|
Replies:
|
|
Canadianwildlife
|
Jan 27 2014, 06:48 AM
Post #3076
|
- Posts:
- 4,560
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,984
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2013
|
- Hatzegopteryx
- Jan 27 2014, 06:24 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 04:13 AM
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 03:56 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 03:08 AM
Scott Hartman's MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) is in fact larger than Sue and presumably Giganotosaurus respectively. I know the image is kinda small but here are the sizes: MSMN V4047 (the largest Spinosaurus specimen)- 12.5 tons in weight Sue- 8.4 tons in weight.
Do those numbers come from Hartman himself? Has been said several times here that he still didn't published his GDI for Spinosaurus. If the author of that image just calculated the area of Spinosaurus silouhette, then it's normal for it ending up weighing more than Sue. Blaze have done a similar comparison and the holotype came out of being 6 tons, 7 at most. (By the way, regarding Sue, we should pay more attention to 9,5 t estimate from Hutchinson et al. which is very recent too and quite rigourous, it seems, and also indirectly confirmed by Bates et al.) @theropod, yes, if we ignore the neural spines both Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are bigger than Spinosaurus. So the whole debate about Spinosaurus size should be about the fact that, while the spines clearly make it dimensionally bigger, enlarging its area in the lateral view, we don't really know how much they would increase its volume. Personally, I think the spines are far too thin for having supported the kind of heavy epaxial muscolature showed by rhinos, for example. If we compare the neural spines of Spinosaurus with those of T. rex, only the latters appear thick and solid enough for having supported big muscles, and having resisted the consequencial high stress. I find likely that those spines were made for supporting ligaments and tendons attached to the neck and head to, in order to support its way of hunting-feeding. But a 8-9 tons Spinosaurus would have had 2-3 tons of muscle mass on its spines, which is impossible (and ridicoulous to imagine, since it would basically have an additional torso on its back), and I'm sure no one here has such a thing in mind...
The 12.5 ton estimates for MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) are derived from weight estimates for Suchomimus. And the 8.4 ton estimates for Sue are from Scott Hartman himself. I rather consider Spinosaurus (the largest specimen) to be around 11-13 tons in weight, but the subject matter is debatable. I also favour Spinosaurus in this fight.
I still don't get why you are basing those estimates from what theropod called guesstimates by Spinodontosaurus. If they haven't been calculated by him they are just guesses that can't be taken much into consideration. @Canadianwildlife: Not really, the small gape plus the bone crushing bite won't work with something larger than the animal itself, not to mention how this is not a defenceless prey item, but a theropod that fights back. You are speculating how the fight would go which is totally pointless. Biteforce does matter but not much here since... Spinosaurus: Its weaker bite won't kill the tyrannosaurid, since even BHI 3033 survived many worse pathologies Tyrannosaurus: Its gape and its bite aren't designed to be effective against larger predators, it won't be able to bite in effective areas like the neck or the skull. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, I'm just pointing out that t-rex is capable of biting the spinosaurous during the fight. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, but now, you are the one who is underrating the t-rex. And now, your argument is that the t-rex can't even bite its foe to kill it, this depends if the t-rex can get in possition or not, or if the spino is in a vunerable possition.
|
|
|
| |
|
Drift
|
Jan 27 2014, 07:05 AM
Post #3077
|
- Posts:
- 1,025
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #71
- Joined:
- Jan 13, 2012
|
@therapod Well to counter that you have no evidence their arms could be used in combat or uses other than gutting large fish.As i stated before that is an assumption which is an opinion not written in stone facts.I agree with @canadianwildfire this is a fight where their jaws are the deciding factors,That is the main weapon of both animals
|
|
|
| |
|
TheMechaBaryonyx789
|
Jan 27 2014, 07:57 AM
Post #3078
|
- Posts:
- 593
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,530
- Joined:
- Aug 5, 2013
|
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 06:48 AM
- Hatzegopteryx
- Jan 27 2014, 06:24 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 04:13 AM
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 03:56 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 03:08 AM
Scott Hartman's MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) is in fact larger than Sue and presumably Giganotosaurus respectively. I know the image is kinda small but here are the sizes: MSMN V4047 (the largest Spinosaurus specimen)- 12.5 tons in weight Sue- 8.4 tons in weight.
Do those numbers come from Hartman himself? Has been said several times here that he still didn't published his GDI for Spinosaurus. If the author of that image just calculated the area of Spinosaurus silouhette, then it's normal for it ending up weighing more than Sue. Blaze have done a similar comparison and the holotype came out of being 6 tons, 7 at most. (By the way, regarding Sue, we should pay more attention to 9,5 t estimate from Hutchinson et al. which is very recent too and quite rigourous, it seems, and also indirectly confirmed by Bates et al.) @theropod, yes, if we ignore the neural spines both Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are bigger than Spinosaurus. So the whole debate about Spinosaurus size should be about the fact that, while the spines clearly make it dimensionally bigger, enlarging its area in the lateral view, we don't really know how much they would increase its volume. Personally, I think the spines are far too thin for having supported the kind of heavy epaxial muscolature showed by rhinos, for example. If we compare the neural spines of Spinosaurus with those of T. rex, only the latters appear thick and solid enough for having supported big muscles, and having resisted the consequencial high stress. I find likely that those spines were made for supporting ligaments and tendons attached to the neck and head to, in order to support its way of hunting-feeding. But a 8-9 tons Spinosaurus would have had 2-3 tons of muscle mass on its spines, which is impossible (and ridicoulous to imagine, since it would basically have an additional torso on its back), and I'm sure no one here has such a thing in mind...
The 12.5 ton estimates for MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) are derived from weight estimates for Suchomimus. And the 8.4 ton estimates for Sue are from Scott Hartman himself. I rather consider Spinosaurus (the largest specimen) to be around 11-13 tons in weight, but the subject matter is debatable. I also favour Spinosaurus in this fight.
I still don't get why you are basing those estimates from what theropod called guesstimates by Spinodontosaurus. If they haven't been calculated by him they are just guesses that can't be taken much into consideration. @Canadianwildlife: Not really, the small gape plus the bone crushing bite won't work with something larger than the animal itself, not to mention how this is not a defenceless prey item, but a theropod that fights back. You are speculating how the fight would go which is totally pointless. Biteforce does matter but not much here since... Spinosaurus: Its weaker bite won't kill the tyrannosaurid, since even BHI 3033 survived many worse pathologies Tyrannosaurus: Its gape and its bite aren't designed to be effective against larger predators, it won't be able to bite in effective areas like the neck or the skull.
I'm not speculating how the fight would go, I'm just pointing out that t-rex is capable of biting the spinosaurous during the fight. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, but now, you are the one who is underrating the t-rex. And now, your argument is that the t-rex can't even bite its foe to kill it, this depends if the t-rex can get in possition or not, or if the spino is in a vunerable possition. Tyrannosaurus' powerful bite force will be less effective against larger dinosaurs in general due to its small bite gape. Tyrannosaurus could bite Spinosaurus, but its options are limited on where to bite Spinosaurus due to its small bite gape and Spinosaurus' height advantage. And since Spinosaurus' bite force is not really powerful enough to kill the Tyrannosaurid, then both theropods will not have very efficient bites in this particular fight. Since Spinosaurus was larger and stronger however, I would back Spinosaurus in this fight. @Hatzegopteryx Until Hartman's GDI comes out, I will probably use 11-13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus. As Spinosaurus rex pointed out Spinosaurids had more thickly bodied builds than most Megalosauriods, so 12.5 tons does not seem to high for a 16 metre long Spinosaurus imo.
|
|
|
| |
|
Canadianwildlife
|
Jan 27 2014, 08:21 AM
Post #3079
|
- Posts:
- 4,560
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,984
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2013
|
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 07:57 AM
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 06:48 AM
- Hatzegopteryx
- Jan 27 2014, 06:24 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 04:13 AM
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 03:56 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 03:08 AM
Scott Hartman's MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) is in fact larger than Sue and presumably Giganotosaurus respectively. I know the image is kinda small but here are the sizes: MSMN V4047 (the largest Spinosaurus specimen)- 12.5 tons in weight Sue- 8.4 tons in weight.
Do those numbers come from Hartman himself? Has been said several times here that he still didn't published his GDI for Spinosaurus. If the author of that image just calculated the area of Spinosaurus silouhette, then it's normal for it ending up weighing more than Sue. Blaze have done a similar comparison and the holotype came out of being 6 tons, 7 at most. (By the way, regarding Sue, we should pay more attention to 9,5 t estimate from Hutchinson et al. which is very recent too and quite rigourous, it seems, and also indirectly confirmed by Bates et al.) @theropod, yes, if we ignore the neural spines both Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are bigger than Spinosaurus. So the whole debate about Spinosaurus size should be about the fact that, while the spines clearly make it dimensionally bigger, enlarging its area in the lateral view, we don't really know how much they would increase its volume. Personally, I think the spines are far too thin for having supported the kind of heavy epaxial muscolature showed by rhinos, for example. If we compare the neural spines of Spinosaurus with those of T. rex, only the latters appear thick and solid enough for having supported big muscles, and having resisted the consequencial high stress. I find likely that those spines were made for supporting ligaments and tendons attached to the neck and head to, in order to support its way of hunting-feeding. But a 8-9 tons Spinosaurus would have had 2-3 tons of muscle mass on its spines, which is impossible (and ridicoulous to imagine, since it would basically have an additional torso on its back), and I'm sure no one here has such a thing in mind...
The 12.5 ton estimates for MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) are derived from weight estimates for Suchomimus. And the 8.4 ton estimates for Sue are from Scott Hartman himself. I rather consider Spinosaurus (the largest specimen) to be around 11-13 tons in weight, but the subject matter is debatable. I also favour Spinosaurus in this fight.
I still don't get why you are basing those estimates from what theropod called guesstimates by Spinodontosaurus. If they haven't been calculated by him they are just guesses that can't be taken much into consideration. @Canadianwildlife: Not really, the small gape plus the bone crushing bite won't work with something larger than the animal itself, not to mention how this is not a defenceless prey item, but a theropod that fights back. You are speculating how the fight would go which is totally pointless. Biteforce does matter but not much here since... Spinosaurus: Its weaker bite won't kill the tyrannosaurid, since even BHI 3033 survived many worse pathologies Tyrannosaurus: Its gape and its bite aren't designed to be effective against larger predators, it won't be able to bite in effective areas like the neck or the skull.
I'm not speculating how the fight would go, I'm just pointing out that t-rex is capable of biting the spinosaurous during the fight. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, but now, you are the one who is underrating the t-rex. And now, your argument is that the t-rex can't even bite its foe to kill it, this depends if the t-rex can get in possition or not, or if the spino is in a vunerable possition.
Tyrannosaurus' powerful bite force will be less effective against larger dinosaurs in general due to its small bite gape. Tyrannosaurus could bite Spinosaurus, but its options are limited on where to bite Spinosaurus due to its small bite gape and Spinosaurus' height advantage. And since Spinosaurus' bite force is not really powerful enough to kill the Tyrannosaurid, then both theropods will not have very efficient bites in this particular fight. Since Spinosaurus was larger and stronger however, I would back Spinosaurus in this fight. @Hatzegopteryx Until Hartman's GDI comes out, I will probably use 11-13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus. As Spinosaurus rex pointed out Spinosaurids had more thickly bodied builds than most Megalosauriods, so 12.5 tons does not seem to high for a 16 metre long Spinosaurus imo. They can both bite each other in the same places, except the body, and t-rexes gape was more than wide enough to in-circle the spinos neck and or head. Also, height of spinosaurous is not conclusive, so we don't know how tall it was. I also doubt that spinosaurous would be able to knock the t-rex down without being bitten. Even hazer- doesn't agree with that theory, and he supports spinosaurous. He doesn't agree with the theory that spino would kill t-rex by knocking it down.
|
|
|
| |
|
Vobby
|
Jan 27 2014, 09:00 AM
Post #3080
|
- Posts:
- 1,515
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,502
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2013
|
@ Hatzegopteryx and MechaBaryonyx, I'd like to ask you where did you read, if you did so, a precise estimate of Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus gape. I still haven't found such a study, but I would love to read it, if it exists. You may want to consider the fact that with gapes of around 60° lions are able to bite elephants, hyenas are able to bite buffalos, wolves are able to bite bisons, AWDs are able to bite zebra... the list would be quite long. And it's not that Spinosaurus flanks, limbs and tail are Brachiosaurus sized, nobody can deny that, albeit longer, it is relatively thinner compared to other theropods, like T. rex. But even if it was 2 or 3 times the size of T. rex, the several exaples you can find of modern predators biting and wounding and killing animals several times their size should clear the fact that both the opponents here would have absolutely no problem in biting each other.
Edited by Vobby, Jan 27 2014, 09:04 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
spinosaurus rex
|
Jan 27 2014, 09:05 AM
Post #3081
|
- Posts:
- 2,720
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,879
- Joined:
- Nov 16, 2013
|
vobby. these are not lions, hyena. these are multiton giants. their capabilities in biting is not going to be proportionally similar to them, so I wouldn't recommend using them as examples for this fight. their are restrictions for the animals, but its not impossible. I don't doubt tyrannosaurus ability to bite spinosaurus, but saying it would do so as easily as a lion would do to a buffalo is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
|
| |
|
Vobby
|
Jan 27 2014, 09:09 AM
Post #3082
|
- Posts:
- 1,515
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,502
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2013
|
- spinosaurus rex
- Jan 27 2014, 09:05 AM
vobby. these are not lions, hyena. these are multiton giants. their capabilities in biting is not going to be proportionally similar to them, so I wouldn't recommend using them as examples for this fight. their are restrictions for the animals, but its not impossible. I don't doubt tyrannosaurus ability to bite spinosaurus, but saying it would do so as easily as a lion would do to a buffalo is a bit of a stretch. Why? Please explain. What matters here is the relative size of the mouth to the body size, the absolute terms don't matter. And, since poth lions and tigers are perfectly able to bite multitonnes animals like elephants, IT IS SURE that a predator like Tyrannosaurus, which has a head around 50 times larger that of a lion, would be incredibly more efficient in biting another multitonne animal.
|
|
|
| |
|
Arovinrac
|
Jan 27 2014, 09:29 AM
Post #3083
|
- Posts:
- 774
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #720
- Joined:
- Oct 13, 2012
|
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 26 2014, 05:01 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...
I'm not changing my mind that t-rex wins either even though they already proved me on some points, I'm sticking with the t-rex, and after what vobby said, its possible that spino wasn't that much bigger, maybe not even bigger than t-rex at all. If the spinonsaurous was just a little heavier, than the t-rex should still win. So even if palaeontologists found a complete 16/17/18 metre fossil skeleton you would still think Tyrannosaurus would win.
|
|
|
| |
|
TheMechaBaryonyx789
|
Jan 27 2014, 05:07 PM
Post #3084
|
- Posts:
- 593
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,530
- Joined:
- Aug 5, 2013
|
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 08:21 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 07:57 AM
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 06:48 AM
- Hatzegopteryx
- Jan 27 2014, 06:24 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 04:13 AM
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 03:56 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 03:08 AM
Scott Hartman's MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) is in fact larger than Sue and presumably Giganotosaurus respectively. I know the image is kinda small but here are the sizes: MSMN V4047 (the largest Spinosaurus specimen)- 12.5 tons in weight Sue- 8.4 tons in weight.
Do those numbers come from Hartman himself? Has been said several times here that he still didn't published his GDI for Spinosaurus. If the author of that image just calculated the area of Spinosaurus silouhette, then it's normal for it ending up weighing more than Sue. Blaze have done a similar comparison and the holotype came out of being 6 tons, 7 at most. (By the way, regarding Sue, we should pay more attention to 9,5 t estimate from Hutchinson et al. which is very recent too and quite rigourous, it seems, and also indirectly confirmed by Bates et al.) @theropod, yes, if we ignore the neural spines both Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are bigger than Spinosaurus. So the whole debate about Spinosaurus size should be about the fact that, while the spines clearly make it dimensionally bigger, enlarging its area in the lateral view, we don't really know how much they would increase its volume. Personally, I think the spines are far too thin for having supported the kind of heavy epaxial muscolature showed by rhinos, for example. If we compare the neural spines of Spinosaurus with those of T. rex, only the latters appear thick and solid enough for having supported big muscles, and having resisted the consequencial high stress. I find likely that those spines were made for supporting ligaments and tendons attached to the neck and head to, in order to support its way of hunting-feeding. But a 8-9 tons Spinosaurus would have had 2-3 tons of muscle mass on its spines, which is impossible (and ridicoulous to imagine, since it would basically have an additional torso on its back), and I'm sure no one here has such a thing in mind...
The 12.5 ton estimates for MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) are derived from weight estimates for Suchomimus. And the 8.4 ton estimates for Sue are from Scott Hartman himself. I rather consider Spinosaurus (the largest specimen) to be around 11-13 tons in weight, but the subject matter is debatable. I also favour Spinosaurus in this fight.
I still don't get why you are basing those estimates from what theropod called guesstimates by Spinodontosaurus. If they haven't been calculated by him they are just guesses that can't be taken much into consideration. @Canadianwildlife: Not really, the small gape plus the bone crushing bite won't work with something larger than the animal itself, not to mention how this is not a defenceless prey item, but a theropod that fights back. You are speculating how the fight would go which is totally pointless. Biteforce does matter but not much here since... Spinosaurus: Its weaker bite won't kill the tyrannosaurid, since even BHI 3033 survived many worse pathologies Tyrannosaurus: Its gape and its bite aren't designed to be effective against larger predators, it won't be able to bite in effective areas like the neck or the skull.
I'm not speculating how the fight would go, I'm just pointing out that t-rex is capable of biting the spinosaurous during the fight. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, but now, you are the one who is underrating the t-rex. And now, your argument is that the t-rex can't even bite its foe to kill it, this depends if the t-rex can get in possition or not, or if the spino is in a vunerable possition.
Tyrannosaurus' powerful bite force will be less effective against larger dinosaurs in general due to its small bite gape. Tyrannosaurus could bite Spinosaurus, but its options are limited on where to bite Spinosaurus due to its small bite gape and Spinosaurus' height advantage. And since Spinosaurus' bite force is not really powerful enough to kill the Tyrannosaurid, then both theropods will not have very efficient bites in this particular fight. Since Spinosaurus was larger and stronger however, I would back Spinosaurus in this fight. @Hatzegopteryx Until Hartman's GDI comes out, I will probably use 11-13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus. As Spinosaurus rex pointed out Spinosaurids had more thickly bodied builds than most Megalosauriods, so 12.5 tons does not seem to high for a 16 metre long Spinosaurus imo.
They can both bite each other in the same places, except the body, and t-rexes gape was more than wide enough to in-circle the spinos neck and or head. Also, height of spinosaurous is not conclusive, so we don't know how tall it was. I also doubt that spinosaurous would be able to knock the t-rex down without being bitten. Even hazer- doesn't agree with that theory, and he supports spinosaurous. Spinosaurus is taller, Scott Hartman's skeletals clearly show that. Keep in mind that Tyrannosaurus would be restricted on where it could bite Spinosaurus' neck due to Spinosaurus being taller and Tyrannosaurus' bite gape being small. Tyrannosaurus will not be able to bite Spinosaurus efficiently if Spinosaurus is knocking into Tyrannosaurus and Tyrannosaurus is knocked off balance.
|
|
|
| |
|
Canadianwildlife
|
Jan 27 2014, 06:28 PM
Post #3085
|
- Posts:
- 4,560
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,984
- Joined:
- Dec 15, 2013
|
- 08pateldan
- Jan 27 2014, 09:29 AM
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 26 2014, 05:01 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...
I'm not changing my mind that t-rex wins either even though they already proved me on some points, I'm sticking with the t-rex, and after what vobby said, its possible that spino wasn't that much bigger, maybe not even bigger than t-rex at all. If the spinonsaurous was just a little heavier, than the t-rex should still win.
So even if palaeontologists found a complete 16/17/18 metre fossil skeleton you would still think Tyrannosaurus would win. That comment is old, don't bring it up.
|
|
|
| |
|
Spinodontosaurus
|
Jan 27 2014, 07:21 PM
Post #3086
|
- Posts:
- 940
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,037
- Joined:
- Feb 8, 2013
|
- spinosaurus rex
- Jan 27 2014, 06:44 AM
You misunderstood what I meant. Tyrannosaurid and alosauroid theropods have pretty bulging chests, as Hartman's dorsal reconstructions show. http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013 This results in a kind barrel-shaped torso overall.
Megalosauroids were different, the sides of their torso were pretty flat, hence my dubbing 'slab-sided' (I don't know if this term is used anywhere else) http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/suchomimus/
Ceratosaurus too: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2page.png
And also the Torvosaurus reconstruction you posted is Hartman's 2010 version; his newest one is this one from 2013.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hatzegopteryx
|
Jan 27 2014, 07:38 PM
Post #3087
|
- Posts:
- 1
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,766
- Joined:
- Oct 16, 2013
|
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 06:48 AM
- Hatzegopteryx
- Jan 27 2014, 06:24 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 04:13 AM
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 03:56 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 03:08 AM
Scott Hartman's MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) is in fact larger than Sue and presumably Giganotosaurus respectively. I know the image is kinda small but here are the sizes: MSMN V4047 (the largest Spinosaurus specimen)- 12.5 tons in weight Sue- 8.4 tons in weight.
Do those numbers come from Hartman himself? Has been said several times here that he still didn't published his GDI for Spinosaurus. If the author of that image just calculated the area of Spinosaurus silouhette, then it's normal for it ending up weighing more than Sue. Blaze have done a similar comparison and the holotype came out of being 6 tons, 7 at most. (By the way, regarding Sue, we should pay more attention to 9,5 t estimate from Hutchinson et al. which is very recent too and quite rigourous, it seems, and also indirectly confirmed by Bates et al.) @theropod, yes, if we ignore the neural spines both Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are bigger than Spinosaurus. So the whole debate about Spinosaurus size should be about the fact that, while the spines clearly make it dimensionally bigger, enlarging its area in the lateral view, we don't really know how much they would increase its volume. Personally, I think the spines are far too thin for having supported the kind of heavy epaxial muscolature showed by rhinos, for example. If we compare the neural spines of Spinosaurus with those of T. rex, only the latters appear thick and solid enough for having supported big muscles, and having resisted the consequencial high stress. I find likely that those spines were made for supporting ligaments and tendons attached to the neck and head to, in order to support its way of hunting-feeding. But a 8-9 tons Spinosaurus would have had 2-3 tons of muscle mass on its spines, which is impossible (and ridicoulous to imagine, since it would basically have an additional torso on its back), and I'm sure no one here has such a thing in mind...
The 12.5 ton estimates for MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) are derived from weight estimates for Suchomimus. And the 8.4 ton estimates for Sue are from Scott Hartman himself. I rather consider Spinosaurus (the largest specimen) to be around 11-13 tons in weight, but the subject matter is debatable. I also favour Spinosaurus in this fight.
I still don't get why you are basing those estimates from what theropod called guesstimates by Spinodontosaurus. If they haven't been calculated by him they are just guesses that can't be taken much into consideration. @Canadianwildlife: Not really, the small gape plus the bone crushing bite won't work with something larger than the animal itself, not to mention how this is not a defenceless prey item, but a theropod that fights back. You are speculating how the fight would go which is totally pointless. Biteforce does matter but not much here since... Spinosaurus: Its weaker bite won't kill the tyrannosaurid, since even BHI 3033 survived many worse pathologies Tyrannosaurus: Its gape and its bite aren't designed to be effective against larger predators, it won't be able to bite in effective areas like the neck or the skull.
I'm not speculating how the fight would go, I'm just pointing out that t-rex is capable of biting the spinosaurous during the fight. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, but now, you are the one who is underrating the t-rex. And now, your argument is that the t-rex can't even bite its foe to kill it, this depends if the t-rex can get in possition or not, or if the spino is in a vunerable possition. Yes you were speculating, you said what could have happened but guess what? There is no base to support that statement, so it is speculation.
I am not underrating this tyrannosaurid, it is a fact that those are two predators fighting not drunk men so they will try to attack and defend. And once again more speculation from you, no-one knows what posture they would have in the battle so stop making baseless assumptions of what might have happened. We don't know if they would have effective postures to deal with eachother.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hatzegopteryx
|
Jan 27 2014, 07:53 PM
Post #3088
|
- Posts:
- 1
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,766
- Joined:
- Oct 16, 2013
|
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 08:21 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 07:57 AM
- Canadianwildlife
- Jan 27 2014, 06:48 AM
- Hatzegopteryx
- Jan 27 2014, 06:24 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 04:13 AM
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 03:56 AM
- TheMechaBaryonyx789
- Jan 27 2014, 03:08 AM
Scott Hartman's MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) is in fact larger than Sue and presumably Giganotosaurus respectively. I know the image is kinda small but here are the sizes: MSMN V4047 (the largest Spinosaurus specimen)- 12.5 tons in weight Sue- 8.4 tons in weight.
Do those numbers come from Hartman himself? Has been said several times here that he still didn't published his GDI for Spinosaurus. If the author of that image just calculated the area of Spinosaurus silouhette, then it's normal for it ending up weighing more than Sue. Blaze have done a similar comparison and the holotype came out of being 6 tons, 7 at most. (By the way, regarding Sue, we should pay more attention to 9,5 t estimate from Hutchinson et al. which is very recent too and quite rigourous, it seems, and also indirectly confirmed by Bates et al.) @theropod, yes, if we ignore the neural spines both Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are bigger than Spinosaurus. So the whole debate about Spinosaurus size should be about the fact that, while the spines clearly make it dimensionally bigger, enlarging its area in the lateral view, we don't really know how much they would increase its volume. Personally, I think the spines are far too thin for having supported the kind of heavy epaxial muscolature showed by rhinos, for example. If we compare the neural spines of Spinosaurus with those of T. rex, only the latters appear thick and solid enough for having supported big muscles, and having resisted the consequencial high stress. I find likely that those spines were made for supporting ligaments and tendons attached to the neck and head to, in order to support its way of hunting-feeding. But a 8-9 tons Spinosaurus would have had 2-3 tons of muscle mass on its spines, which is impossible (and ridicoulous to imagine, since it would basically have an additional torso on its back), and I'm sure no one here has such a thing in mind...
The 12.5 ton estimates for MSMN V4047 (largest Spinosaurus specimen) are derived from weight estimates for Suchomimus. And the 8.4 ton estimates for Sue are from Scott Hartman himself. I rather consider Spinosaurus (the largest specimen) to be around 11-13 tons in weight, but the subject matter is debatable. I also favour Spinosaurus in this fight.
I still don't get why you are basing those estimates from what theropod called guesstimates by Spinodontosaurus. If they haven't been calculated by him they are just guesses that can't be taken much into consideration. @Canadianwildlife: Not really, the small gape plus the bone crushing bite won't work with something larger than the animal itself, not to mention how this is not a defenceless prey item, but a theropod that fights back. You are speculating how the fight would go which is totally pointless. Biteforce does matter but not much here since... Spinosaurus: Its weaker bite won't kill the tyrannosaurid, since even BHI 3033 survived many worse pathologies Tyrannosaurus: Its gape and its bite aren't designed to be effective against larger predators, it won't be able to bite in effective areas like the neck or the skull.
I'm not speculating how the fight would go, I'm just pointing out that t-rex is capable of biting the spinosaurous during the fight. I'm not speculating how the fight would go, but now, you are the one who is underrating the t-rex. And now, your argument is that the t-rex can't even bite its foe to kill it, this depends if the t-rex can get in possition or not, or if the spino is in a vunerable possition.
Tyrannosaurus' powerful bite force will be less effective against larger dinosaurs in general due to its small bite gape. Tyrannosaurus could bite Spinosaurus, but its options are limited on where to bite Spinosaurus due to its small bite gape and Spinosaurus' height advantage. And since Spinosaurus' bite force is not really powerful enough to kill the Tyrannosaurid, then both theropods will not have very efficient bites in this particular fight. Since Spinosaurus was larger and stronger however, I would back Spinosaurus in this fight. @Hatzegopteryx Until Hartman's GDI comes out, I will probably use 11-13 ton estimates for Spinosaurus. As Spinosaurus rex pointed out Spinosaurids had more thickly bodied builds than most Megalosauriods, so 12.5 tons does not seem to high for a 16 metre long Spinosaurus imo.
They can both bite each other in the same places, except the body, and t-rexes gape was more than wide enough to in-circle the spinos neck and or head. Also, height of spinosaurous is not conclusive, so we don't know how tall it was. I also doubt that spinosaurous would be able to knock the t-rex down without being bitten. Even hazer- doesn't agree with that theory, and he supports spinosaurous. He doesn't agree with the theory that spino would kill t-rex by knocking it down. You're sadly mistaken. T. rex had a very small gape, not just a regular small gape. Its gape is a result of its overpowered biteforce, which leads to a small gape.
Strong bite=small gape Weak bite=large gape
No matter how big T. rex's gape could still be, and how big enough it would be to in-circle its foe's neck, I repeat, those are not drunk men. They don't take every single hit. They are two theropods fighting, they will defend themselves. The neck and the head are hard targets.
How will the tyrannosaurid bite it effectively while it is in its few seconds before colliding with the ground?
Also knocking an 8 ton animal to the ground will kill it. Considering the tyrannosaurid is ~3.4 metres tall and ~8.4 tons (FMNH PR2081's size) it would hit the ground with tens of tons of force. How doesn't that kill it?
|
|
|
| |
|
Vobby
|
Jan 27 2014, 11:13 PM
Post #3089
|
- Posts:
- 1,515
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,502
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2013
|
You are free to support this "ramming hypothesis", but I would like to see some evidence for it. The skull of Spinosaurus is a fraction of the mass of that of Tyrannosaurus, and it's not even comparably reinforced, if they're going to ram each other, Spinosaurus skull would likely be smashed even if (but it wasn't) Spinosaurus was bigger. If Spinosaurus was really bigger, by the way, it would have a damn lot of mass on its back, so that it would have a ridicoulosly high center of mass. Considering that in your opinion it was also so much significantly taller, it is Spinosaurus which would be knocked down, losing its balance. Still, this whole reasoning is stupid, since no one ever proposed the habit of ramming for these two theropods. As far as I know, such a thing have been proposed for Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus only and, looking at their stocky and reinforced skull, they couldn't be less similar to Spinosaurus. If anything, is T. rex that would be the best rammer. And I'm still waiting for the estimate of T. rex gape bite, and for explanations about why it should have a smaller gape than a lion, and should be less able to bite multitonnes animals.
Edited by Vobby, Jan 27 2014, 11:15 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hatzegopteryx
|
Jan 27 2014, 11:30 PM
Post #3090
|
- Posts:
- 1
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1,766
- Joined:
- Oct 16, 2013
|
- Vobby
- Jan 27 2014, 11:13 PM
You are free to support this "ramming hypothesis", but I would like to see some evidence for it. The skull of Spinosaurus is a fraction of the mass of that of Tyrannosaurus, and it's not even comparably reinforced, if they're going to ram each other, Spinosaurus skull would likely be smashed even if (but it wasn't) Spinosaurus was bigger. If Spinosaurus was really bigger, by the way, it would have a damn lot of mass on its back, so that it would have a ridicoulosly high center of mass. Considering that in your opinion it was also so much significantly taller, it is Spinosaurus which would be knocked down, losing its balance. Still, this whole reasoning is stupid, since no one ever proposed the habit of ramming for these two theropods. As far as I know, such a thing have been proposed for Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus only and, looking at their stocky and reinforced skull, they couldn't be less similar to Spinosaurus. If anything, is T. rex that would be the best rammer. And I'm still waiting for the estimate of T. rex gape bite, and for explanations about why it should have a smaller gape than a lion, and should be less able to bite multitonnes animals.
I completely agree with your post, Vobby. You explaind something that I wanted to explain better than I did, and added more information to it. I do agree the ridiculously high center of mass for the spinosaurid here makes it easier to knock to the ground.
As for the bite, I don't really think bone-crushing bites work effectively against larger predators, since this spinosaurid is potentially bigger, and will fight back.
|
|
|
| |
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|