| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,179 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Canadianwildlife | Jan 26 2014, 05:38 AM Post #3031 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not angry at anyone, just wanted to let you know that. My posts may sound mean, but they are not. Everyone here is smart, and seem well educated on this topic. I apologize for causing chaos on this thread. Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 26 2014, 06:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| retic | Jan 26 2014, 06:34 AM Post #3032 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
who estimated 13 tons for spinosaurus? |
![]() |
|
| TheMechaBaryonyx789 | Jan 26 2014, 07:18 AM Post #3033 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I believe they are Scott Hartman's estimates for Spinosaurus. Well Hatzegopteryx said so anyway. http://likosaurus.deviantart.com/journal/The-size-variations-of-the-dinosauria-423309004 Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 26 2014, 07:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| retic | Jan 26 2014, 07:22 AM Post #3034 |
![]()
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
as far as i know scott hartman hasen't posted any mass estimates for spinosaurus yet. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Jan 26 2014, 10:32 AM Post #3035 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No bad feelings dude. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM Post #3036 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why? Biteforce, their mean weapons, won't work effectively against each other. @TheMechaBaryonyx789: We don't know if Spinosaurus would actually even ram, that is purely baseless speculation, correct me if there are any sources. I haven't seen any. The lighter tyrannosaurid (don't say it is a ninja for being lighter than a 13 ton animal that is ridiculous) probably had less rotational inertia, but not sure how much less. Still, I do believe it could outflank the spinosaurid, but I'm not taking that into consideration, not to mention how it doesn't help it by much. Still, I don't think the spinosaurid would ram into the tyrannosaurid, since we have no evidence of it ramming in conflicts. I still back Spinosaurus. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Jan 26 2014, 11:08 AM Post #3037 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well I had no idea what I was talking about, Scott Hartman hasn't released his GDI on Spinosaurus yet. I had said that because you and thesporerex did on our forum (please don't mention its name, adveritising is not allowed here) so I believed that but then I realised that he never said that. So I would say stop blidnly believing in a statement by someone who never ever stated it. |
![]() |
|
| Vobby | Jan 26 2014, 11:27 AM Post #3038 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why? They are predators of comparable sizes, there is really nothing that stops both of them to bite each other. I've yet to see a precise estimate of the gape of both these animals, but even if it was like 60-70° then it is like that of a lot of modern predators, like Hyenas, Wolves and pantherines, which are perfectly able of biting hard trough animals several times bigger than themselves. The head, the neck, the limbs, the tail and I'm sure the flanks too are pefectly fine targets for them to bite. The amount of damage the two would inflict each other is not even comparable of course. |
![]() |
|
| Daspletosaurus | Jan 26 2014, 12:14 PM Post #3039 |
|
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So I've been reading throught the last few pages and I have to know, how is it possible to know whether or not beyond any shadow of doubt that an extinct animal that no one has ever observed or studied beyond its 65.5 millon year old bones, wouldn't have an infectious bite? Bone can only tell you so much. And frankly the only way to prove that Tyrannosaurus didn't have an infectious bite would be to trank a live specimen and test its saliva ! Oh wait we can't so speculating that it may have had an infectious is just as plausible as an 18 meter spinosaurus ! Please someone give me hard evidence that the oppinions and ideas that are not main stream or inside the box are false! |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Jan 26 2014, 12:41 PM Post #3040 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(I meant *main not mean) Spinosaurus had the gape advantage but its weaker bite is not killing its foe if the foe itself couldn't kill an Edmontosaurus by biting its head with more force. o I don't think biteforce will matter much here. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jan 26 2014, 02:31 PM Post #3041 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bite force most certainly matters here! It can be the difference of killing your opponent. A super strong bite force means more damage in the bite, and having a much stronger bite force means that when you bite the other opponent, you can damage him a lot more, which will weaken him, and give you a better chance of winning the fight. So, for example, when the rex bites down, lets say for example he breaks a few bones, and breaks the spinos back bone, which is unlikely, but its just an example. But when the spinosaurous bites down, all the damage it does is give a few deep cuts or wounds, and maybe break a bone. Whoever has more damage to their body has more of a chance of losing. It was a bad example, I know, but you get what I'm trying to say. Even if one has more physical advantages, if they are more injured and weakened than their opponent, then that gives the other opponent a great advantage. I think it may come down to whoever seriously injurs the other first, then the less injured one can take advantage of the more injured one. Kind of like a, whoever gets in that first nasty bite thing. Who can damage the other opponent first. Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 26 2014, 02:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Palaeogirl | Jan 26 2014, 02:48 PM Post #3042 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree that it'll only take a few bites from T.rex to kill Spinosaurus, but T.rex's gape wasn't wide enough to bite Spinosaurus anywhere except for the neck and arms and if the generally accepted size for Spinosaurus is correct then getting to the neck would put T.rex right in the range of the meathook claws and muscular arms. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Jan 26 2014, 03:02 PM Post #3043 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with you, but as for the bite gape thing, both animals could only fully bite each other on the head, neck, legs, and tail, but not each others bodies. So they were both limited about the same as to where they could fully bite. |
![]() |
|
| spinosaurus rex | Jan 26 2014, 04:15 PM Post #3044 |
![]()
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
its not that baseless. it can be observed by a multitude of large modern day animals. when a large animal such as an elephants, hippos, bears, etc square up with a smaller counterpart of its own species, they won't think twice about implementing their size to their advantage. there nothing suggesting large theropods wouldn't do the same. there is absolutely no major agility between the two of them. tyrannosaurus might have a slight advantage at a distance do to its smaller size, but its quite obvious that neither can avoid each other once they get within contact range. |
![]() |
|
| TheMechaBaryonyx789 | Jan 26 2014, 06:17 PM Post #3045 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Modern day animals ram into each other in fights, why couldn't Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus? Since Tyrannosaurus is the lighter one, it will be knocked over during a ram. Also I never called Tyrannosaurus a ninja, I actually said there would be hardly any agility difference between them at all. I also back Spinosaurus in this fight. |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








2:23 AM Jul 14