 13 2013, 02:53 AM
theropod
Jun 13 2013, 02:33 AM
Carcharodontosauridae
Jun 13 2013, 12:07 AM
theropod
Jun 12 2013, 11:43 PM
While I'm fine with this lenght, I would be cautious both about the skull lenght of the holotype, and the 20% that MNSM is supposedly larger. I doubt both to be honest:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2pQrrXWV1W0/UPLKH-2av2I/AAAAAAAABhY/eHzp8Zxdhb8/s512/Spinosaurus_skull_MSNM%2520V4047%2526holotype.jpg

Also, the "Suchomimus" holotype was never said to be a subadult.
But Suchomimus of 11 meters is a subadult. And 20% larger is the only valid statement in the field of paleontology, therefore, I feel that I put my trust.

There is no evidence for that, it's that easy. i tough so too, because it is miscited in many places, but the authors didn't write so. Baryonyx' holotype is the subadult.

20% larger is basically a guess, not based on a tentative reconstruction if I remember right. It is definitely not supported by any evidence in the form of a comparative restoration of the skull's proportions, at least not with the holotype's dentary at 75cm in lenght, which is the most likely based on Stromer's figures.
The strange thing about the holotype are the enourmous vertebrae, which based on Baryonyx are already indicative of a larger size than the majority of estimates for MNSM V4047. Maybe the skull size was really proportionally smaller in the holotype, which explains the relatively short dentary?


Jinfengopteryx
Jun 13 2013, 12:34 AM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 12 2013, 11:04 PM
I won't even bother, he believes that there is actually a length limit(13 meters) for theropods.
Show me where he has said so (or better quote it)! After you guys have put the "he accused Dal Sasso of having used Tyrannosaurus for his estimates" thing into his mouth, I'm going to be more skeptical.
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 12 2013, 11:04 PM
The only thing I agree with him on is that Sciurumimus is a coelurosaur
I hope I'm allowed to remind you that he only tends towards believing that (LINK).

P.S. I hope you know that he doesn't deny feathered non-coelurosaurs:
Quote:
 
In conclusion, although I support the hypothesis that even megalosauroidi can have some kind of proto-feathers at the same time I do not consider Sciurumimus evidence in favor of this, and I think most parsimonious interpret this new theropode coelurosauro much as a baseline.
Source

When was Cau accused of accusing Dal Sasso of using tyrannosaurs? Dal Sasso obviously didn't, it was rather Cau who used such unrelated taxa as a basis for proportions, to deduce his 12,5m figure.

Your citation:

"That's BS, it's just a hypothetical adult size as the holotype, 11m long, was subadult. No scientist I know of has ever given an adult size for it, I merely know it was suggested to be approximately on par with some other giant theropods. "

From this:

http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9867648/1/
The profiles are copied from Wikipedia, outdated versions of the articles to top it all. They are no scientific proof, neither was there any.

Of couse you are free to see whether the official description, which as far as I know is the only descriptive paper ever published on "Suchomimus tenerensis" contains a notion of subadult or any other growth related statement. Searching for the words "grown" "subadult" and "juvenile" yields no results. the authors do not seem to suggest it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Super Kaizer Ghidorah
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Posted Image

Here's your winner!



Tyrannosaurus weighs up to 7 tons. But some exceed 9 tons
Spino is 10-12 tons. Max 14 tons.

Tyrannosaurus has a better bite and sharp foot claws sharper and longer than spino's, His head has lots of muscle too. Spino has a vulnerable area other than the neck, the spines!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Super Kaizer Ghidorah
Jun 20 2013, 11:11 AM
Posted Image

Here's your winner!



Tyrannosaurus weighs up to 7 tons. But some exceed 9 tons
Spino is 10-12 tons. Max 14 tons.

Tyrannosaurus has a better bite and sharp foot claws sharper and longer than spino's, His head has lots of muscle too. Spino has a vulnerable area other than the neck, the spines!
*Gulp* Is that dinosaur?
Foot claws are of no use in fights with large theropods, something that Tyrannosaurus fans seem utterly incapable of comprehending. They also seem unable to wrap their minds around the fact that the foot claws of Spinosaurus haven't been discovered and that they were most likely larger, anyway. Having a "head with lots of muscle" is also irrelevant. A 6.4 ton animal isn't going to knock a 10-12 ton one over by headbutting it, not easily anyway.
Breaking the neural spines would cause nothing but pain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Super Kaizer Ghidorah
Jun 20 2013, 11:11 AM
Posted Image

Here's your winner!



Tyrannosaurus weighs up to 7 tons. But some exceed 9 tons
Spino is 10-12 tons. Max 14 tons.

Tyrannosaurus has a better bite and sharp foot claws sharper and longer than spino's, His head has lots of muscle too. Spino has a vulnerable area other than the neck, the spines!
Lets see what of this post is true/relevant:

1: T.rex has a better bite.
2: Weight, mostly.
3: How about nothing else?

9 tons for T.rex is kinda pushing it, especially seeing as most of the "Bigger than Sue" Rexes where overestimated.
Maximum of 14 tons for Spino is quite light for a Theropod that large. An 18 meter Spino would probably be around 16 tons.
Footclaws? Please. First of all, Spino's footclaws haven't been found. And if we find them, they'll probably be larger than T.rex's. Second, These are multi-ton Theropods. They're not gonna be kicking each other. The only way the footclaws can be used is if one knocks the other on the ground, in which case it would already be pretty much over for the Dinosaur now on the ground, whether it's opponent has footclaws or not. Not to mention, we both know who is most likely to knock it's opponent on the ground. If you don't, here's a hint: It's really frickin huge.
A more muscular head? Yes, due to it's larger jaw muscles, which is also covered by the better bite thing.
Lastly, the spines are not a weakness. T.rex can hit them all it likes, Spino isn't gonna die from breaking them. The only thing that will happen is it getting hurt in a similar way you'd get hurt if you broke your tailbone. Not to mention, how on earth is T.rex going to reach the spines? The only way that would happen is if it got Spino on the ground (Which will be really difficult), or if the Spinosaurus is so stupid it basically presents itself as a tasty snack (Which is not gonna happen.).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Super Kaizer Ghidorah
Jun 20 2013, 11:11 AM
Posted Image

Here's your winner!



Tyrannosaurus weighs up to 7 tons. But some exceed 9 tons
Spino is 10-12 tons. Max 14 tons.

Tyrannosaurus has a better bite and sharp foot claws sharper and longer than spino's, His head has lots of muscle too. Spino has a vulnerable area other than the neck, the spines!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This one is MUCH better:

Posted Image

Please ignore "Super Kaizer Ghidorah" and move on. He simply refuses to learn.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 23 2013, 02:09 PM
Please ignore "Super Kaizer Ghidorah" and move on. He simply refuses to learn.
I agree, we shouldn't feed him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shaochilong
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 23 2013, 02:09 PM
This one is MUCH better:

Posted Image

Please ignore "Super Kaizer Ghidorah" and move on. He simply refuses to learn.
Did you draw that? That's quite good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else think S. marocanus is a separate species?
IMO, S. maroccanus vs. Tyrannosaurus = 50/50 and S. aegyptiacus vs. Tyrannosaurus = 55/45 to 60/40 for Spinosaurus.
If S. maroccanus = an average-sized S. aegyptiacus then it's 50/50.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lord of the Allosaurs
Jun 23 2013, 08:28 PM
Does anyone else think S. marocanus is a separate species?
It looks like more authors think it was a distinct species than vice versa:
Quote:
 
Some materials have been assigned to a distinct genus, S. maroccanus (Russell 1996; Taquet & Russell 1998), but other workers have subsumed this within S. aegyptiacus (Sereno et al. 1998).
M. T. Carrano, R. B. J. Benson, S. D. Sampson: The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). In: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 10, Nr. 2, 2012, S. 243
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lord of the Allosaurs
Jun 23 2013, 08:28 PM
brolyeuphyfusion
Jun 23 2013, 02:09 PM
This one is MUCH better:

Posted Image

Please ignore "Super Kaizer Ghidorah" and move on. He simply refuses to learn.
Did you draw that? That's quite good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else think S. marocanus is a separate species?
IMO, S. maroccanus vs. Tyrannosaurus = 50/50 and S. aegyptiacus vs. Tyrannosaurus = 55/45 to 60/40 for Spinosaurus.
If S. maroccanus = an average-sized S. aegyptiacus then it's 50/50.
Yes, I drew it. No direct reference to boot.

See my DeviantART gallery(there's a link to my DA page in my profile) and that image is there.

And I think S. maroccanus is a separate species.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think there is no reason for S. maroccannus being a distinct species. Dal Sasso also considers it the same as aegyptiacus.
I think the maroccannus specimens are just small or immature individuals of the same species. Spinosaurs were probably r-strategists with a high immature mortality rate
Besides, the Holotype of S. maroccannus is a mid cervical vertebra slightly larger than the mid cervical in the S. aegyptiacus holotype, which in turn is about double the size of Baryonyx, so it isn't small at all. I have already theorized the Spinosaurus holotype may consist of two individuals, the vertebrae of a larger one than the dentary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Verdugo
Jan 27 2013, 06:37 PM
And Spinosaurus is only 14m. Cau has DEBUNKED it. If you don't know what "debunk" means, go search google for it, i wouldn't waste my times explaining that
Late reply, but Verdugo's point has been destroyed, completely.

1 - Cau's Spinosaurus is ~15 meters when going by axial length.
2 - Scott Hartman came up with ~15.6 meter Spinosaurus, and even mentions that roughly ~17 meters(~55 feet) is possible.
3 - Cau did not debunk anything, you are just extremely biased you Tyrannosaurus fanboy, just admit that Spinosaurus is the winner.

If you say that Cau has debunked anything I can say that Scott Hartman debunked him.

There is also a statement from Scott Hartman stating that MSNM V4047 is much larger than Sue.


shartman
 
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lord of the Allosaurs
Jun 23 2013, 10:48 AM
Super Kaizer Ghidorah
Jun 20 2013, 11:11 AM
Posted Image

Here's your winner!



Tyrannosaurus weighs up to 7 tons. But some exceed 9 tons
Spino is 10-12 tons. Max 14 tons.

Tyrannosaurus has a better bite and sharp foot claws sharper and longer than spino's, His head has lots of muscle too. Spino has a vulnerable area other than the neck, the spines!
*Gulp* Is that dinosaur?
Foot claws are of no use in fights with large theropods, something that Tyrannosaurus fans seem utterly incapable of comprehending. They also seem unable to wrap their minds around the fact that the foot claws of Spinosaurus haven't been discovered and that they were most likely larger, anyway. Having a "head with lots of muscle" is also irrelevant. A 6.4 ton animal isn't going to knock a 10-12 ton one over by headbutting it, not easily anyway.
Breaking the neural spines would cause nothing but pain.
6.4 tons is a outdated estimate for Tyrannosaurus, more like to ~ 8 tons. But for the rest I agree with you, Spinosaurus take this 75-80 % of the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
brolyeuphyfusion
Jul 1 2013, 08:06 PM
Hartman said "would" (as possibility but big possibility here) , rather than alone "is" (as 100 % fact).

Nothing against 10+ ton Spinosaurus would win often than not against any known theropod though. I suspect that Verdugo more likely underrate carnosaurs and spinosaurids rather than being an mega-hyper fanboy of T. rex. Although he overrated it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
He's both, but luckily he's also inactive. His posts simply made you laugh, too much to even properly reply. Don't evenr ead the BS he states about Allosaurus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.