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 (459,186 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:
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
When we have only 1 case of an Edmontosaur surviving the attack, its saying something. (the other one was a bite to the tail) When you have a bite force of 60.000 newtons of power and you're biting the skull of your victim, he's gonna go bye bye, unless you're starving and don't have enough energy to deliver a full force bite.
And even if the bite doesn't kill the Spino (witch i find highly unlikely) he wont have enough strength to continue the fight. I mean, its 60.000 newtons of power. Its no joke...

What gives power is muscle. I haven't seen any study to suggest Spinosaurus's arms were that strong and muscular.
Spino's habitat was lost and he was forced to compete with Carcharodontosaurus and went extinct. Spinosaurids had always avoided competition with Carnosaurs by becoming fish eaters. They hunted different prey and had different tools. When they finally were forced to compete, their weapons proved to be useless. Spinosaurus can't hunt big terrestrial prey. That's exactly what T-Rex is. Spiny did not have the tools to kill T-Rex. The only way i can see that happening is Spinosaurus scoring a lucky throat hit.
And how do you prove that those iguanodon remains were not scavenged? (as well as pterosaur remains)
Hunting fish is pretty easy. How can a fish fight back at Spino? How does a fish fight back at a bear?
Spinosaurids were not good fighters. They didn't need to be. Hunting a fish is easy work. Grab it, tear it apart, repeat process. How can an animal learn to fight this way?
I admit that Spiny had more robust jaws than a gavial but that's because he's a larger animal and hunts bigger fish. The formula is still the same. Long, thin jaws. More gavial-like than croc-like.
Posted Image
Notice the elongated and thin jaws. That doesn't look like this, does it?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 08:31 PM
When we have only 1 case of an Edmontosaur surviving the attack, its saying something. (the other one was a bite to the tail) When you have a bite force of 60.000 newtons of power and you're biting the skull of your victim, he's gonna go bye bye, unless you're starving and don't have enough energy to deliver a full force bite.
And even if the bite doesn't kill the Spino (witch i find highly unlikely) he wont have enough strength to continue the fight. I mean, its 60.000 newtons of power. Its no joke...

What gives power is muscle. I haven't seen any study to suggest Spinosaurus's arms were that strong and muscular.
Spino's habitat was lost and he was forced to compete with Carcharodontosaurus and went extinct. Spinosaurids had always avoided competition with Carnosaurs by becoming fish eaters. They hunted different prey and had different tools. When they finally were forced to compete, their weapons proved to be useless. Spinosaurus can't hunt big terrestrial prey. That's exactly what T-Rex is. Spiny did not have the tools to kill T-Rex. The only way i can see that happening is Spinosaurus scoring a lucky throat hit.
And how do you prove that those iguanodon remains were not scavenged? (as well as pterosaur remains)
Hunting fish is pretty easy. How can a fish fight back at Spino? How does a fish fight back at a bear?
Spinosaurids were not good fighters. They didn't need to be. Hunting a fish is easy work. Grab it, tear it apart, repeat process. How can an animal learn to fight this way?
I admit that Spiny had more robust jaws than a gavial but that's because he's a larger animal and hunts bigger fish. The formula is still the same. Long, thin jaws. More gavial-like than croc-like.
Posted Image
Notice the elongated and thin jaws. That doesn't look like this, does it?
Posted Image

Can you show any cases of perhaps an Edmontosaurus not surviving an attack from Tyrannosaurus? Spinosaurus is far larger and more durable than an Edmontosaurus anyway, so it is very likely that Spinosaurus could survive Tyrannosaurus' bite force.
What gives power is also overall mass. Spinosaurus is more massive than Tyrannosaurus, so Spinosaurus would be stronger than Tyrannosaurus.
The reason why Spinosaurus became extinct was because its main food supply died out. It didn't necessarily die out because of competing with Carcharodontosaurus. Spinosaurid weapons were not useless at all. Spinosaurids actually have very powerful arms and claws (which is shown in Scott Hartman's skeletal which you seem to be ignoring), and Spinosaurus in particular had a powerful bite force.
Why do you think that the Iguanodon remains were scavenged? It is very possible that the immature Baryonyx specimen hunted the sub-adult Iguanodon.
Hunting a fish is not easy work in Spinosaurus' case. It hunted huge sawfish, and other giant fish with hide thicker than bone. Spinosaurus skull has actually been found with sawfish barbs imbedded in it. This is hard prey to kill.
My comparison between Sarcosuchus' and Spinosaurus' skulls actually shows that Spinosaurus would exert a more powerful bite force than the largest crocodile, Sarcosuchus. Gharial jaws are not similar to Spinosaurus' jaws. Or any Spinosaurid's jaws for that matter.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 08:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 24 2014, 08:29 PM
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.
According to Hatzegopteryx/Likosaurus, Scott Hartman did state that the particular Spinosaurus holotype (the largest one) is around 15-16 metres in length and 11-13 tons.http://likosaurus.deviantart.com/journal/The-size-variations-of-the-dinosauria-423309004
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 09:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 08:53 PM
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 08:31 PM
When we have only 1 case of an Edmontosaur surviving the attack, its saying something. (the other one was a bite to the tail) When you have a bite force of 60.000 newtons of power and you're biting the skull of your victim, he's gonna go bye bye, unless you're starving and don't have enough energy to deliver a full force bite.
And even if the bite doesn't kill the Spino (witch i find highly unlikely) he wont have enough strength to continue the fight. I mean, its 60.000 newtons of power. Its no joke...

What gives power is muscle. I haven't seen any study to suggest Spinosaurus's arms were that strong and muscular.
Spino's habitat was lost and he was forced to compete with Carcharodontosaurus and went extinct. Spinosaurids had always avoided competition with Carnosaurs by becoming fish eaters. They hunted different prey and had different tools. When they finally were forced to compete, their weapons proved to be useless. Spinosaurus can't hunt big terrestrial prey. That's exactly what T-Rex is. Spiny did not have the tools to kill T-Rex. The only way i can see that happening is Spinosaurus scoring a lucky throat hit.
And how do you prove that those iguanodon remains were not scavenged? (as well as pterosaur remains)
Hunting fish is pretty easy. How can a fish fight back at Spino? How does a fish fight back at a bear?
Spinosaurids were not good fighters. They didn't need to be. Hunting a fish is easy work. Grab it, tear it apart, repeat process. How can an animal learn to fight this way?
I admit that Spiny had more robust jaws than a gavial but that's because he's a larger animal and hunts bigger fish. The formula is still the same. Long, thin jaws. More gavial-like than croc-like.
Posted Image
Notice the elongated and thin jaws. That doesn't look like this, does it?
Posted Image

Can you show any cases of perhaps an Edmontosaurus not surviving an attack from Tyrannosaurus? Spinosaurus is far larger and more durable than an Edmontosaurus anyway, so it is very likely that Spinosaurus could survive Tyrannosaurus' bite force.
What gives power is also overall mass. Spinosaurus is more massive than Tyrannosaurus, so Spinosaurus would be stronger than Tyrannosaurus.
The reason why Spinosaurus became extinct was because its main food supply died out. It didn't necessarily die out because of competing with Carcharodontosaurus. Spinosaurid weapons were not useless at all. Spinosaurids actually have very powerful arms and claws (which is shown in Scott Hartman's skeletal which you seem to be ignoring), and Spinosaurus in particular had a powerful bite force.
Why do you think that the Iguanodon remains were scavenged? It is very possible that the immature Baryonyx specimen hunted the sub-adult Iguanodon.
Hunting a fish is not easy work in Spinosaurus' case. It hunted huge sawfish, and other giant fish with hide thicker than bone. Spinosaurus skull has actually been found with sawfish barbs imbedded in it. This is hard prey to kill.
My comparison between Sarcosuchus' and Spinosaurus' skulls actually shows that Spinosaurus would exert a more powerful bite force than the largest crocodile, Sarcosuchus. Gharial jaws are not similar to Spinosaurus' jaws. Or any Spinosaurid's jaws for that matter.
So you think an Edmontosaurus surviving a bite force like this, to the skull is common? http://www.livescience.com/1557-rex-secret-weapon-discovered.html
And Spino would be fresh and healthy after being bitten? Really? Show me evidence of Spinosaurus surviving such an injury. Unless you show me that, i'm not gonna believe in a Spinosaurus surviving a Tyrannosaur bite easily...
Just cause your bigger doesn't mean you have stronger arms. A T-Rex is bigger than an Arctodus and weights more, but the bear has stronger arms.
When Spinosaurus's food supply disappeared, if he was the capable fighter you claim, it would have no trouble surviving on large land prey and would have survived. But that' not the case. Spino was a specialist and became incapable of killing animals such as Rexy.
Its not that hard Mecha. Still, grab it, tear it, repeat. Its just a bear hunting fish on a larger scale. The fish does not fight back. It cant. Even a sawfish. And barb was embedded in its jaws not skull. Show me a real injury caused by a fish.
A gavial's jaws are not similar to those of Spino? The comparison i posted says slightly otherwise... can't you see that Spino has long AND thin jaws similar to a gavial's? (notice that i'm saying similar, not identical)
Edited by Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex, Jan 24 2014, 09:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 09:39 PM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 08:53 PM
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 24 2014, 08:31 PM
When we have only 1 case of an Edmontosaur surviving the attack, its saying something. (the other one was a bite to the tail) When you have a bite force of 60.000 newtons of power and you're biting the skull of your victim, he's gonna go bye bye, unless you're starving and don't have enough energy to deliver a full force bite.
And even if the bite doesn't kill the Spino (witch i find highly unlikely) he wont have enough strength to continue the fight. I mean, its 60.000 newtons of power. Its no joke...

What gives power is muscle. I haven't seen any study to suggest Spinosaurus's arms were that strong and muscular.
Spino's habitat was lost and he was forced to compete with Carcharodontosaurus and went extinct. Spinosaurids had always avoided competition with Carnosaurs by becoming fish eaters. They hunted different prey and had different tools. When they finally were forced to compete, their weapons proved to be useless. Spinosaurus can't hunt big terrestrial prey. That's exactly what T-Rex is. Spiny did not have the tools to kill T-Rex. The only way i can see that happening is Spinosaurus scoring a lucky throat hit.
And how do you prove that those iguanodon remains were not scavenged? (as well as pterosaur remains)
Hunting fish is pretty easy. How can a fish fight back at Spino? How does a fish fight back at a bear?
Spinosaurids were not good fighters. They didn't need to be. Hunting a fish is easy work. Grab it, tear it apart, repeat process. How can an animal learn to fight this way?
I admit that Spiny had more robust jaws than a gavial but that's because he's a larger animal and hunts bigger fish. The formula is still the same. Long, thin jaws. More gavial-like than croc-like.
Posted Image
Notice the elongated and thin jaws. That doesn't look like this, does it?
Posted Image

Can you show any cases of perhaps an Edmontosaurus not surviving an attack from Tyrannosaurus? Spinosaurus is far larger and more durable than an Edmontosaurus anyway, so it is very likely that Spinosaurus could survive Tyrannosaurus' bite force.
What gives power is also overall mass. Spinosaurus is more massive than Tyrannosaurus, so Spinosaurus would be stronger than Tyrannosaurus.
The reason why Spinosaurus became extinct was because its main food supply died out. It didn't necessarily die out because of competing with Carcharodontosaurus. Spinosaurid weapons were not useless at all. Spinosaurids actually have very powerful arms and claws (which is shown in Scott Hartman's skeletal which you seem to be ignoring), and Spinosaurus in particular had a powerful bite force.
Why do you think that the Iguanodon remains were scavenged? It is very possible that the immature Baryonyx specimen hunted the sub-adult Iguanodon.
Hunting a fish is not easy work in Spinosaurus' case. It hunted huge sawfish, and other giant fish with hide thicker than bone. Spinosaurus skull has actually been found with sawfish barbs imbedded in it. This is hard prey to kill.
My comparison between Sarcosuchus' and Spinosaurus' skulls actually shows that Spinosaurus would exert a more powerful bite force than the largest crocodile, Sarcosuchus. Gharial jaws are not similar to Spinosaurus' jaws. Or any Spinosaurid's jaws for that matter.
So you think an Edmontosaurus surviving a bite force like this, to the skull is common? http://www.livescience.com/1557-rex-secret-weapon-discovered.html
And Spino would be fresh and healthy after being bitten? Really? Show me evidence of Spinosaurus surviving such an injury. Unless you show me that, i'm not gonna believe in a Spinosaurus surviving a Tyrannosaur bite easily...
Just cause your bigger doesn't mean you have stronger arms. A T-Rex is bigger than an Arctodus and weights more, but the bear has stronger arms.
When Spinosaurus's food supply disappeared, if he was the capable fighter you claim, it would have no trouble surviving on large land prey and would have survived. But that' not the case. Spino was a specialist and became incapable of killing animals such as Rexy.
Its not that hard Mecha. Still, grab it, tear it, repeat. Its just a bear hunting fish on a larger scale. The fish does not fight back. It cant. Even a sawfish. And barb was embedded in its jaws not skull. Possibly when the Spino was eating him a barb got stuck there. Show me a real injury caused by a fish.
A gavial's jaws are not similar to those of Spino? The comparison i posted says slightly otherwise... can't you see that Spino has long AND thin jaws similar to a gavial's? (notice that i'm saying similar, not identical)
I never said that Spinosaurus would be 'fresh and healthy' after being bitten by Tyrannosaurus, I said that Spinosaurus could survive the bite of Tyrannosaurus.
I never said that larger animals always have stronger arms than smaller animals (where did that come from). I said that Spinosaurus clearly has very strong arms, far stronger than those of Tyrannosaurus. I even use Scott Hartman's Spinosaurus skeletal as a reference. Spinosaurus is also overall stronger than Tyrannosaurus due to its weight advantage.
Spinosaurids usually hunted large and armoured fish. They died out because their main food supply died out. Spinosaurids could still be generalists when needed. The immature Baryonyx specimen found hunted a sub- adult Iguanodon. There are plenty of other examples from different Spinosaurids around the globe. Carcharodontosaurid's main food supply was the sauropods (which they hunted in packs). They died out when their main food supply died out, yet they still hunted other prey when needed.
Spinosaurus was more than capable of taking down a Tyrannosaurus.
It is hard prey to kill. The sawfish would of been very durable, not to mention the fish with hide thicker than bone. It is not as simple as, 'grab it, tear it, repeat'. Spinosaurus would of needed to be cautious of the vicious sawfish when hunting it.
From side view and top view, Spinosaurus has a far more robust skull than the gharial. Spinosaurus would of even had a stronger bite force than Sarcosuchus, judging from the Sarcosuchus and Spinosaurus skull diagram (side view).
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 24 2014, 11:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 08:58 PM
Vobby
Jan 24 2014, 08:29 PM
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.
According to Hatzegopteryx/Likosaurus, Scott Hartman did state that the particular Spinosaurus holotype (the largest one) is around 15-16 metres in length and 11-13 tons.http://likosaurus.deviantart.com/journal/The-size-variations-of-the-dinosauria-423309004
No, he stated that about MNHM V 4047, the Milan rostrum. The holotype is considerably smaller, Hartman shows it at 14m.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
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
DidnT you read my post? Whether they competed or not, it would have needed to be a capable fighter (unless, of course, you presume Spinosaurus was capable of rapid escapes, either by flying [I know it had long arms, but not that long!] or very quick running [currently nothing points out to Spinosaurus being as cursorial as large carcharodontosaurs]).

Quote:
 
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?
Tell me, ever seen a bear twice your size and killed it with your bare hands because uit was such a weak piscivore, incapable of fighting?

Bears have monstrous claws and strong jaws, very much like Spinosaurus, and adaption towards generalist feeding.

Quote:
 
Large crocs weren't that much of a threat for Spino. He only needs to step on those and game's over.
Are you just arguing it was a bad fighter, ebcause it was so dangerous it didn´t ever encounter a serious threat?

Quote:
 
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.
Of course it has, every predator subjects itself to a certain risk of injury and every predator needs to invest a certain amount of fighting skill. But hunting is not the same thing as fighting. Hunting is done from ambush in the vast majority of cases, and with specialized methods.
If anything, it is the prey that has to be the capable fighter.

Quote:
 
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.

Look, nowhere did I argue it had jaws as robust as a saltwater crocodile. I also have no clue how familiar you are with crocodilian taxonomy, but there are things in between a gharial and a saltie, and those (Tomistoma schlegelii, Mecistops cataphractus) are what Spinosaurus´s snout morphology resembles the most in terms of robusticity. As it happens, they take moderately large prey with their jaws. Not large relative to their own size, but large in absolute terms, achieved by their overally large size. Add that to a huge animal, and additionally a few giant, clawed forelimbs...

Quote:
 
I didn;t say they're exactly gahrial jaws. I said they look like a gahrial's. Long and thin.
The point is that they don´t. Its jaws are not particularly similar, neither are its teeth.

Quote:
 
Because if has the fighting skills that you say and could hunt large prey efficiently, then why did he go extinct?
Why did T. rex go extinct then? Evolution doesn´t decide to let the best fighter survive, it lets the most efficient and adaptable survive. Spinosaurus was a piscivore that relied on a specific habitat.
Habitat disappears->Spinosaurus does.
Plus, we don´t even know when it went extinct.
Quote:
 
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?
Didn´t you claim they did not compete? And now they suddenly do?

Spinosaurus primarily specialized in a prey item not available to other terrestrial theropods. This is also likely how it achieved its enourmous size, and it is reflected in its morphology. Whether it would have sucessfully competed with other theropods in terrestrial ecosystems is not a matter of fighting skill. FOr sure, T. rex would also be terribly outmatched by Spinosaurus (or a heron...) in terms of piscovorous capabilities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 05:28 PM
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!
I'm still not impressed, I just looked at all of the bones found for the animal, and all that was found were a few jaw bones, teeth, claws, and parts of a sail, and theses bones were disconnected and scattered around, we still have know complete skeleton for the animal, thus, scientists are still just guessing what it looked like, so therefore, I still don not consider it a contender, as we still haven't found a mostly full skeleton, more like 5% of one at best, those bones could belong to a totally different animal than the one imagined and described, or guessed. The conclusion, it can't be a contender for the t-rex, as we don't know what it looked like, and they have no idea how heavy or long the animal was because all the bones that were found recently were a bunch of jawbones, claws, teeth, sail bones, and such. There is still no proof that spinosaurous looks like the one imagined, and thus I do not consider it a a rival against the t-rex. Yes, I just looked at all the fossils that have been found for the animal, and I'm still not impressed. That reconstruction is just a guess from only a few bones, like 5% of the whole skeleton.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
By the same logic, T. rex also is no contender, because it would be impossible to know about Spinosaurus’ size and shape. But fact is, what does not impress you there is a rigorous scientific model based on the best available knowledge, inferred from other spinosaurs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 12:53 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 05:28 PM
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!
I'm still not impressed, I just looked at all of the bones found for the animal, and all that was found were a few jaw bones, teeth, claws, and parts of a sail, and theses bones were disconnected and scattered around, we still have know complete skeleton for the animal, thus, scientists are still just guessing what it looked like, so therefore, I still don not consider it a contender, as we still haven't found a mostly full skeleton, more like 5% of one at best, those bones could belong to a totally different animal than the one imagined and described, or guessed. The conclusion, it can't be a contender for the t-rex, as we don't know what it looked like, and they have no idea how heavy or long the animal was because all the bones that were found recently were a bunch of jawbones, claws, teeth, sail bones, and such. There is still no proof that spinosaurous looks like the one imagined, and thus I do not consider it a a rival against the t-rex. Yes, I just looked at all the fossils that have been found for the animal, and I'm still not impressed. That reconstruction is just a guess from only a few bones, like 5% of the whole skeleton.
no offence, but I actually find it rather funny that you rather believe the ogopogo monster existence is more likely then spinosaurus being a singular species. we have absolutely no physical evidence of them, yet you continuously defend them. why on earth would spinosaurus not be a single creature despite sharing anatomical similarities with its relatives?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 25 2014, 01:04 AM
By the same logic, T. rex also is no contender, because it would be impossible to know about Spinosaurus’ size and shape. But fact is, what does not impress you there is a rigorous scientific model based on the best available knowledge, inferred from other spinosaurs.
Yes, t-rex is a contender, whole skeletons have been found, or most of them at least. Spinosaurous remains a guessed reconstruction that is based off of a few spine bones, jaw bones, teeth, claws, and such, and what the animal looks like can still only be guessed at, whereas whole skeletons have been fond for the t-rex. There is no proof of what spinurous looked like except for a few bones, and all that scientists have done is guessed what is looked like, and then made a reconstruction of it by using speculations and daductions. Whole skeletons, and or mostly whole skeletons have been found for the t-rex, so we know what the animal looked like, and thus, it's a contender in the dinosaur world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 01:40 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 12:53 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 24 2014, 05:28 PM
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!
I'm still not impressed, I just looked at all of the bones found for the animal, and all that was found were a few jaw bones, teeth, claws, and parts of a sail, and theses bones were disconnected and scattered around, we still have know complete skeleton for the animal, thus, scientists are still just guessing what it looked like, so therefore, I still don not consider it a contender, as we still haven't found a mostly full skeleton, more like 5% of one at best, those bones could belong to a totally different animal than the one imagined and described, or guessed. The conclusion, it can't be a contender for the t-rex, as we don't know what it looked like, and they have no idea how heavy or long the animal was because all the bones that were found recently were a bunch of jawbones, claws, teeth, sail bones, and such. There is still no proof that spinosaurous looks like the one imagined, and thus I do not consider it a a rival against the t-rex. Yes, I just looked at all the fossils that have been found for the animal, and I'm still not impressed. That reconstruction is just a guess from only a few bones, like 5% of the whole skeleton.
no offence, but I actually find it rather funny that you rather believe the ogopogo monster existence is more likely then spinosaurus being a singular species. we have absolutely no physical evidence of them, yet you continuously defend them. why on earth would spinosaurus not be a single creature despite sharing anatomical similarities with its relatives?
I knew people were going to bring that topic here, yes, well, it has nothing to do with this thread so leave that out of this. I'm not discussing that here. Still, what I said was true. An almost full or full skeleton will need be found before we can make a conclusion of what the spinosaurous looked like, a few jawbones, claws, teeth, and sail bones aren't enough, we need a mostly complete skeleton to conclude what it really looked like, and until that happens, people can only guess or estimate what spinosaurous really looked like.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 01:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
yet you seem to doubt its existence, despite the sparse amount of fossil evidence being extremely similar to that of other spinosaurs. that's enough to suggest it being a single species. you may not believe so, but its quite obvious that the vast majority of us disagree and have good reason to believe so.we might as well drop your statement that as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 02:00 AM
yet you seem to doubt its existence, despite the sparse amount of fossil evidence being extremely similar to that of other spinosaurs. that's enough to suggest it being a single species. you may not believe so, but its quite obvious that the vast majority of us disagree and have good reason to believe so.we might as well drop your statement that as well.
A few bones is not enough evidence, considering very few of them have been found, the size of the animal cannot be proven either, those are just estimates as well. I don't care how good the estimates are, I want a skeleton, and not just a few small fossils. Until a whole skeleton is found, it's not a proven fact that spinosaurous was bigger than t-rex.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 02:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
we all want a skeleton. but unlike you, I believe its a single species, you believe the complete opposite. in with neither of us can be certain of our claims. and its almost proven that MSNM V4047 is at the very least at weight parity with a large tyrannosaurus, and could be 10 tons at maximum using isometric scaling using relatives.
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jan 25 2014, 02:14 AM.
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.