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 (459,184 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:
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 05:34 AM
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.
I admitted that it's a singular species, but how big it was is something that cannot be proven. Also, they would have to find the rest of the skeleton to figure out the animals shape and true looks. Yes, the weight of t-rex is guesswork, but its brain cavity size, its height and length are pretty much on because we have full skeletons, or mostly full ones. I'm sick of this. Oh sure, what a coincidence they find a carnivorous dinosaur that is actually bigger than t-rex, nice try for them, but its size isn't proven. I know, there are other carnivorous dinosaurs bigger than t-rex, but I'm just saying.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 05:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
you would be completely wrong because there are numerical differences between a vulture skeleton and an eagles. so yeah, its a bad example and has no relevance in this thread. the thing is, that in order to classify the difference between ctretures at an anatomical level, you must require the knowlage to do so. spinosaurus was studied and asseptend as its own species by the vast majority of scientist. this is my final post on this subject. I'm done.
vulture
Posted Image

eagle
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 05:45 AM
you would be completely wrong because there are numerical differences between a vulture skeleton and an eagles. so yeah, its a bad example and has no relevance in this thread. the thing is, that in order to classify the difference between ctretures at an anatomical level, you must require the knowlage to do so. spinosaurus was studied and asseptend as its own species by the vast majority of scientist. this is my final post on this subject. I'm done.
vulture
Posted Image

eagle
Posted Image
It was a stupid example, I already said that, and agreeing doesn't change anything. Agreeing doesn't make it a fact that it was bigger than t-rex, and even those scientists cannot prove it was bigger, they are going to need more than a few jawbones, teeth, claws, sail bones to convince people. A complete skeleton is needed if we want to know what it COMPLETELY looks like. We need full proof, and if we have no full proof, it cannot be a fact, and it hasn't been proven that spino was bigger than rexy, the animals complete look hasn't been proven either, agreeing, guess and estimates aren't proof and don't make it a fact, and so far they haven't even found 10-15% of the animals skeleton.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 06:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
An Edmontosaurus survived an extremely powerful bite from an adult Tyrannosaurus. Spinosaurus COULD survive the bite force of Tyrannosaurus. As I said Spinosaurus is far larger and more durable than Edmontosaurus.
Scott Hartman's skeletal clearly shows that Spinosaurus (and Spinosaurids in general) had very powerful fore limbs. The bone structure can show muscle structure.
The immature Baryonyx specimen likely hunted the sub-adult Iguanodon. You are instantly assuming it was scavenged...
Armoured fish would still be alive when on the ground. A giant sawfish would likely carry on writhing and squirming around on the ground, and Spinosaurus would have to be cautious. The fish that Spinosaurus hunted were hard to kill.
Spinosaurids gradually died out because their main food supply died out (the large, armoured fish). Since Spinosaurids could be generalised hunters when needed, they would of hunted on land for other prey in the environment for a while. They did not die out because of the carnosaurs. I can give you some reasons for why this is unlikely:
England: Baryonyx and Neovenator coexisted. Baryonyx was far larger and stronger than Neovenator, so the carnosaur did not 'outcompete' the Spinosaurid here.
Niger: Suchomimus and Eocarcharia coexisted. Suchomimus was far larger and stronger than Eocarcharoa, so the carnosaur did not 'outcompete' the Spinosaurid here.
Egypt itself: Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus coexisted. Spinosaurus was far larger and stronger than Carcharodontosaurus so the carnosaur did not 'outcompete' the Spinosaurid here.
Spinosaurids did in fact have serrations on their teeth. They could tear flesh. Spinosaurus is far larger than Tyrannosaurus, so Spinosaurus would kill Tyrannosaurus in a confrontation more often than not.
Spinosaurus skull is far more comparable to a crocodile than a gharial in terms of bite force.
Spinosaurid skulls in general were not even remotely similar to a gharial's skull. Appearance is not important.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. We need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 06:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:21 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. There is no debunking because if you read my last post, the animal hasn't been proven, we need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
Of course it hasn't really been absolutely 100% proven to be bigger than T.rex, nor has it been the case for it being equal in size to or smaller than T.rex, because as you said, it is incomplete. If you are unconvinced of the supposed bigger than T.rex figures, explain to me why one is better than the other with things that haven't been presented yet and is being debated on (not that I'm THAT level of knowledgable though). Show ME the beef.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:33 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:21 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. There is no debunking because if you read my last post, the animal hasn't been proven, we need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
Of course it hasn't really been absolutely 100% proven to be bigger than T.rex, nor has it been the case for it being equal in size to or smaller than T.rex, because as you said, it is incomplete. If you are unconvinced of the supposed bigger than T.rex figures, explain to me why one is better than the other with things that haven't been presented yet and is being debated on (not that I'm THAT level of knowledgable though). Show ME the beef.
That question has nothing to do with this debate, and are you saying you have presented your information better than I have? I don't know, and I don't care, but what I have already stated is FACT, and you cannot change or challenge it. Sorry, I didn't really get your question.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 06:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:21 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. We need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
I agree spinosaurus could be bigger but at the same time it could be smaller then tyrannosaurus just have a longer head. We don't have enough of the skeleton to make any definitive conclusions about size. And even mesurments on what we do have still are best guesses!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
An Edmontosaurus survived an extremely powerful bite from an adult Tyrannosaurus. Spinosaurus COULD survive the bite force of Tyrannosaurus. As I said Spinosaurus is far larger and more durable than Edmontosaurus.
What are you talking about? The tail bite? The tail is not exactly what I would call a vital region.
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
The immature Baryonyx specimen likely hunted the sub-adult Iguanodon. You are instantly assuming it was scavenged...
I don't want to say it didn't kill the Iguanodon, but how is assuming something else insane? You need to provide more evidence (that's what he asked for) than that if you want to be convincing.
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
Armoured fish would still be alive when on the ground. A giant sawfish would likely carry on writhing and squirming around on the ground, and Spinosaurus would have to be cautious. The fish that Spinosaurus hunted were hard to kill.
I don't believe Spinosaurus hunted easy prey, but be honest, such fish are practically defenseless when carried on land. Almost every predator has to face heavily struggling prey, this is what animal normally do when getting caught and as long as Spinosaurus attacks from behind (like the jaguar in this video did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MjHVgzdbk ), the rostrum should be no problem.
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
Spinosaurus skull is far more comparable to a crocodile than a gharial in terms of bite force.
Spinosaurid skulls in general were not even remotely similar to a gharial's skull. Appearance is not important.
Then how about this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065295
This is about bending resistance and not bite force, but bending resistance is important, too.

P.S. I favor Spinosaurus too, but I fear it you are overestimating it a bit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Daspletosaurus
Jan 25 2014, 06:38 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:21 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. We need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
I agree spinosaurus could be bigger but at the same time it could be smaller then tyrannosaurus just have a longer head. We don't have enough of the skeleton to make any definitive conclusions about size. And even mesurments on what we do have still are best guesses!
Excactly, thank you! Thank you! Thannnnnnnkkkkkkkkk Yooooouuuuuu! I most certainly agree with everything you said.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 25 2014, 06:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ausar
Member Avatar
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:38 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:33 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:21 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. There is no debunking because if you read my last post, the animal hasn't been proven, we need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
Of course it hasn't really been absolutely 100% proven to be bigger than T.rex, nor has it been the case for it being equal in size to or smaller than T.rex, because as you said, it is incomplete. If you are unconvinced of the supposed bigger than T.rex figures, explain to me why one is better than the other with things that haven't been presented yet and is being debated on (not that I'm THAT level of knowledgable though). Show ME the beef.
That question has nothing to do with this debate, and are you saying you have presented your information better than I have? I don't know, and I don't care, but what I have already stated is FACT, and you cannot change or challenge it. Overall I have stated the facts and given the beef.
What do you mean, it has nothing to do with this debate? I'm merely stating that if one finds one weight estimate better than the other, they should explain why, other than it's not 100% proven. No I did not suggest I've presented things better than you have.

I NEVER denied that Spinosaurus' size is troubling and that it is known from incomplete remains, but that is all you're stating and we were all aware of that fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Daspletosaurus
Jan 25 2014, 06:38 AM
I agree spinosaurus could be bigger but at the same time it could be smaller then tyrannosaurus just have a longer head. We don't have enough of the skeleton to make any definitive conclusions about size. And even mesurments on what we do have still are best guesses!
It could have simply had a longer head, but it could also have been up to 18 m long. Both directions are always possible, I would work with what we have (rigorous skeletal reconstructions).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Jan 25 2014, 06:40 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
An Edmontosaurus survived an extremely powerful bite from an adult Tyrannosaurus. Spinosaurus COULD survive the bite force of Tyrannosaurus. As I said Spinosaurus is far larger and more durable than Edmontosaurus.
What are you talking about? The tail bite? The tail is not exactly what I would call a vital region.
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
The immature Baryonyx specimen likely hunted the sub-adult Iguanodon. You are instantly assuming it was scavenged...
I don't want to say it didn't kill the Iguanodon, but how is assuming something else insane? You need to provide more evidence (that's what he asked for) than that if you want to be convincing.
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
Armoured fish would still be alive when on the ground. A giant sawfish would likely carry on writhing and squirming around on the ground, and Spinosaurus would have to be cautious. The fish that Spinosaurus hunted were hard to kill.
I don't believe Spinosaurus hunted easy prey, but be honest, such fish are practically defenseless when carried on land. Almost every predator has to face heavily struggling prey, this is what animal normally do when getting caught and as long as Spinosaurus attacks from behind (like the jaguar in this video did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MjHVgzdbk ), the rostrum should be no problem.
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 06:03 AM
Spinosaurus skull is far more comparable to a crocodile than a gharial in terms of bite force.
Spinosaurid skulls in general were not even remotely similar to a gharial's skull. Appearance is not important.
Then how about this?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0065295
This is about bending resistance and not bite force, but bending resistance is important, too.

P.S. I favor Spinosaurus too, but I fear it you are overestimating it a bit.
By the way, my thinking that you did not like was Fact, which you cannot change. It wasn't bad thinking, it was fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:43 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:38 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:33 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 06:21 AM
Dinopithecus
Jan 25 2014, 06:17 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:36 AM
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.
Unless there is something debunking it (in this case, a whole bunch of ideas), we have to go with it.
What kind of an argument is that, we have to go with it. There is no debunking because if you read my last post, the animal hasn't been proven, we need more than 5-10% percent of a skeleton to see what it really looked like, it hasn't been prove to be bigger than t-rex because no more than 10% or whatever of the skeleton has been found. Read my last post, or the one before this one. Obviously the spinosaurous is real, but to how big it really was or what it really looked like has not been proven, 5-10% or whatever isn't enough. Show me the beef.
Of course it hasn't really been absolutely 100% proven to be bigger than T.rex, nor has it been the case for it being equal in size to or smaller than T.rex, because as you said, it is incomplete. If you are unconvinced of the supposed bigger than T.rex figures, explain to me why one is better than the other with things that haven't been presented yet and is being debated on (not that I'm THAT level of knowledgable though). Show ME the beef.
That question has nothing to do with this debate, and are you saying you have presented your information better than I have? I don't know, and I don't care, but what I have already stated is FACT, and you cannot change or challenge it. Overall I have stated the facts and given the beef.
What do you mean, it has nothing to do with this debate? I'm merely stating that if one finds one weight estimate better than the other, they should explain why, other than it's not 100% proven. No I did not suggest I've presented things better than you have.

I NEVER denied that Spinosaurus' size is troubling and that it is known from incomplete remains, but that is all you're stating and we were all aware of that fact.
Sorry I didn't get your question at the time, I understand you.
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.