| 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 (459,200 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: | |
|---|---|
| Verdugo | Oct 15 2013, 04:15 PM Post #2716 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do i miss ? . Can anyone make a summary of the debate ? I don't have much time to read the whole 180 pages of debate (i can't believe it actually reach 180 p). BTW, sr for being absent for so long but i'm really that busy :p, i think i only have enough time to visit the forum probably one per weeks/months/years, not daily like i used to do. Anyway, i'm ready to kick some Spino's fanboys (or Tyrannosaurids's haters) asses, so have any Spino's fanboys come up with new evidences to support their 18m, 20 tonne Super Spiny or just reused Dal Sasso and made up their own "facts and proofs" again and again ??
|
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Oct 15 2013, 08:00 PM Post #2717 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Neither do all other animals apart from humans. All animals have a greater chance to die younge than live to adulthood.
This is true |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Oct 15 2013, 08:11 PM Post #2718 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Welcome back Verdugo, nothing exciting is happening at the momment since 90% of the posts in dinosaur fight section have been people debating Saurophaganax's size for a month now -__- Other than that not much, alot of people have actually switch over and are starting to vote for spinosaurus now, and for the last 10 pages people have been discussing estimates from various people for both T. rex and Spinosaurus.
, most people now agree that Spinosaurus was actually 15-16 metre 11.5-13 ton giant though. So no 18 metre Spinosaurus now. Also various members got banned while you were gone like ursus panthera, black ice, godzillasaurus and fragimilus. Alot of people became inactive aswell like you, cannis warrior, shadow predator, apex and super predator but super predator,apex and cannis warrior has recently came back and if anyone is wondering super predator is now lurking around the sports section for now on. This is the very basic run down of what has happened on Carnivoria since you became inactive since the start of the year. Other than that welcome back to carnivoria. Edited by thesporerex, Oct 15 2013, 08:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Oct 15 2013, 08:26 PM Post #2719 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You know what's funny? I've envisioned a scenario when various long inactive members start posting again. It seems it's actually happening now. Oh and the member known as dinosaur was a trolling T.rex fanboy who got banned too. |
![]() |
|
| thesporerex | Oct 15 2013, 08:41 PM Post #2720 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is true and thank god its happening, carnivoria has been very quiet for a while now. |
![]() |
|
| Verdugo | Oct 16 2013, 12:29 AM Post #2721 |
![]()
Large Carnivores Enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Then i don't get it, i though it is quite obvious who win here, have anyone read Cau's new estimate ? (If not, i can post some of it) Cau has tried many methods and the result for Spino is not much than 14m. At 14m maximum, Spino should weight just as much as an adult T rex (i've posted Holtz, Dave Hone and many methods claim T rex to be 8+ tonnes), i don't see why Spino should win here For the 2 tonne Spino's bite force, it's a load of craps. Dr. Sakamato has STATED that Spino has the weakest bite force (when against similar size Carcharodontosaurids like Giga or Carchar and Tyrannosaurids like T rex) (in 2013) and he said completely nothing about the unpublished Spino's bite force paper
13 tonnes is still very big though. Let's see what Cau says about the 12+ tonne Spinosaurus
^ This is Google Translate from Italian -> English
What did they do ?? I don't like Fragillimus, but getting banned is still a little bit too rough. Especially Black Ice, first Vodmeister get banned now Black Ice, those guys are some of the best members in our forum (and i've never had any conflict with them though ).
It seems like a mass extinction since then BTW, have i met you before ?. Are you a new member or just an old member that change your name ?. If not, nice to meet you , if you are a fan of T rex, you will be my best dude
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 16 2013, 01:24 AM Post #2722 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Still the same old Cau worshiper. How about Scott Hartman's even newer ~15.6 meter Spinosaurus? ![]() And Cau's Spinosaurus is ~15 meters along the curves, the ~14.4-meter estimate was standing length. I don't debate this anymore, I'm sick and tired of this debate, but I at least expected you to learn something. I will just say that Tapinocephalus rules and crushes both of those overrated theropods. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 16 2013, 01:24 AM Post #2723 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, if you read the last 3 or 4 pages you can read what other members think about Cau's posts. I'm completely with you and Cau, as I posted some page ago. I suppose you are italian too, right? Edit: I was talking to Verdugo if it's not clear. Edited by Vobby, Oct 16 2013, 01:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| SpinoInWonderland | Oct 16 2013, 01:27 AM Post #2724 |
|
The madness has come back...
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This will be my last post here. Why are people so fond of Cau's estimates? There are other estimates as well. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 16 2013, 01:32 AM Post #2725 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Verdugo, where've you been? Anyway, did you just repeat all the stuff you stated months ago? Cau's estimates for Spinosaurus are nothing but a peculiarity, virtually all other rigorous figures agree it was bigger. I think I adressed most of the points Cau made multiple times, not too far back in this thread. Hartman's estimate has further strengthened that position. There is no proper scientific reason why a 12t biped should be impossible, just guess. There is no proper scientific reason why all theropods should have maxed at 13m, just estimates made as low as possible for the already tiny samples we have. There are reasons shown by Hartman, Quilong, Dal Sasso and others as to why his skull reconstructions are likely too short. And the holotype is a mere subadult, which makes a comparison of it's vertebrae to those of Baryonyx non-representative. And by what logic is an animal no bigger than another animal if the former's subadult has longer vertebrae with bigger centra and much taller neural spines? Sakamoto didn't make any bite force estimate for Spinosaurus. 2t bases on his own figure for Baryonyx and RELIABLE figures (the skull restorations produced by Scott Hartman, the skull of the NHM Baryonyx, and yes, my own restoration that is in agreement with the others), and it is in full agreement with the askabiologist-answer you posted: (1,8/1)²*380=1 231kg (1.8/0.91)²*380=1 487kg Considering it's overally more robust snout structure (broader rostrum, much deeper dentary, fewer and bigger, thicker teeth), 2t is realistic. Even if it wasn't, the whole point was that <1t is a mere hater's allegation, not more. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 16 2013, 01:33 AM Post #2726 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Probably Cau sounds more convincing. In Sereno et al. the size estimate is just a liberal suggestion, while Scott Hartmans works are more pieces of art than actual restorations. And Cau's estimate is not the only one giving a size of 12-13 metres by the way. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 16 2013, 01:39 AM Post #2727 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quilong? In google scholar I found nothing searching "quilong spinosaurus". And, about the subadult thing, I asked Cau about that, he said that this is just a myth, and provided some good reasons, it is in Spinosaurus profile. (Tapinocephalus wins for sure, BTW) |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 16 2013, 02:19 AM Post #2728 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now the thread is going to get even longer (a new hardcore debate). Anyway, welcome back! |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 16 2013, 03:30 AM Post #2729 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
WTF? Hartman's works "more pieces of art than actual restorations"? No. Just NO! @Topic: @quilong=Jaime Headden I found his posts on "the Bite Stuff" to be quite informative, even tough most people are not even aware of them. What "Sereno et al"? And why the hell should Cau's work be more convincing? That's what is a liberal suggestion, based on assumptions about proportions that nobody else agrees with for good reasons. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 16 2013, 05:41 AM Post #2730 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pardon, I meant Dal Sasso. Can you provide me another article/post/paper about Spinosaurus size? I've seen Hartman and read Dal Sasso, but I think you know more than me about this. |
![]() |
|
| 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)





. Can anyone make a summary of the debate ? I don't have much time to read the whole 180 pages of debate (i can't believe it actually reach 180 p). BTW, sr for being absent for so long but i'm really that busy :p, i think i only have enough time to visit the forum probably one per weeks/months/years, not daily like i used to do.
, most people now agree that Spinosaurus was actually 15-16 metre 11.5-13 ton giant though. So no 18 metre Spinosaurus now.



2:23 AM Jul 14