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 (459,179 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 26 2014, 05:23 AM
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.

Yes, Hone stated that there are chances of other known theropods of being bigger than T. rex, but is opinion is clearly that T. rex is the biggest. Anyway, it is not only Hone who makes guesstimates, but Dal Sasso and Maganuco too, since the paragraph in which they try and discuss the size of the animal is called " Skull Size and Hypothetical Body Size". The authors then proceed saying: "As some postcranial elements (i.e., the limb bones and the caudal vertebrae)
are hitherto unknown in Spinosaurus, it is difficult to reconstruct accurately its body proportions, so the real size of MSNM V4047 can be only tentatively hypothesised" and "With an appropriate degree of caution, the size of the whole animal (Fig. 5C) can be calculated by reconstructing the skeleton on the basis of both the remains of the holotype of Spinosaurus (Stromer, 1915) and Suchomimus (Sereno et al., 1998). The estimated length for MSNM V4047 is about 16–18 m". While we know from Hartman, Paul, Cau that 16 - 18 metres is very very unlikely. The two authors main purpose wasn't to estimate the size, they just guesstimate it, and do it wrongly, as we all here seem to agree with.

But since we discussed this kind of matters to exaustion (I also have the impression that we are starting hating each other, I wouldn't like it) I'm more interested in how do you figure Spinosaurus using its arms. You said to Dinopithecus that you don't think that theropods as big as these would have been capable of high dorsiflexion. This is of course even more true for Spinosaurus, was enlarged neural spines would touch each other quite soo it it tries to flex is vertebral column. So yeah, the arms were most likely big, but the head and the neck would be reached by Tyrannosaurus before it would be catched by its arms (but they would probably just got bited away, IMO), since only in Maniraptora we find arms long enough to reach higher distances than the jaws. Note that sinc Spinosaurus neck wasn't S-shaped at all, its long snout would be even more distant from the arms.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 26 2014, 03:38 AM
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.
From the 13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus and the 8 ton estimates for Tyrannosaurus. As theropod said one will experience a force strong enough to knock it off balance, and since Spinosaurus is more powerful and more massive, Tyrannosaurus will be knocked to the floor during a ram.
who estimated 13 tons for spinosaurus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
retic
Jan 26 2014, 06:34 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 26 2014, 03:38 AM
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.
From the 13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus and the 8 ton estimates for Tyrannosaurus. As theropod said one will experience a force strong enough to knock it off balance, and since Spinosaurus is more powerful and more massive, Tyrannosaurus will be knocked to the floor during a ram.
who estimated 13 tons for spinosaurus?
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
 
I believe they are Scott Hartman's estimates for Spinosaurus. Well Hatzegopteryx said so anyway.
as far as i know scott hartman hasen't posted any mass estimates for spinosaurus yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 26 2014, 05:38 AM
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.
No bad feelings dude.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 26 2014, 04:44 AM
It seems i'm the only one backing T-Rex here.... And i'm not changing my mind. T-Rex takes this...i'll be back with more reasons soon...
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 26 2014, 07:18 AM
retic
Jan 26 2014, 06:34 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Jan 26 2014, 03:38 AM
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.
From the 13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus and the 8 ton estimates for Tyrannosaurus. As theropod said one will experience a force strong enough to knock it off balance, and since Spinosaurus is more powerful and more massive, Tyrannosaurus will be knocked to the floor during a ram.
who estimated 13 tons for spinosaurus?
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
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Biteforce, their mean weapons, won't work effectively against each other.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Vobby
Jan 26 2014, 11:27 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Biteforce, their mean weapons, won't work effectively against each other.
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.
(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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 12:41 PM
Vobby
Jan 26 2014, 11:27 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Biteforce, their mean weapons, won't work effectively against each other.
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.
(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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Palaeogirl
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 26 2014, 02:31 PM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 12:41 PM
Vobby
Jan 26 2014, 11:27 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Biteforce, their mean weapons, won't work effectively against each other.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Palaeogirl
Jan 26 2014, 02:48 PM
Canadianwildlife
Jan 26 2014, 02:31 PM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 12:41 PM
Vobby
Jan 26 2014, 11:27 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Biteforce, their mean weapons, won't work effectively against each other.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 26 2014, 04:44 AM
It seems i'm the only one backing T-Rex here.... And i'm not changing my mind. T-Rex takes this...i'll be back with more reasons soon...
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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 26 2014, 11:05 AM
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 26 2014, 04:44 AM
It seems i'm the only one backing T-Rex here.... And i'm not changing my mind. T-Rex takes this...i'll be back with more reasons soon...
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.
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.
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.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.