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 (459,205 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:
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillasaurus
Sep 6 2013, 11:53 AM
Please, let's keep this simple, most of us can agree that at least carcharodontosaurus grew larger than tyrannosaurus. I am not going to fish through every carcharodontosaurus or tyrannosaurus thread trying to find evidence that tyrannosaurus was larger, so unless I can be flat out convinced that tyrannosaurus grew to larger sizes than carcharodontosaurus saharicus, then I am supporting the fact that the carnosaur grew to larger sizes.
You know that it would be as well possible to ask for flat out convincing evidence that Carcharodontosaurus was larger?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thesporerex
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillasaurus
Sep 6 2013, 11:53 AM
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus wins against any therpod now, its too big its got a massive size advantage


This is just against tyrannosaurus. If the largest spinosaurus holotype was facing off against the largest carcharodontosaurus or possibly giganotosaurus holotype, the latter would have a much greater chance of coming out victorious than the rex.

Please, let's keep this simple, most of us can agree that at least carcharodontosaurus grew larger than tyrannosaurus. I am not going to fish through every carcharodontosaurus or tyrannosaurus thread trying to find evidence that tyrannosaurus was larger, so unless I can be flat out convinced that tyrannosaurus grew to larger sizes than carcharodontosaurus saharicus, then I am supporting the fact that the carnosaur grew to larger sizes.
How would carcharodontosaurus and giganotosaurus have a better chance than T-rex and why even bring up those carnosaurs? They are irelivant to the topic at hand. Most people on this website trust the 13 metre estimate for Carcharodontosaurus saharicus but sue would still be heavier due to it being more bulky. Scott hartman has already shown that sue is heavier than the largest giganotosaurus by 0.2 tons which was 13.2 metres long. Carcharodontosaurus is also more gracile than giganotosaurus so it would weight even less, about 8 tons imo. But that is just my guess using MUCPv-95 as refferance.
Edited by thesporerex, Sep 7 2013, 04:56 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godzillasaurus
Reptile King
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
thesporerex
Sep 7 2013, 04:29 AM
Godzillasaurus
Sep 6 2013, 11:53 AM
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus wins against any therpod now, its too big its got a massive size advantage


This is just against tyrannosaurus. If the largest spinosaurus holotype was facing off against the largest carcharodontosaurus or possibly giganotosaurus holotype, the latter would have a much greater chance of coming out victorious than the rex.

Please, let's keep this simple, most of us can agree that at least carcharodontosaurus grew larger than tyrannosaurus. I am not going to fish through every carcharodontosaurus or tyrannosaurus thread trying to find evidence that tyrannosaurus was larger, so unless I can be flat out convinced that tyrannosaurus grew to larger sizes than carcharodontosaurus saharicus, then I am supporting the fact that the carnosaur grew to larger sizes.
How would carcharodontosaurus and giganotosaurus have a better chance than T-rex and why even bring up those carnosaurs? They are irelivant to the topic at hand. Most people on this website trust the 13 metre estimate for Carcharodontosaurus saharicus but sue would still be heavier due to it being more bulky. Scott hartman has already shown that sue is heavier than the largest giganotosaurus by 0.2 tons which was 13.2 metres long. Carcharodontosaurus is also more gracile than giganotosaurus so it would weight even less, about 8 tons imo. But that is just my guess using MUCPv-95 as refferance.
You need to realize that, even if carnosaurs are irrelevant in this thread, you need to keep in mind that the size estimates sometimes point to tyrannosaurus being smaller than carcharodontosaurus and giganotosaurus. Carcharodontosaurus may have grown larger than giganotosaurus, and you don't really have any solid proof that carcharo was more gracile than giganotosaurus, do you? Do you ever ask why I hate size estimates so much, well there's your reason right there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Composite Gojira
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Quote:
 
There is no way a 17/18 meter Spinosaurus only has a "50/50" chance against a T.Rex.

The weight advantage there going by isometric scaling would be AT LEAST a couple of multiples.

At this scale, that kind of size disparity is not conquerable. By the square-cube law, the T.Rex is going to have broken ribs from simply colliding bodies with the much more massive animal.

The agility factor at this scale is also non-existent. Neither can outflank each other before a head-on bodily contact is made. In which case, the T.Rex will be knocked down. That is an instant win at this scale, as a mere stand-still fall is going to produce deadly g-forces to either animal, only the T.Rex is the one that will fall.


Agreed, don't know what I was thinking writing that, guess I was focused more on the 14-16 size estimate as that's what I believe. :/

My point about size estimates still stands though. I just cannot conclude anything until I get more concrete data. Though it's very well possible that Spinosaurus could have been 17-18 meters based on Baryonyx estimates, I've seen the calculations, it's just that the entire notion of basing it off Baryonyx is dubious as well.

I'd wager a match for a 14-16 meter Spino goes from 60-50 for Rex, and a match against anything above that is 70+ for Spino.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus wins against any therpod now, its too big its got a massive size advantage


This is just against tyrannosaurus. If the largest spinosaurus holotype was facing off against the largest carcharodontosaurus or possibly giganotosaurus holotype, the latter would have a much greater chance of coming out victorious than the rex.

Please, let's keep this simple, most of us can agree that at least carcharodontosaurus grew larger than tyrannosaurus. I am not going to fish through every carcharodontosaurus or tyrannosaurus thread trying to find evidence that tyrannosaurus was larger, so unless I can be flat out convinced that tyrannosaurus grew to larger sizes than carcharodontosaurus saharicus, then I am supporting the fact that the carnosaur grew to larger sizes.


I hate size estimate disputes, which is why I just stick to following a single source that I trust- and that's Hartman. As of late he's been claiming Tyrannosaurus would have a size advantage, and I'm willing to believe that. He'd be considered reliable sourcing on objective terms anyway so... :/
Edited by Composite Gojira, Sep 11 2013, 01:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Composite Gojira
Sep 11 2013, 11:34 AM
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus wins against any therpod now, its too big its got a massive size advantage


This is just against tyrannosaurus. If the largest spinosaurus holotype was facing off against the largest carcharodontosaurus or possibly giganotosaurus holotype, the latter would have a much greater chance of coming out victorious than the rex.

Please, let's keep this simple, most of us can agree that at least carcharodontosaurus grew larger than tyrannosaurus. I am not going to fish through every carcharodontosaurus or tyrannosaurus thread trying to find evidence that tyrannosaurus was larger, so unless I can be flat out convinced that tyrannosaurus grew to larger sizes than carcharodontosaurus saharicus, then I am supporting the fact that the carnosaur grew to larger sizes.


I hate size estimate disputes, which is why I just stick to following a single source that I trust- and that's Hartman. As of late he's been claiming Tyrannosaurus would have a size advantage, and I'm willing to believe that. He'd be considered reliable sourcing on objective terms anyway so... :/
I have never seen any statement from Scott Hartman that involves any comparison involving Carcharodontosaurus. I think you confused it with his Giganotosaurus comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
That is true; but then again unless proven otherwise Carcharodontosaurus must be considered to be of similar size to Giganotosaurus due to the similar size of their known remains, so the point sort of remains (although the 200kg difference between Sue and MUCPv-95 that Hartman estimated is pretty negligible in animals weighing over 8 tonnes).

Why Godzillasaurus felt the need to once again bring this up in the first place is another matter.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Sep 12 2013, 12:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Sep 12 2013, 12:17 AM
unless proven otherwise Carcharodontosaurus must be considered to be of similar size to Giganotosaurus
Hater. "Can" is acceptable and is actually the more correct term to use, the "must" in your statement implies that it should be taken as a fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Don't try and turn this into another pointless size debate between animals not even relevant to the thread. If you have reasonable evidence that the larger estimates are the more accurate ones, by all means post it in a relevant thread, but without any contrary evidence the default standpoint is what I previously stated.
Edited by Spinodontosaurus, Sep 12 2013, 12:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Sep 12 2013, 12:28 AM
Don't try and turn this into another pointless size debate between animals not even relevant to the thread. If you have reasonable evidence that the larger estimates are the more accurate ones, by all means post it in a relevant thread, but without any contrary evidence the default standpoint is what I previously stated.
You are stating that the only acceptable estimates are Giganotosaurus-based ones. You seem to viciously oppose any alternative methods, such as Acrocanthosaurus-based estimates and others.

I am not stating that the larger ones are more accurate, I'm addressing the issue that you're implying that anything other than a Giganotosaurus-based estimate for Carcharodontosaurus is foolish. I'm really getting the impression that you're a Carcharodontosaurus hater.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
So do you have valid reasons for why Carcharodontosaurus should not be considered to be similar in size to Giganotosaurus? No? Then where is the issue? I'm not being dragged into another one of these useless debates (because your opinion will never change anyway). Like I said, if there is evidence that they shouldn't be considered similar in size by default, post it in a relevant thread. Otherwise the default point stands. This is no different to any other case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SpinoInWonderland
The madness has come back...
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Sep 12 2013, 12:48 AM
Otherwise the default point stands
There is NO default point.

You don't just resort to some predefined mandatory explanation when other explanations don't meet your taste.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
You are hopeless. Call it the best estimate if you will, my point stands. Now if you are done trying to derail the thread, how about posting something relevant to the actual topic?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Teratophoneus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
SpinoInWonderland
Sep 12 2013, 12:20 AM
Spinodontosaurus
Sep 12 2013, 12:17 AM
unless proven otherwise Carcharodontosaurus must be considered to be of similar size to Giganotosaurus
Hater. "Can" is acceptable and is actually the more correct term to use, the "must" in your statement implies that it should be taken as a fact.
Spoiler: click to toggle


Spinosaurus is the winner here. Spinosaurus is likely too big for T.rex, and most of the argoments used by T.rex fanboy against Spinosaurus were completely made up - septic bite [!], T.rex being 9 t+ while Spinosaurus only 4-6 t [!!] and a fragile sail that if it breaks Spinosaurus dies [!!!].
Edited by Teratophoneus, Sep 12 2013, 03:38 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Composite Gojira
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
SpinoInWonderland
Sep 12 2013, 12:00 AM
Composite Gojira
Sep 11 2013, 11:34 AM
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Spinosaurus wins against any therpod now, its too big its got a massive size advantage


This is just against tyrannosaurus. If the largest spinosaurus holotype was facing off against the largest carcharodontosaurus or possibly giganotosaurus holotype, the latter would have a much greater chance of coming out victorious than the rex.

Please, let's keep this simple, most of us can agree that at least carcharodontosaurus grew larger than tyrannosaurus. I am not going to fish through every carcharodontosaurus or tyrannosaurus thread trying to find evidence that tyrannosaurus was larger, so unless I can be flat out convinced that tyrannosaurus grew to larger sizes than carcharodontosaurus saharicus, then I am supporting the fact that the carnosaur grew to larger sizes.


I hate size estimate disputes, which is why I just stick to following a single source that I trust- and that's Hartman. As of late he's been claiming Tyrannosaurus would have a size advantage, and I'm willing to believe that. He'd be considered reliable sourcing on objective terms anyway so... :/
I have never seen any statement from Scott Hartman that involves any comparison involving Carcharodontosaurus. I think you confused it with his Giganotosaurus comparison.
My mistake, you're correct.

Regardless, this are my final thoughts on this battle:

17+ meter Spinosaurus: Definite win for Spino, but I don't buy this one.
15-16 meter Spinosaurus: 50/50, would lean slightly towards Rex for 15 meters, would slightly lean towards Spino for 16 meters.
14 meter Spinosaurus: Rex by a small margin.
Andrea Cau Spinosaurus: Rex by massive margins, but that's not real at all. While the 17 meter Spino is possible (but I just don't imagine it that way), Cau's estimates are completely off.

So at similar sizes I believe Rex takes it, but if we take the upper size estimates for both animals, Spino wins with ease.

Can't the Spino/Rex fanboys just meet in the middle?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Godzillasaurus, size estimates being somewhat inconstant doesn't disallow people to debate about the outcome in interspecific conflict.
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.