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 (459,176 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Posted Image
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.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 27 2014, 06:50 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
@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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
Posted Image
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.
Edited by TheMechaBaryonyx789, Jan 27 2014, 07:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Posted Image
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.
Edited by Canadianwildlife, Jan 27 2014, 08:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
@ 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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
spinosaurus rex
Member Avatar
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Edited by spinosaurus rex, Jan 27 2014, 09:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arovinrac
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spinodontosaurus
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
spinosaurus rex
Jan 27 2014, 06:44 AM
Spinodontosaurus
Jan 27 2014, 06:29 AM
Spinosaurus would be slab-sided, like every megalosauroid, whilst Tyrannosaurus is more barrel-chested. The maximum width may be greater in the latter, but Spinosaurus' width will be more consistent across the length of the torso. Which animal is larger as a result of this isn't clear, and we would need something such as Hartman's GDI to clear it up.

Also yeah those figures are very rough and I now consider them too high.
despite the relations, spinosaurs are actually much more thickly bodied then other megalosauroid. so the body builds are not constant. compare suchomimus
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7odUPdn1Nvc/TwxiMgmwL4I/AAAAAAAAHWg/UQozK637smo/s1600/suchomimus.png
to torvosaurus
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/288/f/5/another_giant_morrison_predato_by_shartman-d30ta2v.jpg
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
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.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
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.
Posted Image
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.