| 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 (459,197 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: | |
|---|---|
| Vobby | Oct 19 2013, 02:36 AM Post #2761 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Google traslate is deceiving you... In this situation, is not the method to be falsifiable, the estimates it produces are, and, right now, they are not falsified yet (probably also becouse we lack knoledge about some theropods, and in particular about Spinosaurus, like you said). The method (the mathematical relation) produced good estimates for some theropods, listed in the study, suggesting that the method is at least a little valid. Obviously no one can expect such a method to produce precise estimates. To make the estimates produced by the method the best possibile, Cau agreed with Mortimer in saying that to realize the functions different clades of theropoda should be used, using also the most reliable reconstruction, not other estimates from fragmentary fossils. To use such a method with Mammalia would be idiotic becouse we have right now a lot of relatives of extinct mammalians, and this could help more than a mathematical relation in producing good reconstructions. For the same reason, this method is useless within Tyrannosauridae, for example, becouse we have a lot of good fossils from different species, so it is easier to reconstruct an incomplete fossil. But, dealing with a group of theropods from which we lack any complete skeletons, using this kind of method should be better than just guessing, or than using reconstruction based on other unsure reconstruction of different species. Of course, the method should be improved with the changes listed above. The mathematical relation found by therrien & henderson seems valid for Baryonyx, and this is the best indication that it at least could be valid fro Spinosaurus too. Anyway, I'm starting to thig that this kind of debate is useless, at least untile some scientist finds some "more bloody fossil". |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 19 2013, 03:28 AM Post #2762 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But won't it be better then to make such statistics for the families and not for the whole clade? It would still be extremely unprecise, but it at least would be less overgeneralizing. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 19 2013, 03:53 AM Post #2763 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the answer is no, since there are clades which don't need such a statistich, like Tyrannosauridae, while there are clades for which is impossible to do such a statistich, becouse we lack fossils, like spinosaurids. It is for them that this kind of method could result a little usefull, I guess. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 19 2013, 04:01 AM Post #2764 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For the better known family, such a statistic would be useful for the fragmentary taxa there (every family has some less known species). |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 19 2013, 04:04 AM Post #2765 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Uhm, you're probably right, but maybe for the taxa of better known family it is better to realize a skeletal reconstruction basing on the relatives than using mathematical relations. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Oct 19 2013, 09:18 PM Post #2766 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But there is still nothing valid about the whole thing if the sample is biased. Relying on a big number of data is an advantage, but it is nullified if those data are incorrect or not related to what you want to estimate. In the caser of Baryonyx and Suchomimus, the produced estimates are actually off for a considerable margin compared to the estimates made for the specimens individually. I prefer a restoration and tentative reconstruction based on the closest analogies over a generalised formula (the same problem as with estimating body lenght from skull lenmght in all of Mammalia, bowhead whales would end up godzilla-sized at the very least), even if related animals happen to be incomplete. |
![]() |
|
| ArachnidKid | Oct 23 2013, 01:33 PM Post #2767 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Most that happen believe it would win honestly don't know this about the animal, almost as though they turn the other cheek to avoid it |
![]() |
|
| Arovinrac | Oct 24 2013, 03:16 AM Post #2768 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if a spinosaurus was quadrupedal and 15 metres long and 20 tonnes it could survive but i don't believe the spinosaurus was quadrupedal |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Oct 29 2013, 02:56 AM Post #2769 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, Spinosaurus' anatomy doesn't suggest a quadrupedal life style. For the fight, I would favour Spinosaurus oer T. rex. At parity, T. rex wins without a doubt, but this is no way a parity. Spinosaurus is 13 tonnes while Tyrannosaurus is "only" 8 tonnes which makes Spinosaurus much bigger. Size also means strength, which makes Spinosaurus obviously stronger than Tyrannosaurus rex. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Oct 29 2013, 03:57 AM Post #2770 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not exactly "is". 13 tons isn't confirmed, only possibility. But i would favour this animal, if it was really that big. Edited by 7Alx, Oct 29 2013, 04:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Oct 31 2013, 09:23 AM Post #2771 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/2013/10/fenomenologia-del-grande-conflitto.html&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8 The opinion of a certain paleontologist about this match and this whole section... |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Oct 31 2013, 11:18 PM Post #2772 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can understand his viewpoint, but I don't think his caricature of the Spinosaurus supporters was necessary. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Nov 1 2013, 09:56 PM Post #2773 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lol, I presume much of the humour probably got lost in the translation, but still that's a truly funny post! |
![]() |
|
| Drift | Nov 3 2013, 04:15 PM Post #2774 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
IMO you're taking his opinion personally with the 'spinosaur supporters being spearheaded' approach to this. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Nov 3 2013, 07:34 PM Post #2775 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Vobby said the post was directed towards this section, so the Spino supporters are seemingly some of the posters here and they are not that bad (although there are terrible Spinosaurus fanboys elsewhere). |
![]() |
|
| 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