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 (459,193 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:
Megalosauroid
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
blaze
Nov 22 2013, 11:37 AM
Maybe he did but used more than one vertebra, who knows, also, I don't know why but Hartman's Baryonyx does have a long tail at 54% of total length compared to his Suchomimus and Spinosaurus that have a tail 50% of total length, that might have affected your comparison.

T. rex old reconstructions were that long mostly because of extra long tails or plain exaggeration, the Field Museum always claimed that Sue was 12.8m long but they never measured it, which became obvious when the axial length was measured from laser scans in 2011.

Giganotosaurus actual original estimate for the holotype was 12.5m and it has pretty much stayed there since then, only the press were giving it 13-14m, the same goes for the skull, it was originally estimated at 1.53m and most authors seem to have rounded it up to "about 1.6m", the hyperelongated doesn't-look-like-any-of-its-relatives 1.8m skull is pretty much a hunch of Novas and up to this day he still claims Giganotosaurus had a 1.8-1.95m long skull.

Another example is Allosaurus, back in the 1970s, it was up to 12m long, and 4.5m tall, but it was 4.5m tall in godzilla pose as the 12m long claim is based on a composite reconstruction that by the own admission of the author had a leg a length just shy of 2m.

mmm I think we've talked before, are you Megalosaurid in deviantart?
Thev tail is restored differently, but we must not take seriously the estimates based on fragmentary specimens.
I Heard estimates for Giganotosaurus from old books and they round 13-14 m, It was just the tail length that changed but because we have an almost 70% complete skeleton.

Using Baryonyx or Suchomimus to get a size estimate for Spinosaurus would be like using Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus to get a size estimate for Tyrannosaurus, I hope we will find a skeleton of an irritator son.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megalosauroid
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
blaze
Nov 22 2013, 11:37 AM
Maybe he did but used more than one vertebra, who knows, also, I don't know why but Hartman's Baryonyx does have a long tail at 54% of total length compared to his Suchomimus and Spinosaurus that have a tail 50% of total length, that might have affected your comparison. <br /><br />T. rex old reconstructions were that long mostly because of extra long tails or plain exaggeration, the Field Museum always claimed that Sue was 12.8m long but they never measured it, which became obvious when the axial length was measured from laser scans in 2011.<br /><br />Giganotosaurus actual original estimate for the holotype was 12.5m and it has pretty much stayed there since then, only the press were giving it 13-14m, the same goes for the skull, it was originally estimated at 1.53m and most authors seem to have rounded it up to "about 1.6m", the hyperelongated doesn't-look-like-any-of-its-relatives 1.8m skull is pretty much a hunch of Novas and up to this day he still claims Giganotosaurus had a 1.8-1.95m long skull. <br /><br />Another example is Allosaurus, back in the 1970s, it was up to 12m long, and 4.5m tall, but it was 4.5m tall in godzilla pose as the 12m long claim is based on a composite reconstruction that by the own admission of the author had a leg a length just shy of 2m. <br /><br />mmm I think we've talked before, are you Megalosaurid in deviantart?
Thev tail is restored differently, but we must not take seriously the estimates based on fragmentary specimens.
I Heard estimates for Giganotosaurus from old books and they round 13-14 m, It was just the tail length that changed but because we have an almost 70% complete skeleton.

Using Baryonyx or Suchomimus to get a size estimate for Spinosaurus would be like using Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus to get a size estimate for Tyrannosaurus, I hope we will find a skeleton of an irritator son.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megalosauroid
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Spinodontosaurus
Nov 22 2013, 04:12 PM
Quote:
 
It is actually 1.467 m in pmx-Occ length and 1.54 m in Pmx-Qj length, the mandible length is even longer at 1.567 m and the body length about 14 m, so based on that an animal with a 1.48 m long skull (In Pmx-Qj length) would measure 13.1 m and not 14.

The skeletal on DeviantArt is 93px from Pmx-Qj, with a 63px scale bar, thus 147.6cm. This is from an individual he himself states to be 14 meters long. In any case this is meaningless, because as has already been stated, total skull length is not the deciding factor.

And because spinosaurines and baryonychines have totally different rear portions of the skull, you can't really compare them. Baryonychines have rather typical backwards swept quadratojugals, so the Pmx-Qj measurements is essentially the same as Pmx-Squamosal. In spinosaurines this isn't the case.

Hartman's Spinosaurus is not a up-scaled version of either Baryonyx or Suchomimus; why do you continue to treat it as such? It is the same as any skeletal of fragmentary species, the gaps between known elements are filled in based on material from related species. That the general proportions end up being somewhat close to the species used as a reference shouldn't be a surprise, nor should it be a surprise that they aren't identical.
Especially with Suchomimus; both it and Spinosaurus are African and lived very close together chronologically, yet they are not the same species nor are they each others' closest relatives, so unsurprisingly their proportions are different.


BTW Blaze, I can't replicate your Spinosaurus torso length. I'm not sure exactly what you have measured as the torso (I usually measure it as the pectoral girdle to the last sacral), but I can replicate Suchomimus' by simply measuring all the dorsals, or by measuring from the pectoral girdle to the illium. When doing this with Spinosaurus, the results are much higher than your 255cm.
So, why is Hartman using the proportions of Baryonychinae spinosaurids if they were so different from Spinosaurus? it is like estimating the body size of a frgamentary T.rex with Albertosaurus or Gorgosaurus...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megalosauroid
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
blaze
Nov 22 2013, 11:37 AM
Maybe he did but used more than one vertebra, who knows, also, I don't know why but Hartman's Baryonyx does have a long tail at 54% of total length compared to his Suchomimus and Spinosaurus that have a tail 50% of total length, that might have affected your comparison.

T. rex old reconstructions were that long mostly because of extra long tails or plain exaggeration, the Field Museum always claimed that Sue was 12.8m long but they never measured it, which became obvious when the axial length was measured from laser scans in 2011.

Giganotosaurus actual original estimate for the holotype was 12.5m and it has pretty much stayed there since then, only the press were giving it 13-14m, the same goes for the skull, it was originally estimated at 1.53m and most authors seem to have rounded it up to "about 1.6m", the hyperelongated doesn't-look-like-any-of-its-relatives 1.8m skull is pretty much a hunch of Novas and up to this day he still claims Giganotosaurus had a 1.8-1.95m long skull.

Another example is Allosaurus, back in the 1970s, it was up to 12m long, and 4.5m tall, but it was 4.5m tall in godzilla pose as the 12m long claim is based on a composite reconstruction that by the own admission of the author had a leg a length just shy of 2m.

mmm I think we've talked before, are you Megalosaurid in deviantart?
Yes, I am Megalosaurid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Megalosauroid
Nov 22 2013, 10:57 PM
So, why is Hartman using the proportions of Baryonychinae spinosaurids if they were so different from Spinosaurus? it is like estimating the body size of a frgamentary T.rex with Albertosaurus or Gorgosaurus...
Because only they are known from complete enough remains. After all, the great white is also used as a basis for Megalodon, despite the fact that the differences there are even far greater than here.
Of course a close relative of Spinosaurus would be better, but even then we'd have great uncertainty. This is the reason why we give estimate ranges.

@Spinodontosaurus, thanks for the correction!
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Nov 22 2013, 11:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
blaze
Nov 22 2013, 08:56 AM
@Vobby
I just did. Hartman's skeletals of

Spinosaurus (holotype)
14.0m total length
6.99m snout-sacrum length
torso lenght 2.55m

Suchomimus
11.65m total length
5.77m snout-sacrum length
torso length 2.14m

Baryonyx
10m total length
4.64m snout-sacrum length
torso length 1.64m
MSMN V4047
As always, I could be wrong on the exact measurements by some centimeters.

@megalosauroid
The measurements above disagree with Hartman's just having based everything on Baryonyx, we don't exactly know what he did but it certainly wasn't as simple as you make it out to be, anyway, why is length so important to you?

btw, I think you measured the skull wrong, Hartman says his versión of MSMN V4047 has a skull 163-164cm from premaxilla to quadratojugal, thus, given how he estimates MSMN V4047 to be 11.4% larger than the holotype, the skull of the holotype in the same measure has to be between 146-147cm, that's why I got too in my measurements above.
Thanks blaze! I'll try and see how long is Tyrannosaurus's torso now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Megalosauroid
I do speak Spanish, I'm from mexico.

@Vobby
You're welcome ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Megalosauroid
Nov 22 2013, 11:11 AM
blaze
Nov 22 2013, 08:56 AM
@Vobby
I just did. Hartman's skeletals of

Spinosaurus (holotype)
14.0m total length
6.99m snout-sacrum length
torso lenght 2.55m

Suchomimus
11.65m total length
5.77m snout-sacrum length
torso length 2.14m

Baryonyx
10m total length
4.64m snout-sacrum length
torso length 1.64m
MSMN V4047
As always, I could be wrong on the exact measurements by some centimeters.

@megalosauroid
The measurements above disagree with Hartman's just having based everything on Baryonyx, we don't exactly know what he did but it certainly wasn't as simple as you make it out to be, anyway, why is length so important to you?

btw, I think you measured the skull wrong, Hartman says his versión of MSMN V4047 has a skull 163-164cm from premaxilla to quadratojugal, thus, given how he estimates MSMN V4047 to be 11.4% larger than the holotype, the skull of the holotype in the same measure has to be between 146-147cm, that's why I got too in my measurements above.
It is not that Hartman based absolutely everything of Spinosaurus from Baryonyx but that he restored Spinosaurus from two animals with quite different vertebral and skull morphologies to restore the proportions of an animal whose few only bones were destroyed in WW2 and the rest are from fragmentary private specimens and a snout.

From what your measurements say, the proportions restored from Baryonyx and Suchomimus scaled to the size of Spinosaurus are:

Suchomimus tenerensis 14 m

6.93 m snout-sacrum length
Torso length 2.57 m

Baryonyx 14 m
6.5 m snout-sacrum length
2.24 m

It seems that Hartman is basing much of his estimates for the torso and tail of Spinosaurus on Suchomimus, I actually did a scaling from the 15 th vertebrae of Baryonyx compared to the 15 th vertebrae of Spinosaurus (IPHG 1912) and it yielded 14 m, but usng the same from Suchomimus the estimate yields 13.2 m, so if Hartman is using Suchomimus to restore the Torso and the tail, why not the body length?

actually think Spinosaurus has been exaggerated in body size for years and that the real size is smaller than what many claim.

Tyrannosaurus has been dismissed in size many times, from 15 m to 14 then 12.9 then 12.8 and now 12.3 m which is the current estimate.
Giganotosaurus holotype has been dismissed from 14 to 13 to 12.2-12.5 m to just 12.4 m which now has a reduced skull from 1.8 to 1.6 to 1.54 m

One question, do you speak spanish? because you corrector has the Word version in spanish, with an accent, if you do, where are you from?



Agreed, for too long a lack of evidence has given me a migraine due to asinine assumptions of its total length
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megalosauroid
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
blaze
Nov 23 2013, 02:12 AM
@Megalosauroid
I do speak Spanish, I'm from mexico.

@Vobby
You're welcome ;D
Great I am from México too.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Nice! haha
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Just so you know, Cau udated his old post in which he compared the relative mass and robustness of Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus:

http://theropoda.blogspot.it/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
my opinion on this match has chanced a bit since i first came to carnivora. i still think spinosaurus will win more often then not, but i now think it is much closer. if we use the largest specimens for each species, then i think spino will win roughly 65% of the time. however, if we use different specimens the results may differ.

IPHG 1912 VS FMNH PR2081: t.rex wins 80%
MSMN V4O47 VS FMNH PR2081: spinosaurus wins 65%
IPHG 1912 VS AMNH 5027: t.rex wins 60%
MSMN V4O47 VS AMNH 5027: spinosaurus wins 80%
IPHG 1912 VS BH1 3033: spinosaurus wins 70%
MSMN V4O47 VS BH1 3033: spinosaurus wins 90%
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sci Fyena
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Just watch Jurassic Park to see what would REALLY happen.

Because that movie is accurate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Are you serious? This movie is not even meant to be accurate. By the way, we all know what would happen if Tyrannosaurus caught the neck of Spinosaurus and pressed it down at the ground.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Dec 4 2013, 12:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Sci Fyena
Dec 3 2013, 03:35 PM
Just watch Jurassic Park to see what would REALLY happen.

Because that movie is accurate.
the movie is no where near as accurate as what would really happen. first, both the t-rex and spinosaurus were down sized, spinosaurus couldn't articulate its wrists to grab a t-rex, spinosaurus couldn't break a t-rex neck like that, and if the t-rex ever manage to bite a spinosaurus and pin it to the ground( if it could, looks like its at a disadvantage at that arena), it is the combination of a 6 ton bite force and 14-15 tons of dinosaur landing on the ground that will kill it.
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.