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 (459,181 Views)
Wolf Eagle
Member Avatar
M E G A P H Y S E T E R
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannosaurus rex
Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur. The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), commonly abbreviated to T. rex, is a fixture in popular culture. It lived throughout what is now western North America, with a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous Period, 67 to 65.5 million years ago.[1] It was among the last non-avian dinosaurs to exist before the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Like other tyrannosaurids, Tyrannosaurus was a bipedal carnivore with a massive skull balanced by a long, heavy tail. Relative to the large and powerful hindlimbs, Tyrannosaurus forelimbs were small, though unusually powerful for their size, and bore two clawed digits. Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it was the largest known tyrannosaurid and one of the largest known land predators. By far the largest carnivore in its environment, Tyrannosaurus rex may have been an apex predator, preying upon hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, although some experts have suggested it was primarily a scavenger. The debate over Tyrannosaurus as apex predator or scavenger is among the longest running in paleontology. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time; the largest complete specimen, FMNH PR2081 ("Sue"), measured 12.8 metres (42 ft) long, and was 4.0 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the hips. Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7.2 metric tons (7.9 short tons), to less than 4.5 metric tons (5.0 short tons), with most modern estimates ranging between 5.4 and 6.8 metric tons (6.0 and 7.5 short tons). Packard et al. (2009) tested dinosaur mass estimation procedures on elephants and concluded that dinosaur estimations are flawed and produce over-estimations; thus, the weight of Tyrannosaurus could be much less than usually estimated. Other estimations have concluded that the largest known Tyrannosaurus specimens had a weight exceeding 9 tonnes.

Posted Image

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
Spinosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur which lived in what is now North Africa, from the lower Albian to lower Cenomanian stages of the Cretaceous period, about 112 to 97 million years ago. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. The skull of Spinosaurus was long and narrow like that of a modern crocodilian. Spinosaurus is thought to have eaten fish; evidence suggests that it lived both on land and in water like a modern crocodilian. The distinctive spines of Spinosaurus, which were long extensions of the vertebrae, grew to at least 1.65 meters (5.4 ft) long and were likely to have had skin connecting them, forming a sail-like structure, although some authors have suggested that the spines were covered in fat and formed a hump. Multiple functions have been put forward for this structure, including thermoregulation and display. Dal Sasso et al. (2005) assumed that Spinosaurus and Suchomimus had the same body proportions in relation to their skull lengths, and thereby calculated that Spinosaurus was 16 to 18 meters (52 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 9 tonnes (7.7 to 9.9 short tons) in weight. The Dal Sasso et al. estimates were criticized because the skull length estimate was uncertain, and (assuming that body mass increases as the cube of body length) scaling Suchomimus which was 11 meters (36 ft) long and 3.8 tonnes (4.2 short tons) in mass to the range of estimated lengths of Spinosaurus would produce an estimated body mass of 11.7 to 16.7 tonnes (12.9 to 18.4 short tons).

Posted Image
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
post 3002 canadianwildlife
dude, you massively underrate the spinosaurus, its almost unbelievable. I mean, spinosaurus arms breaking from griping forward? what kind of comment is that.
a small gape does restrict tyrannosaurus abilities to deliver the deadly bite force. only a very few places on spinosaurus would be able to allow a decent grip, and spinosaurus presented size and height is not going to help. intelligence has no relevance in a fight like this. spinosaurus wouldn't be stupid enough to allow tyrannosaurus to bite it just as well tyrannosaurus isn't dumb enough to be knocked down.( which is indeed a capability due to the mass differences)
lastly, there is absolutely no agility advantage between either of them. tyrannosaurus, although smaller, weighs 7-8 tons. neither creature are going to be able to avoid contact once they come into range of each other.
and how the hell it tyrannosaurus is going to be able to bite the back of a significantly taller creature? please enlighten me
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jan 25 2014, 09:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 09:44 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 09:37 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 09:30 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 09:21 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 09:15 AM
The t-rex has the better weaponry, its jaws, has the bacteria which can be lethal, spino was stronger in the body, but the two animals won't be using their bodies, they will be using their jaws. Spino also has that fragile sail, and all the rex has to do is bite it, which can cause major damage. Not only that, it has been suggested that the if it fell on its sail, the animal would pretty much break its back. The spino has the weight and size advantage, but can it use it?
1. Tyrannosaurus did not have an infectious bite, that is pure speculation made by JFC.
2. Spinosaurus had a muscle ridge, not a sail.
3. Spinosaurus can use its strength to overpower Tyrannosaurus by knocking Tyrannosaurus to the ground and breaking Tyrannosaurus' ribcage with the impact.
4. Tyrannosaurus did have a stronger bite force, but it will be less effective against a larger theropod such as Spinosaurus due to Tyrannosaurus' smaller bite gape.
Smaller bite gape, the t-rex can still easily bite the spino, and it will be far more lethal than the other way around. Yes, but if it fell on that hump or whatever it is, it could still easily break. it will be harder for the t-rex to get in a bite, but when the spino tries, that is when the rex can bite, it could bite its jaws or side step. I don't think a spinosaurous will kill a rex by simply just knocking it down, rememember, the t-rex was smarter, and it wouldn't be stupid to just stand there, it would side step. The rex, considering its shorter, would be more nimble, and would be able to dodge better than the spino. The spinos arms would also probably fracture if it tried to grip upward, its arms were lower down on its body. If the spino fails to knock the rex down, and they begin to fight with their jaws, that is where the t-rex takes over.
It is very unlikely that Spinosaurus would fall on its muscle ridge... Also don't call it a hump use the correct terminology. Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus would most likely ram into each other, and Tyrannosaurus would be knocked to the ground due to it being the lighter one. Neither Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaurus were agile due to both of them being over elephant sized. Neither of them could dodge easily at all. Why would Spinosaurus be stupid enough to fracture its arms in such a way...
Tyrannosaurus only really has more powerful jaws on its side, because being more advanced and faster are not advantages in this case.
Spinosaurus would win the majority of the time imo.
I doubt they are both stupid enough to just ram each other like big horn sheep, that would be stupid, they will fight with their jaws. So they just charge each other and knock each other over? The jaw fighting theory is more reasonable. Spinosaurous pretty much couldn't use its arms anyway, as they are too low, and at risk for being bitten. Yes, the t-rex 's main advantage is its jaws, but that is what they will fight with, the only other way they could fight is by ramming each other, which isn't an effective way to fight. How is the spinosaurous going to knock the t-rex over when it has to get past the t-rexes jaws?
Ramming into each other would be an effective way to fight, because it would demonstrate which of the two theropods is stronger. Spinosaurus is the stronger one in this case. Spinosaurus' arms were not too low, and would be efficient in this fight. Tyrannosaurus' only real advantage is bite force (speed and intelligence are not advantages, and having a more robust build is not an advantage in this particular case either) while all the other advantages go to Spinosaurus.
There is no agility difference between them (as Spinosaurus rex stated).
Spinosaurus will win more often than not.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 26 2014, 03:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 25 2014, 09:47 AM
post 3002 canadianwildlife
dude, you massively underrate the spinosaurus, its almost unbelievable. I mean, spinosaurus arms breaking from griping forward? what kind of comment is that.
a small gape does restrict tyrannosaurus abilities to deliver the deadly bite force. only a very few places on spinosaurus would be able to allow a decent grip, and spinosaurus presented size and height is not going to help. intelligence has no relevance in a fight like this. spinosaurus wouldn't be stupid enough to allow tyrannosaurus to bite it just as well tyrannosaurus isn't dumb enough to be knocked down.( which is indeed a capability due to the mass differences)
lastly, there is absolutely no agility advantage between either of them. tyrannosaurus, although smaller, weighs 7-8 tons. neither creature are going to be able to avoid contact once they come into range of each other.
and how the hell it tyrannosaurus is going to be able to bite the back of a significantly taller creature? please enlighten me
Agreed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 09:41 AM
Vobby
Jan 25 2014, 09:38 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 09:10 AM
Vobby
Jan 25 2014, 09:07 AM
Canadianwildlife, study a little more. First, Spinosaurus exists and is a perfectly valid taxon. Second, we almost perfectly know how its torso, neck and skull looked like. The disagreement about the lenght of the holotype isn't important here, since any difference would only regard the tail. There are several reconstructions, there are studying describing its bones, there are studies inferring its size, studies regarding its bite force and resistance to bending of its skull... not to talk about the tons of posts made by artists and paleontologists on the net about it. Really, we have more than enough to discuss it and compare what we know for sure about it with what we know for sure about Tyrannosaurus. Why the hell do you feel the need to remember us that we don't have its legs and arms? If you think that Scott Hartman's recostruction is wrong, then please go and read Stromer, then explain why. I agree in saying that many things people seems to consider sure are more speculation than facts, but spamming 5 pages of this thread to protest against the lack of fossils is completely worthless.
Ok, fine, you have proved me, but I'm still backing the rex in this fight.
You didn't even noticed that I strongly back Tyrannosaurus too, due to the fact that I'm convinced (not just me here..) to have evidence for it being much bigger, with bigger meaning heavier.
You are using Cau's studies as a reference. I am using Hartman's studies as a reference. Our sides of the argument will be different.
I may use Dave Hone too, he stated more than one time that he considers Tyrannosaurus the more massive theropods found untile now (with Spinosaurus surpassing it only in lenght).

What's really funny is that if it wasn't for Cau, we wouldn'e even have that Hartman reconstruction of Spinosaurus, like you can read here:
http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2012/01/revisiting-fisher-king.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DarkGricer
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 09:15 AM
The t-rex has the better weaponry, its jaws, has the bacteria which can be lethal, spino was stronger in the body, but the two animals won't be using their bodies, they will be using their jaws. Spino also has that fragile sail, and all the rex has to do is bite it, which can cause major damage. Not only that, it has been suggested that the if it fell on its sail, the animal would pretty much break its back. The spino has the weight and size advantage, but can it use it?
First of all, the bacterial bite thing is nonsense. It was thought of based on false evidence (Namely the Komodo Dragon's bite, which is actually venomous, not any more full of bacteria then that of a Cat or a Human). T.rex most likely didn't have it. If you assume it did, then there's absolutely no reason to say Spinosaurus shouldn't ' be used it match ups because it's so fragmentary.

Second of all, yes. They will most likely use their bodies, or at least Spinosaurus will. When an animal is larger then it's opponent but is outclassed in weaponry, they will use that size to their advantage. It's not difficult to imagine Spinosaurus slamming it's body into it's opponent to knock it on the ground, allowing it to deliver a finishing blow with a well placed bite.

Third, about the sail. Basically the same as with the bacteria. The only thing biting or breaking it would really do is hurt. The spinal chord does not go through the spines, but the vertebrae. If Spino rolls over, the only things threatening to break it's back are the force of it hitting the ground or whatever creature made it hit the ground. But in this scenario, it's opponent is most likely smaller, so it'll be difficult to get Spino on the ground without killing it first, which would also not be easy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Big G
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 25 2014, 09:38 AM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 09:10 AM
Vobby
Jan 25 2014, 09:07 AM
Canadianwildlife, study a little more. First, Spinosaurus exists and is a perfectly valid taxon. Second, we almost perfectly know how its torso, neck and skull looked like. The disagreement about the lenght of the holotype isn't important here, since any difference would only regard the tail. There are several reconstructions, there are studying describing its bones, there are studies inferring its size, studies regarding its bite force and resistance to bending of its skull... not to talk about the tons of posts made by artists and paleontologists on the net about it. Really, we have more than enough to discuss it and compare what we know for sure about it with what we know for sure about Tyrannosaurus. Why the hell do you feel the need to remember us that we don't have its legs and arms? If you think that Scott Hartman's recostruction is wrong, then please go and read Stromer, then explain why. I agree in saying that many things people seems to consider sure are more speculation than facts, but spamming 5 pages of this thread to protest against the lack of fossils is completely worthless.
Ok, fine, you have proved me, but I'm still backing the rex in this fight.
You didn't even noticed that I strongly back Tyrannosaurus too, due to the fact that I'm convinced (not just me here..) to have evidence for it being much bigger, with bigger meaning heavier.
Much bigger? That's a exagerration. T.rex, if it was bigger (because it may has been as big or smaller), it likely wasn't much bigger. Cau has stated that T.rex's size is twice to the Spinosaurus', that's true, but he believes in a 8.6-13 m Spino, too, wich is a bit coservative. So Spinosaurus was almost certainly longer, and the difference bewteen the two cannot be so high.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Vobby you realise that’s the old version from 2012? The new one is bigger, since in the old one he seems to have tried to incorporate the holotype and MNSM into the same individual.

And Hone did not do any "studies" on it, just a guesstimate that T. rex, being bulkier, may be heavier (without quantifying how much bulkier it is, and how much bulkier it would have to be). Hone & Rauhut (2009, and actual paper and not a blog comment) actually concede " some [theropods] might have actually been significantly larger [than tyrannosaurs] (e.g. Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus; see Dal Sasso et al. 2005)", therefore agreeing with the cited work.

@drift: That’s very philosophical, but no matter how you put it, you have no evidence suggesting Spinosaurus did not have the positively huge and massively robust arms deducible from its relatives (Cristatusaurus, Baryonyx), and no evidence that such arms would not have had a use in combat.

Also, pretty big humeri, almost as large as would be expected for MNSM V4047, have actually been found:
Posted Imagecredit goes to Spinodontosaurus

The reference is Russell, 1996. I don’t know the title but presume it is "Isolated dinosaur bones from the Middle Cretaceous of the Tafilalt, Morocco". The specimens are listed on palaeofile.

I don’t see how anyone could think such a monstrosity of a forelimb (probably measuring 2m+ in life) would not be a factor.

@canadianwildlife: FOR THE VERY LAST TIME, THE INFECTIOUS BITE IS BS! It has been suggested at a time when it was still believed this was the actual killing method of Komodo dragons. Since then, it has been found that the latter actually has venom and its bite is no more infectious than that of any other carnivore.

Spinosaurus dying from breaking its spinous processes is every bit as ridiculous. It’s truly a shame I still have to explain this to people, but breaking your spinous process isn’t any more deadly than breaking your little toe if your spinal medulla is unaffected (which, in Spinosaurus, would be the case since the spinous processes are thinner and would be more prone to breaking under lateral loads than the basal neural arches). Both would die from a fall though, so it doesn’t matter. Just, T. rex happens to be more likely to actually topple.
Edited by theropod, Jan 26 2014, 09:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 25 2014, 08:51 PM
@Vobby you realise that’s the old version from 2012? The new one is bigger, since in the old one he seems to have tried to incorporate the holotype and MNSM into the same individual.

And Hone did not do any "studies" on it, just a guesstimate that T. rex, being bulkier, may be heavier (without quantifying how much bulkier it is, and how much bulkier it would have to be). Hone & Rauhut (2009, and actual paper and not a blog comment) actually concede " some [theropods] might have actually been significantly larger [than tyrannosaurs] (e.g. Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus; see Dal Sasso et al. 2005)", therefore agreeing with the cited work.

@drift: That’s very philosophical, but no matter how you put it, you have no evidence suggesting Spinosaurus did not have the positively huge and massively robust arms deducible from its relatives (Cristatusaurus, Baryonyx), and no evidence that such arms would not have had a use in combat.

Also, pretty big humeri, almost as large as would be expected for MNSM V4047, have actually been found:
Posted Imagecredit goes to fragillimus335, dunno whether any of you remember him.

The reference is Russell, 1996. I don’t know the title but presume it is "Isolated dinosaur bones from the Middle Cretaceous of the Tafilalt, Morocco". The specimens are listed on palaeofile.

@everyone: FOR THE VERY LAST TIME, THE INFECTIOUS BITE IS BS! It has been suggested at a time when it was still believed this was the actual killing method of Komodo dragons. Since then, it has been found that the latter actually has venom and its bite is no more infectious than that of any other carnivore.

Spinosaurus dying from breaking its spinous processes is every bit as ridiculous. It’s truly a shame I still have to explain this to people, but breaking your spinous process isn’t any more deadly than breaking your little toe if your spinal medulla is unaffected (which, in Spinosaurus, would be the case since the spinous processes are thinner and would be more prone to breaking under lateral loads than the basal neural arches). Both would die from a fall though, so it doesn’t matter. Just, T. rex happens to be more likely to actually topple.
Change the @everyone to @canadianwildlife.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 25 2014, 05:34 AM
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.
except this is a hypothetical scenario already and we have no good reason to keep changing it to more speculation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Mecha stop overestimating the spinosaurid it is not knocking the tyrannosaurid to the ground so easily. This is much closer than just that. I still back the spinosaurid though
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 25 2014, 11:37 PM
Mecha stop overestimating the spinosaurid it is not knocking the tyrannosaurid to the ground so easily. This is much closer than just that. I still back the spinosaurid though
The Spinosaurid is over 60% larger than the Tyrannosaurid in this case so that is very possible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 11:46 PM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 25 2014, 11:37 PM
Mecha stop overestimating the spinosaurid it is not knocking the tyrannosaurid to the ground so easily. This is much closer than just that. I still back the spinosaurid though
The Spinosaurid is over 60% larger than the Tyrannosaurid in this case so that is very possible.
it depends on which specimens we compare. for example, MSMN V4047 would of only been about 30-37% heavier than sue, though i would still back spinosaurus.
Edited by retic, Jan 26 2014, 01:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 11:46 PM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 25 2014, 11:37 PM
Mecha stop overestimating the spinosaurid it is not knocking the tyrannosaurid to the ground so easily. This is much closer than just that. I still back the spinosaurid though
The Spinosaurid is over 60% larger than the Tyrannosaurid in this case so that is very possible.
From what estimates? And no it does not knock it to the ground, those are not drunk bar fighters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 01:33 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 25 2014, 11:46 PM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 25 2014, 11:37 PM
Mecha stop overestimating the spinosaurid it is not knocking the tyrannosaurid to the ground so easily. This is much closer than just that. I still back the spinosaurid though
The Spinosaurid is over 60% larger than the Tyrannosaurid in this case so that is very possible.
From what estimates? And no it does not knock it to the ground, those are not drunk bar fighters.
actually it is possible for spinosaurus to knock down t.rex.

i know that dinosaur documentaries aren't the most reliable source, but i just wanted to note the part where the two tyrannosaurs slam against each other. if this happened between spinosaurus and t.rex, the tyrannosaur would likely fall.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
those are multi-ton bipeds. It is a realistic scenario that in a fight one will experience a force strong enough to knock it off balance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.