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 (459,187 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:
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
neither do i
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 24 2014, 05:48 AM
Suchomimus has a considerably narrower, albeit deeper snout than Spinosaurus. Compare the two in lateral view for proof, but don’t compare relatives known to have different snout morphologies instead. Suchomimus too has a more robust snout than a gharial (Baryonyx outperforms even Mecistops, though that Spinosaurus turned out so weak is probably largely due to the only tested region being the anteriormost 18.5% of the snout, which pretty much means "premaxilla, diastema" in this case).

Spinosaurus’ rostrum is both wider and deeper than that of a gharial along most of its lenght, and it has considerably larger and more robust teeth.
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 05:37 AM
spinosaurus rex
Jan 23 2014, 10:29 PM
i'm sorry, but there are so many incorrections in your post.
firstly, size is an advantage, especially at the sizes were talking about. i believe spinosaurus could attain 16 meters ans even 15 meters is big enough to put up a fight with tyrannosaurus.
1. gape. the gape of tyrannosaurus is around 1 meter. literally, the only place were tyrannosaurus could place the 6 ton bite is at the neck.
and why are you suggesting spinosaurus was a incapable fighter, he lived in a environment full of predators. even if he avoid competition by being mainly piscovous, i doubt it will effect his ability to defend himself.
lastly, you quoted 4 inch teeth. need i have to tell you how wrong is that.
By biting the Spinosaur, i meant the neck or skull
Spinosaurus didn't compete with other predators. Although they did live in the same time, they hunted different game. I don't see any reason for competition.
The problem is, Spiny was not a good fighter.
And weaponry is far more important than size.
Size is overrated here...
And how are you deducing that it was a bad fighter? To even stay alive, it would have to be capable enough a fighter to not be a complacent prey for Carcharodontosaurus, Bahariasaurus, Sauroniops or Sigilmassasaurus, all of them T. rex-sized carnosaurs or ceratosaurs.
Fights between competitors, such as conspecifics, are often not even to the death. Fights between predator and prey are. For a Spinosaurus to not be an easy prey, it would take the ability to defend itself in an environment that crowded with giant predators.
Furthermore it still had to compete with some huge crocodilians, such as Aegisuchus (which, after all, may be the biggest crocodilyform known, at a size comparable to Spinosaurus, and likely would have had similar dietary preferences).

No matter how you put it, Spinosaurus had at least as much oppurtunity and need to fight, for feeding, competition, and defense, as T. rex did. The latter is not even known to have coexisted with any other large predator...

Size is a factor hard to overrate in fights. It is true, if the difference is marginal, perhaps too marginal to even be reliably estimates from the fossil record, it is not significant. But if a size advantage is considerable (as in 50%, or 100%), it has to be accepted as such.

You see what this is going at? being able to bite just the skull or neck is already a disadvantage, especially if both are not exactly easy to bite themselves.
They did live with predators such as Charcharodontosaurus, yes but they didn't compete. There wasn't any need to do so. Charcha attacked Paralatitan and Spinosaurus attacked Onchopristis. Different hunting grounds. Different game. No need to compete
When you hunt fish, you only need to catch it, throw it to the ground and tear it apart, repeat process. When you look at a bear fishing, you don't see the fish fighting back do you?. Large crocs weren't that much of a threat for Spino. He only needs to step on those and game's over. A land based predator like Rexy, even if he doesn't compete with other guys around, he still has to dodge kicks and horns coming at him. He needs to be a fighter because that's the way he makes his living.
And why do you think Spinosaurus's jaws were not gahrial-like? Just look at those. They're long and thin. Of course not exactly like those of a gahrial but still much more gahrial-like than croc-like.
Posted Image
I didn;t say they're exactly gahrial jaws. I said they look like a gahrial's. Long and thin.
I don't care about size if the skeleton design isn't that of an animal to hunt large things like T-Rex. Spinosaurus relied on fish and became incapable of hunting animals like Rexy. Because if has the fighting skills that you say and could hunt large prey efficiently, then why did he go extinct? He was unable to survive once he was forced to competition with the large land based killer theropods like Charch. Why would T-Rex go down against Spino if the latter couldn't compete with the similar sized Charcha?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
dude, you got it mixed up. competition is not synonymous with fighting an animal, although sometimes it might lead up to it. and as far as I known, there really isn't a plausible understanding on how spinosaurus died out. but is your scenario is true, spinosaurus would not die out do to competition with fighting carcharodontosaurus. it would be competition between similar food sources. and besides, competition does not play a major role in a interspecific fight. I also notice there are a lot of assumptions in your post. we do have evidence that spinosaurs were indeed more generalist then just pure specialist.( the iguanodon bones found in baryonyx and the irritator tooth logged in the vertebra of a pterosaur) why would spinosaurus be any different.
also the fish spinosaurus hunted were no wimpy guppies at all. some could weigh over 2 tons. which takes a considerable amount of dorsiventral strength to achieve. with is in fact what spinosaurus is well capable to do. anyway, I feel a 16 meter spinosaurus would win around 55% of the time
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jan 24 2014, 03:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 24 2014, 09:09 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 07:41 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 24 2014, 07:26 AM
Most people voted trex for a reason. The trex may be intimidated, but when they get in to close combat, the trex's larger stronger jaws will do way more damage the the spinos, its gape isn't that small, its more than big enough to do the job. It has a more robust build, and is used to taking on big animals, but the spino is a carnivore, so it is a different story. Has there even been a whole skeleton of a spinosaurous?
Spinosaurus is far stronger than Tyrannosaurus overall due to its weight advantage. Tyrannosaurus being more robust is NOT an advantage in this case...
Also an adult Edmontosaurus survived a bite to the head from an adult Tyrannosaurus so Spinosaurus could easily survive a bite to the neck from Tyrannosaurus. Spinosaurus actually had powerful jaws as well.
To add to that, Spinosaurus had extremely powerful and muscular arms and claws. Since Spinosaurus was taller than Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus' claws would be very efficient.
Being more advanced means nothing here. Technically a chicken is more advanced than a sauropod but a sauropod would crush one in a fight.
And finally, Spinosaurus is over 60% larger (Spinosaurus is 13 tons while Tyrannosaurus is 8 tons). This will automatically give Spinosaurus the advantage (which I have started hundreds of times previously).
The weights of the animals cannot be proven, as they are just estimates. The spinos jaws aren't that powerful, they are thin, long, and skinny, much weaker than the rexes. The animals jaws matter in the fight, as it is their main weapon, and its what they use to fight. Also, if the trex does have deadly bacteria in its mouth, than that would take somewhat of a toll on the spino. How is the spino going to kill the rex with its weight, by falling on it? They will be fighting with their jaws, and the trex has the better jaws for it. I don't know about the spinos arms, but the rexes jaws seem to be far more powerful and lethal, whilst the spinos jaws were somewhat weak for its size, probably being used more for fishing. Jaws beat claws, and the rex has the better jaws. One bite form the rex, and the fight is over. A spino cannot exert nearly as much pressure in its jaws as a trex can, so the spinos bite won't have nearly as much of an effect. Jurasic park did a terrible job on this. The trex bites down on the spino, but it does nothing, its bite didn't even give the spino a cut, but when the spino bit the rex with its more frail, weaker, and thinner jaws, it snapped its neck, which was absolutely ridiculous. The trex has the better jaws, which are the better weapons of both animals. The spino is stronger? How? Definately not in the jaws, the trex is much stronger in the jaws, and the jaws is what the animals will be fighting with. Being stronger in the body won't matter when you can't use it, if both animals fell down, I doubt they would be able to get up. The jaws will be doing the fighting, and thus, it's the jaws that mostly matter. Being bigger and heavier in this case means you can only throw your weight around a little more, but it can't kill the rex that way, it will have to kill it either with its jaws or claws. Also, not a single whole skeleton has been found for spinosaurous. If I am wrong about that, tell me. If that is the case, then technically, the trex would still remain the king, as what the spino looked like hasn't been proven, if it even existed. All scientists found was a part of the jaw, a fin part, some claws and teeth or whatever and that's it. So, until a whole skeleton is found, we actually have no proof of what the spinosaurous looked like, and thus, the trex still reighs alone. Saying the spino is bigger also can't be proven when all scientists found were a few small bones of the animal, and to completely prove what the animal looks like, we need a whole skeleton, which we have found many of for the trex. So currently, the trex is the undisputed tyrant lizard king, and even if spino did exist, or looked like what people have imagined it to be, I would still back the t-rex.
I have already told you that one bite from T. rex would NOT kill Spinosaurus. We have evidence that an Edmontosaurus survived a bite to the head from an adult Tyrannosaurus...
Scott Hartman's estimates for Spinosaurus put it at 15-16 metres in length and 11-13 tons.
Spinosaurus' massive weight and strength advantage would allow it to knock Tyrannosaurus to the ground, and this would break much of Tyrannosaurus' ribcage and kill it.
Spinosaurus is taller than Tyrannosaurus, so Tyrannosaurus' small bite gape will be less efficient.
Stop ignoring my points.
Spinosaurus would win against Tyrannosaurus more often that not.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 05:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 24 2014, 11:48 AM
There is actually no proof of what spinosaurous looked like, so putting a spinosaurous into a battle is like putting a fictional character into a fight. Those very few bones could have come from anything, and scientists are just guessing what spinosaurous looked like. Spinosaurous may even be a lot smaller anyway. Until a full skeleton is found, t-rex remains the king. Spinosaurous is a dinosaur of guesswork, and assumptions based off of a few bones, and not a complete skeleton. Spinosaurous shouldn't even exist as a contender. As of right now, it really is a fictional dinosaur. The animal those bones came from really existed, but we have know idea what it looked like,or what it was for that matter, so I see no reason to debate the two when one of them could be anything, or could look much different, so it does not count as a contender. Anyone can find a few bones and guess what the animal looked like, everyone is basing what they think the animal looks like by what scientists have guessed and imagined, so how can it be a contender? We don't know what the spino looked like. Unless I'm mistaken, those very few bones were found in 1912, and have since been lost. People are basically guesing what this thing looks like, and automatically, saying it was bigger than a t-rex.
Posted Image
This is Scott Hartman's accurate reconstruction of Spinosaurus. You do realise that we can reconstruct missing parts of the Spinosaurus specimens found using parts from its relatives (such as Irritator).
There have been more recent specimens of Spinosaurus than the 'WW2 Spinosaurus specimen'.
According to Scott Hartman and other palaeontologists, Spinosaurus is considerably larger than Tyrannosaurus.
It's not a fiction dinosaur!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
A bite to the neck won't kill Spinosaurus? Are you biased against T-Rex or something? Just one rare and unusual case can't be used for a general situation... And how can Spino knock T-Rex? Its jaws? They can't stand much pressure on them. And the claws? No evidence of them being so strong.
Edited by Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex, Jan 24 2014, 05:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tyrannosaurus can kill a spinosaurus with a bite to the neck. but spinosaurus can indeed knock a t.rex down due to its mass alone. along with powerful arms. I still find that a 16 meter spinosaurus would win around 55%. and its really pretty radical to assume spinosaurus claws were weak, despite all of its relatives suggesting otherwise.
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jan 24 2014, 05:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 24 2014, 03:34 PM
dude, you got it mixed up. competition is not synonymous with fighting an animal, although sometimes it might lead up to it. and as far as I known, there really isn't a plausible understanding on how spinosaurus died out. but is your scenario is true, spinosaurus would not die out do to competition with fighting carcharodontosaurus. it would be competition between similar food sources. and besides, competition does not play a major role in a interspecific fight. I also notice there are a lot of assumptions in your post. we do have evidence that spinosaurs were indeed more generalist then just pure specialist.( the iguanodon bones found in baryonyx and the irritator tooth logged in the vertebra of a pterosaur) why would spinosaurus be any different.
also the fish spinosaurus hunted were no wimpy guppies at all. some could weigh over 2 tons. which takes a considerable amount of dorsiventral strength to achieve. with is in fact what spinosaurus is well capable to do. anyway, I feel a 16 meter spinosaurus would win around 55% of the time

True, but how can you prove to me that those bones were not scavenged? I'm saying Spinosaurus wasn't built to kill things like T-Rex. It didn't have the weapons. Its skull couldn't stand too much pressure.
Eating a fish (even if its big) is still as simple as catching it and ripping it apart. Imagine a gahrial eating a fish. Just give the gahrial a theropod body and make the fish a Great White shark.
I still can't see Spiny as a good fighter.
I didn't say Spiny's claws are weak. I just said there's no evidence of them being that strong
Edited by Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex, Jan 24 2014, 06:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 05:31 PM
A bite to the neck won't kill Spinosaurus? Are you biased against T-Rex or something? Just one rare and unusual case can't be used for a general situation... And how can Spino knock T-Rex? Its jaws? They can't stand much pressure on them. And the claws? No evidence of them being so strong.
Stop ignoring my points.
An Edmontosaurus survived a bite to the head from an adult Tyrannosaurus, so Spinosaurus cold easily survive a bite to the neck from Tyrannosaurus.
Spinosaurus could knock Tyrannosaurus to the ground using its massive bulk (its overall body, not its jaws).
The claws are very powerful. Scott Hartman's skeletal of Spinosaurus clearly shows that it had very robust claws and arms.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 07:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The All-seeing Night
Member Avatar
You are without honor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 24 2014, 05:35 PM
tyrannosaurus can kill a spinosaurus with a bite to the neck. but spinosaurus can indeed knock a t.rex down due to its mass alone. along with powerful arms. I still find that a 16 meter spinosaurus would win around 55%. and its really pretty radical to assume spinosaurus claws were weak, despite all of its relatives suggesting otherwise.
If the spinosaurus was really anywhere close to 20 tons as the higher estimates state, then spino should win. At close weights I'd give it to t.Rex. I would guess that the claws and arms of tge spino would be fairly powerful considering their size and their usage as weapons (probably to rip open fish and other prey)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 05:44 PM
spinosaurus rex
Jan 24 2014, 03:34 PM
dude, you got it mixed up. competition is not synonymous with fighting an animal, although sometimes it might lead up to it. and as far as I known, there really isn't a plausible understanding on how spinosaurus died out. but is your scenario is true, spinosaurus would not die out do to competition with fighting carcharodontosaurus. it would be competition between similar food sources. and besides, competition does not play a major role in a interspecific fight. I also notice there are a lot of assumptions in your post. we do have evidence that spinosaurs were indeed more generalist then just pure specialist.( the iguanodon bones found in baryonyx and the irritator tooth logged in the vertebra of a pterosaur) why would spinosaurus be any different.
also the fish spinosaurus hunted were no wimpy guppies at all. some could weigh over 2 tons. which takes a considerable amount of dorsiventral strength to achieve. with is in fact what spinosaurus is well capable to do. anyway, I feel a 16 meter spinosaurus would win around 55% of the time
When you have two large predators eating the same food, this leads to fights. So in this case competition does mean fighting an animal.
True, but how can you prove to me that those bones were not scavenged? I'm saying Spinosaurus wasn't built to kill things like T-Rex. It didn't have the weapons. Its skull couldn't stand too much pressure.
We have no real proof of Spino being the generalist you claim.
Eating a fish (even if its big) is still as simple as catching it and ripping it apart. Imagine a gahrial eating a fish. Just give the gahrial a theropod body and make the fish a Great White shark.
I still can't see Spiny as a good fighter.
I didn't say Spiny's claws are weak. I just said there's no evidence of them being that strong
Spinosaurus' jaws are far more robust than the gharial's jaws. My comparison from earlier clearly shows that.
A 16 metre ~13 ton Spinosaurus would win more like 70-80% of the time against a 12.3 metre ~8 ton Tyrannosaurus.
Spinosaurids could be generalists. There is evidence that an immature Baryonyx specimen hunted a sub-adult Iguanodon. The prey that Spinosaurus usually hunted was Oncopristis (excuse me if I spelt that wrong), which is a giant armoured sawfish. Spinosaurus also hunted other fish with hide thicker than bone. Definitely powerful prey.
Spinosaurus would of fought with many large Carcharodontosaurids in its environment. Tyrannosaurus had hardly any competition in comparison.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 06:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 24 2014, 03:34 PM
dude, you got it mixed up. competition is not synonymous with fighting an animal, although sometimes it might lead up to it. and as far as I known, there really isn't a plausible understanding on how spinosaurus died out. but is your scenario is true, spinosaurus would not die out do to competition with fighting carcharodontosaurus. it would be competition between similar food sources. and besides, competition does not play a major role in a interspecific fight. I also notice there are a lot of assumptions in your post. we do have evidence that spinosaurs were indeed more generalist then just pure specialist.( the iguanodon bones found in baryonyx and the irritator tooth logged in the vertebra of a pterosaur) why would spinosaurus be any different.
also the fish spinosaurus hunted were no wimpy guppies at all. some could weigh over 2 tons. which takes a considerable amount of dorsiventral strength to achieve. with is in fact what spinosaurus is well capable to do. anyway, I feel a 16 meter spinosaurus would win around 55% of the time
A 16 metre Spinosaurus would win more like 70-80% of the time against Tyrannosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Mecha, you're using one rare and unusual case to make a general guess. That T-Rex could have been weak or inexperienced. We have cases of lions being so weak due to starvation that they can't suffocate their victims. Does this mean that lions in general can't suffocate their prey?
Show me a study of Spinosaur arms being that powerful. Unless i see a study suggesting so i'm not gonna believe that
In normal conditions, there is no reason for competition between Cahrcha and Spiny. They hunt different prey. And when they were finally forced to compete, Spinosaurus went extinct. He's not adapted to hunt and kill big, terrestrial animals. No size difference's gonna change that.
And Spinosaur jaws do look like a gahrial's. Look at the comparison i posted . Notice that they're long and thin.
Of course they're more robust than a gahrial's (because Spino hunted bigger game) but they were the dinosaur version of a gahrial skull
Edited by Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex, Jan 24 2014, 06:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 06:25 PM
Mecha, you're using one rare and unusual case to make a general guess. That T-Rex could have been weak or inexperienced. We have cases of lions being so weak due to starvation that they can't suffocate their victims. Does this mean that lions in general can't suffocate their prey?
Show me a study of Spinosaur arms being that powerful. Unless i see a study suggesting so i'm not gonna believe that
In normal conditions, there is no reason for competition between Cahrcha and Spiny. They hunt different prey. And when they were finally forced to compete, Spinosaurus went extinct. He's not adapted to hunt and kill big, terrestrial animals. No size difference's gonna change that.
And Spinosaur jaws do look like a gahrial's. Look at the comparison i posted above. Notice that they're long and thin.
Of course they're more robust than a gahrial's (because Spino hunted bigger game) but they were the dinosaur version of a gahrial skull
How do you know it was necessarily an unusual case? The Edmontosaurus specimen has very deep bite marks in its skull, but it still appears to have lived a great few years afterwards. The Tyrannosaurus that attacked the Edmontosaurus was very likely a healthy adult. Spinosaurus would be able to survive a bite to the neck from Tyrannosaurus.
I showed you the study on a previous page; Scott Hartman's skeletal of Spinosaurus. It clearly shows that Spinosaurus has very robust arms, and very large claws (same with Spinosaurids in general).
Spinosaurid's main food supply was fish. This fish was already very powerful prey. Spinosaurids could be generalists. You ignored my example of the immature Baryonyx specimen that hunted a sub-adult Iguanodon.
Spinosaurus didn't go extinct because of competition with Carcharodontosaurus. Spinosaurus went extinct because its main food supply disappeared (the giant sawfish).
The 16 metre long 13 ton Spinosaurus would dominate Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Size and strength are massive advantages, and Spinosaurus has these advantages on its side.
You used Suchomimus as an example in that comparison, and Spinosaurus has far more robust jaws than Suchomimus.
If anything, Spinosaurus' jaws were far more comparable with a crocodile's jaws:
Posted Image
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 06:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Mechabaryonyx, where did you get 13 tons Spinosaurus "from Hartman"?

blaze showed otherwise:

Quote:
 
Well, "the hypothesis" then, the problem is that is not so simple, you need to assume the dentary is almost complete as preserved, then you have to increase the size of the dentary to eliminate the gap instead of just make the surungular and angular longer/proportionally larger, which seems to be what Hartman did.

11-14 tonnes... I used to think the same but that'll imply the holotype to be between 8 to 10 tonnes using Hartman's estimates. In Hartman's Fisher King size chart, if you move Giga and Spinosaurus holotypes and Sue and superimpose them together you see that from the hips up to the tip of the tail, they are pretty much the same size, the height is very similar, the length is too, the difference in their total lengths is Spinosaurus's longer neck and torso. Now lets remove the sail (not everything of course), to compare their areas, in the size chart I'm using, Giganotosarus has an area of 36,000, Sue's 36,150 and Spinosaurus's is 40,980; 13.4% (6.5% in linear dimensions) larger than Sue and 13.8% (6.7% linear) larger than the holotype of Giganotoaurus.

But we know that side view doesn't tell the whole story, as evidenced by Hartman finding a volume of 9200L for Sue and 7450L for the holotype of Giganotosaurus, whose volume (and thus weight) will actually be even less had he corrected for the small size of its scapula. If we assume that the holotype of Spinosaurus was equivalent to a Giganotosaurus 6.7% larger than the holotype then we get a weight of 8.3 tonnes, but, given the similarity in size between them from the legs up to the end of the tail, will the longer torso and neck really add up to 1.5 tonnes more than MUCPv-Ch1? that question becomes more important if Spinosaurus is particularly narrow bodied as is implied by Cau's comparisons.

IMO, the holotype of Spinosaurus was around 6 tonnes, 7 tonnes at most, which will make MNSN V4740 between 8 to 10 tonnes using Hartman's estimates.
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.