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 (459,185 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:
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 02:13 AM
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.
The whole paleontological world is convinced of the fact that Spinosaurus is a perfectly valid taxon, it isn't really necessary to discuss it. I think it isn't very wise to try and estimate the size of MSNM V4047, it can perfectly have been smaller than the holotype for all we know...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
when was that concluded. I always read that MSNM V4047 was considerably bigger if not at size parity. I never heard it being smaller. is their a source of this.
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jan 25 2014, 02:36 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 01:51 AM
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.
What you fail to realise is that just because Spinosaurus’ remains are dissatisfactory, that does not mean T. rex (sic!) was automatically more of a contender. Yes, we know relatively complete skeletons, and not too few of them. This is why we can constrain the size of typical and large T. rex specimens fairly well. They do not appear to reach that of MNHM V 4047 for all we know, in fact most scientific restorations suggest the latter to be considerably bigger.

Deductions and speculations are important principles of science, and palaeontology wouldn’t work without them (including palaeontology on animals such as T. rex!). You can rant as long as you want, but as long as you cannot show me a better deduction, this one remains valid.
Edited by theropod, Jan 25 2014, 03:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Theropod, no contender≠inferior. Canadianwildlife just said we can't talk about it as easily as about T. rex. I don't like this way of thinking either and I agree with your last line.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 02:36 AM
when was that concluded. I always read that MSNM V4047 was considerably bigger if not at size parity. I never heard it being smaller. is their a source of this.
I don't think it was smaller, it is just that a bigger (part of the) skull doesn't necessarily means that the whole animal was bigger, just think about of the variations we have in the skulls of different specimen of T. rex.


Anyway, Cau estimated it as only 108% bigger than the holotype here, basing on the proportions given by Stromer:

http://theropoda.blogspot.it/2013/11/loverbite-reale-ed-il-subadulto.html

But even if every one of its dimensions were 120% those of the holotype, its seems that it still wouldn't match the size of Sue (and I'm pretty sure that the likes of Stan would be more similar to Sue that to Spinosaurus in this type of comparison):

Posted Image

Posted Image

As Hartman showed for T.rex and Giganotosaurus, width matters, a lot. This seems to be even more true for Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Mecha you have no evidence to support your claim about Spino surviving a Tyrannosaurus bite. Just one rare case can not be used as a general fact. By the same logic, just cause one lion was starving and could deliver a powerful bite to suffocate their prey, all lions would be unable to do so.
I didn't ask you to show the skeleton of a Spino. I care about the muscle it had. Was that strong enough to knock down a T-Rex? We don't know.
I am well aware of of the Iguanodon remains. But prove me that they were hunted, not scavenged.
Armored fish may be durable, but i catch one and throw it to the ground, its dead meat.
Spinosaurids had always ''escaped'' from competition with carnosaurs. They exploited an environment successfully and developed tools to hunt different prey to avoid competition. They only time they were forced to such competition was when their prey died out and they had no choice but to face what they wanted to avoid. They made themselves incapable of hunting things like T-Rex. Those jaws and thin and elongated and those teeth were conical and lacked serrations. They could not tear flesh. They were specialists. A creature like T-Rex was out of their capacity to kill (as proven by the fact that when they tried to hunt large terrestrial prey, they failed and went extinct)
I agree that Spino's jaws were more robust than a gavial's but they still had the same formula: A long and thin snout. A Spino would be like a dinosaur version of a gavial: eating fish and small fauna. I can indeed see a Spinosaurus bite force to be pretty strong. But not strong enough to crush bone or kill large animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 25 2014, 03:33 AM
Mecha you have no evidence to support your claim about Spino surviving a Tyrannosaurus bite. Just one rare case can not be used as a general fact. By the same logic, just cause one lion was starving and could deliver a powerful bite to suffocate their prey, all lions would be unable to do so.
I didn't ask you to show the skeleton of a Spino. I care about the muscle it had. Was that strong enough to knock down a T-Rex? We don't know.
I am well aware of of the Iguanodon remains. But prove me that they were hunted, not scavenged.
Armored fish may be durable, but i catch one and throw it to the ground, its dead meat.
Spinosaurids had always ''escaped'' from competition with carnosaurs. They exploited an environment successfully and developed tools to hunt different prey to avoid competition. They only time they were forced to such competition was when their prey died out and they had no choice but to face what they wanted to avoid. They made themselves incapable of hunting things like T-Rex. Those jaws and thin and elongated and those teeth were conical and lacked serrations. They could not tear flesh. They were specialists. A creature like T-Rex was out of their capacity to kill (as proven by the fact that when they tried to hunt large terrestrial prey, they failed and went extinct)
I agree that Spino's jaws were more robust than a gavial's but they still had the same formula: A long and thin snout. A Spino would be like a dinosaur version of a gavial: eating fish and small fauna. I can indeed see a Spinosaurus bite force to be pretty strong. But not strong enough to crush bone or kill large animals.
Actually, he does. An Edmontosaurus survived getting its skull bitten by a Tyrannosaurus, so why would Spinosaurus not survive? It is far larger so a force is reduced compared to it.

Why even bring environmental adaptations such as prey item hunting adaptations up? If that logic actually worked, Triceratops would be totally defenceless, since it eats defenceless plants.

The competition argument is worthless but if anything we have more competition known for Spinosaurus' environment than for Tyrannosaurus'.

If you want to bring prey up I'll have you know that this spinosaurid fed on rhino-sized fish.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 02:13 AM
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.
Yes, they are a single species, but there is still no proof for how big it was, and it may not look excactly like the one imagined. It doesn't matter how good estimates or guesses are, they cant prove how large spinosaurous was, how, when all they have at best are some jawbones, which don't tell the length of the animal. The best fossils they have found are parts of jawbones, so that doesn't tell us how big it was, and just remember we don't know how big this animal is despite estimates and guesses, its all guesswork, so, I'm still not considering spinosaurous to be a rival of a t-rex until we actaully have a complete skeleton, which will tell us what it really looked like, and how big it really was. The t-rex has all of this and more, so the t-rex is up a few steps. Estimates and guesses are not facts, and are not conclusive, thus it is hasty to say that spinosaurous was bigger than t-rex, and was a match for it. Until then, all they can do is guess, reconstruct, and estimate. So as of right now, spinosaurous is not a rival because we really don't know how big it was, and such, period.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
We are using what it should look like, you can debate about who would win yet you say we can't scale it without any doubt of the result. We are using what it should look like.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 25 2014, 02:31 AM
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 02:13 AM
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.
The whole paleontological world is convinced of the fact that Spinosaurus is a perfectly valid taxon, it isn't really necessary to discuss it. I think it isn't very wise to try and estimate the size of MSNM V4047, it can perfectly have been smaller than the holotype for all we know...
So because they are convinced makes it a fact? They cannot prove how big it was or what it looked like when the best they have is a jawbone. There have been findings of dinosaurs that were thought to be super huge, but in the end, they found out that some of the bones they used to construct the animal, that were mixed with the dinos bones turned out to be the bones of a pig, I can't remember where I got the source. Spinosaurous is guesswork, and that is a fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 25 2014, 03:01 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 01:51 AM
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.
What you fail to realise is that just because Spinosaurus’ remains are dissatisfactory, that does not mean T. rex (sic!) was automatically more of a contender. Yes, we know relatively complete skeletons, and not too few of them. This is why we can constrain the size of typical and large T. rex specimens fairly well. They do not appear to reach that of MNHM V 4047 for all we know, in fact most scientific restorations suggest the latter to be considerably bigger.

Deductions and speculations are important principles of science, and palaeontology wouldn’t work without them (including palaeontology on animals such as T. rex!). You can rant as long as you want, but as long as you cannot show me a better deduction, this one remains valid.
I'm not talking about size, what I meant about the contender thing is that we know what it looks like, sorry if I worded it weirdly. How can spinosaurous compete with t-rex if we don't even know what spino looked like, or how big it was. Again, all they can do is guess, that's it.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 05:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
So because they are convinced makes it a fact?


It makes it all the more likely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
the majority of paleontology is guesswork. and its been known that using relatives to determined what the creature would look like worked before. even through proportions. the reason people are convinced that spinosaurus is a single species is because its the most likely outcome. any way, I'm done discussing about this. your not going to end the entire thread due to your claims of spinosaurus not being a singular species, despite being universally accepted as its own taxon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 25 2014, 05:21 AM
We are using what it should look like, you can debate about who would win yet you say we can't scale it without any doubt of the result. We are using what it should look like.
No, they are are using what they think it looks like, and what they GUESS it looks like. I even showed a few friends all the evidence for what spinosaurous looked like, and they even said the same thing I did, its all guesswrok, and what it really looked like cannot be proven.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 05:32 AM
Quote:
 
So because they are convinced makes it a fact?


It makes it all the more likely.
It doesn't change anything, I could find a vultures skeleton, and guess it was an eagles, and most people could agree with me, and yet that doesn't change the fact that it's a vultures skeleton, bad example I know, but you get what I'm saying. Agreeing doesn't change anything.
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.