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 (459,175 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:
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lions bite multitonne animals in certain points were their girth allows it. They do not attack their flanks and tear them out, they attach the dorsal ridge, the neck, and (mostly) the throat. Those, or rather the latter two, but also the skull, would be T. rex’ target here.
And have you ever seen lions attack multi-tonne prey? They aren’t exactly efficient at it, at least if you compare them to the ease with which creatures like komodo dragons accomplish similar feats (compare lion-hippo to monitor-water buffalo). This is, I think, the point people are trying to make; T. rex would have difficulties attacking a markedly larger opponent.

@drift: By the same logic, how can you speculate they were suitable for gutting fish?
Spinosaurid claws aren’t sharp, they are meathooks. Clearly, they are not suited for "gutting" anything (Do you have a clue how well you have to sharpen a knife to do that effectively?), but for gripping, and aiding the jaws in that very purpose. They are not cutting tools.
That’s also why their forelimb osteology is so robust, were they by any means just some weak vestige used for slicing open stuff (which in the case of the fish it hunted would not work anyway, considering their thick ganoid or placoid scales), their humeri surely would look more like tyrannosaur’s, and also be comparable in size.

IF those forelimbs were indeed used to rip open its fish prey, that automatically means that they were serious weapons.

@spinodontosaurus: That Suchomimus doesn’t look all that slap-sided, surely not more so than Hartman’s Giganotosaurus (though both are really slap-sided compared to his T. rex). Paul’s Ceratosaurus definitely is though, however, it likely isn’t fully mature.

@hatzegopteryx: The situation is more complicated than that. But yes, high-efficiency biters that rely on massive adductor forces tend to have small gapes. I highly doubt T. rex’ gape angle would be larger than that of extant animals with an aptitude in gripping or crushing, considering it does not show any noted adaptions to enhance it (contrary to allosauroids), but rather the contrary.
You can approximate the gape in the front of the mouth by using trigonometry:
gape=jawlenght/sin((180-gapeangle)/2)×sin(gapeangle)

Using a gape of 60 degrees and a functional jaw lenght of 1.4m (Brochu 2003 gives the pmx-qj measurement which ought to fit, although the largest dimension in the skull is greater), you get a gape of 140cm (obviously, since this is a triangle with three equal sides and angles, Spinosaurus would have a gape of roughly 165cm).

However, I’m not at all convinced T. rex could really open its mouth that far, considering the farthest I’ ve ever seen a crocodile open its jaws is ~40°. That would yield 96cm for T. rex and 113cm for Spinosaurus. Note that neither will be able to excert its full bite force at a large gape, since this greatly reduces the leverage for the perpendiculat component of the jaw-closing force, which is particularly problematic for an animal that relies on massive bite force as much as T. rex.

Of course that applies to Spinosaurus as well, but having longer jaws and a smaller opponent it won’t suffer the same problems.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 27 2014, 11:30 PM
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.
Well, we know that Tyrannosaurus was likely used to intraspecific competition, so that he would have some know how about biting multitonne predators which fight back, not to talk about the fact that likely ceratopsids fought back a lot.
Tyrannosaurus hasn't only the strongest bite of all land predators, it had also serrated teeth, and adaptations for violently shake its head in order to pull meat away, opening large wounds. And wolves and hyenas have a bone crushing bite too, this doesn't stop them from biting and killing animals several times their size. In a group, they can also kill larger predators, like the cougar and, most notably, lions. Now, I'm convinced we have evidence for Tyrannosaurus being bigger, but even if it was smaller (despite everyone of its bones being significantly more massive than the equivalents in Spinosaurus skeleton...), the difference would for sure much less considerable than the difference between a lion and a hyena.

I don't understand where comes from this idea of strongest biters been unable of fighting similar sized predators. Hyenas compete with leopards everyday, relying on its robust build and bonecrushing bite, for example. The strongest your bite is, the higher the damage, the best control you have on your opponent, and the more robust your skull must be, so that you can resist better against the opponent's bite. T. rex has all of these features, Spinosaurus clearly not.
I shall repeat my basical argument: if a lion, even a lioness, can bite a multitonnes animal like an elephant (which yes, usually run from the attack of the Savuti pride, but it's still not exacly a sitting duck, definetly not an immobile victim), there is really no one single reason to doubt that an animal which skull is tens of times bigger that of a lion would be able of biting an opponent of comparable size. Not to talk about a smaller one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2014, 11:55 PM
Lions bite multitonne animals in certain points were their girth allows it. They do not attack their flanks and tear them out, they attach the dorsal ridge, the neck, and (mostly) the throat. Those, or rather the latter two, but also the skull, would be T. rex’ target here.
And have you ever seen lions attack multi-tonne prey? They aren’t exactly efficient at it, at least if you compare them to the ease with which creatures like komodo dragons accomplish similar feats (compare lion-hippo to monitor-water buffalo). This is, I think, the point people are trying to make; T. rex would have difficulties attacking a markedly larger opponent.

I agree, T. rex may have some problem is effectively kill a Brachiosaurus trying and biting its flanks. Of course carnosaurs are much better adapted in doing so. But theropod, my argument was that, since lions can bite the elephant's (and hippos, right) body, then T. rex would be around tens of times more efficient in accomplishing the same task. Anyway, I most likely agree with thos calculations you made, a gape between 1- 1,5 metres sounds good for T. rex.
But you obviously agree, as you said, about the fact that Spinosaurus body is thinner than that of T. rex. So that, even if the latter was smaller, and it wasn't of course (this is quite funny :P), it would still have an easier time biting its opponent's body.

Edit: T. rex's bite is likely more similar to a crocodile's than a dragon's, but its curved teeth and serrated dentition are clear adaptations for macrophagy, so that the two aren't that comparable after all, so that 60° seems much more likely to me. Anyway, crocodiles are still able of biting and killing each other, so that even with a gape of 40° T. rex would have a easy time biting a comparable sized (smaller I say, thinner everybody agree with) opponent.
Edited by Vobby, Jan 28 2014, 12:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Vobby
Jan 28 2014, 12:02 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 27 2014, 11:30 PM
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.
Well, we know that Tyrannosaurus was likely used to intraspecific competition, so that he would have some know how about biting multitonne predators which fight back, not to talk about the fact that likely ceratopsids fought back a lot.
Tyrannosaurus hasn't only the strongest bite of all land predators, it had also serrated teeth, and adaptations for violently shake its head in order to pull meat away, opening large wounds. And wolves and hyenas have a bone crushing bite too, this doesn't stop them from biting and killing animals several times their size. In a group, they can also kill larger predators, like the cougar and, most notably, lions. Now, I'm convinced we have evidence for Tyrannosaurus being bigger, but even if it was smaller (despite everyone of its bones being significantly more massive than the equivalents in Spinosaurus skeleton...), the difference would for sure much less considerable than the difference between a lion and a hyena.

I don't understand where comes from this idea of strongest biters been unable of fighting similar sized predators. Hyenas compete with leopards everyday, relying on its robust build and bonecrushing bite, for example. The strongest your bite is, the higher the damage, the best control you have on your opponent, and the more robust your skull must be, so that you can resist better against the opponent's bite. T. rex has all of these features, Spinosaurus clearly not.
I shall repeat my basical argument: if a lion, even a lioness, can bite a multitonnes animal like an elephant (which yes, usually run from the attack of the Savuti pride, but it's still not exacly a sitting duck, definetly not an immobile victim), there is really no one single reason to doubt that an animal which skull is tens of times bigger that of a lion would be able of biting an opponent of comparable size. Not to talk about a smaller one.
Well, that's a fact, but did T. rex really fight large spinosauirds? No, never heard of any in its environment... About Ceratopsids, Ceratopsids actually have different fighting methods, and if you are reffering to Triceratops, it's still good to remember that it got downsized in 2013. It is apparently ~8 metres at maximum sizes now, which would be like ~5 tonnes, I believe.

Wolves and Hyenas have bone-crushing bites but the skull is actually totally differently designed as well as the teeth.

A smaller gape won't help the tyrannosaurid and the gape advantage its adversary has over it possibly compensates its weaker bite over its foe's biteforce advantage.

I wouldn't make that comparison since those animals have different anatomy and aspects overall, even fighting techniques and co-operation, and those Lions are attacking Elephants in packs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 28 2014, 12:12 AM

A smaller gape won't help the tyrannosaurid and the gape advantage its adversary has over it possibly compensates its weaker bite over its foe's biteforce advantage.

I wouldn't make that comparison since those animals have different anatomy and aspects overall, even fighting techniques and co-operation, and those Lions are attacking Elephants in packs.
with fast aswers is complicated to talk. Read what I aswered to theropod above here. The fact that lions kills elephant in packs isn't important, to count is their ability to bite. Anyway, 50 kilograms wolves have killed 300 kg bisons alone, biting the flanks and the legs. With 60° of gape. And the ratio here is 1/6, clearly not the case of T. rex and Spinosaurus. T. rex jaws show adaptations for both crushing and slashing and pulling meat. And since T. rex has a wider body, the higher gape of Spinosaurus wouldn't be so much and advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
Vobby
Jan 28 2014, 12:21 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Jan 28 2014, 12:12 AM

A smaller gape won't help the tyrannosaurid and the gape advantage its adversary has over it possibly compensates its weaker bite over its foe's biteforce advantage.

I wouldn't make that comparison since those animals have different anatomy and aspects overall, even fighting techniques and co-operation, and those Lions are attacking Elephants in packs.
with fast aswers is complicated to talk. Read what I aswered to theropod above here. The fact that lions kills elephant in packs isn't important, to count is their ability to bite. Anyway, 50 kilograms wolves have killed 300 kg bisons alone, biting the flanks and the legs. With 60° of gape. And the ratio here is 1/6, clearly not the case of T. rex and Spinosaurus. T. rex jaws show adaptations for both crushing and slashing and pulling meat. And since T. rex has a wider body, the higher gape of Spinosaurus wouldn't be so much and advantage.
50kg wolves? Large grey wolves weigh ~45kg, 50kg is rather rare if I am not mistaken. Those bisons are usually sick and/or weakened, also they don't bite and those wolves hunt in packs, which means more jaws in combat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The grey wolf in the documentary A Wolf called Storm killed a young bison with no help, and in the grey wolf's profile there is the account of a grey wolf killing alone an adult male muskox but seriously, who cares? My point isn't Grey wolf can kill bison so T. rex wins here, it would be idiotic, I'm just replying to the "small gape" thing. Animals with 60° of gape are able to perfectly bite every single part of the body of animals several times their size SO OBVIOUSLY T. rex would be perfectly able to bite the body of a similar sized opponent. If theropods calculations are correct, the lower hand of T. rex's possible gape is 96 cm, which is still enough to bite pratically THE WHOLE TORSO of Spinosaurus:

Posted Image

Unless you think this reconstruction is completely wrong of course, and then I'd like to know why.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 28 2014, 12:11 AM
I agree, T. rex may have some problem is effectively kill a Brachiosaurus trying and biting its flanks. Of course carnosaurs are much better adapted in doing so. But theropod, my argument was that, since lions can bite the elephant's (and hippos, right) body, then T. rex would be around tens of times more efficient in accomplishing the same task.
Of course, without nquestion a T. rex could kill an elephjant much more easily than a lion (well, actually single lions don’t kill elephants, but T. rex’ prey was comparable to elephants in terms of size and some other characteristics).
Quote:
 
Anyway, I most likely agree with thos calculations you made, a gape between 1- 1,5 metres sounds good for T. rex.
But you obviously agree, as you said, about the fact that Spinosaurus body is thinner than that of T. rex.

At weight parity, and obviously at lenght parity, neither of which I think they actually are at.

The narrow body shape and the crest would make Spinosaurus’ body very difficult to bite from the side (and I think biting from below or above aren’t viable options).

Quote:
 

Edit: T. rex's bite is likely more similar to a crocodile's than a dragon's, but its curved teeth and serrated dentition are clear adaptations for macrophagy, so that the two aren't that comparable after all, so that 60° seems much more likely to me. Anyway, crocodiles are still able of biting and killing each other, so that even with a gape of 40° T. rex would have a easy time biting a comparable sized (smaller I say, thinner everybody agree with) opponent.

I view T. rex as a mixture of a Crocodile and a hyaena.

both of these seem to have lower gape angles than cats (which reach roughly 60°), based on pictures. Logical, since felids have particularly long canines and short jaws that require their gape angles to be bigger than in those other carnivores (canids too btw) to effectively bite anything.
Nevertheless when attacking large animals (eg. a wildebeest, zebra or a buffalo in the case of a lion) they don’t go for bites to the body (as a shark or presumably a carnosaur would), but rely on precise attacks to the neck. Hyaenas and canids, as well as crocodiles, appear to be better analogies because they have longer jaws and are less reliant on precision and accordingly less picky with their attack styles (which I presume is also true for T. rex, wich, with its massive skull, would have attacked the skull, neck, limbs or back of its prey).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arovinrac
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Canadianwildlife
Jan 27 2014, 06:28 PM
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.
it is by no means old I commented on it a day after you posted it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
@Vobby

I don't think T. rex is going to bite many effective areas, I can't see that working easily. Once again this is a predator that will fight back. But its weaponry, on the other hand, won't actually help it killing an animal that, even at a size considered under average (I assume we are using something average or higher), has survived many worse pathologies (BHI 3033).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BHI 3033 is "under average"? seems to be a decent-sized specimen to me. Not particularly long (11.3m) when going by Hartman’s restoration, but not exceptionally short either, and quite robust in built.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daspletosaurus
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 27 2014, 11:55 PM
That’s also why their forelimb osteology is so robust, were they by any means just some weak vestige used for slicing open stuff (which in the case of the fish it hunted would not work anyway, considering their thick ganoid or placoid scales), their humeri surely would look more like tyrannosaur’s, and also be comparable in size.

IF those forelimbs were indeed used to rip open its fish prey, that automatically means that they were serious weapons.

I have to agree with you on this and that makes a lot of sense. The robustness of Spinosaurs arms means a lot of muscle and a lot of muscle is needed to hold on to a Fish. And what I mean is that even with a small fish you have to use a large amount of strength to hold it in place. Fish have some of the most efficient muscular systems in the animal kingdom, they are streamlined to use all their power with a single tail flick. So Spinosaurus having extremely robust forelimbs to hold and deal with a struggling fish especially something like an 8 meter saw fish, is an adaptation that would serve them well in a fight like this.

Now as for Tyrannosaurus Rex's gape I dont know weather or not its gape is all that necessary for biting in a fight like this but when were talking about multi-tonned animals we have to remember that Triceratops was a multi-tonned animal, Edmontonosaurus was a multi-tonned animal , in fact most of Tyrannosaurus Rex's prey were multi-tonned animals and had the capability to fight back. So for a fight like this Spinosaurus a primarily fish eating animal even though it has great adaptation that would prove extremely effective and efficient, we have to remember that Tyrannosaurus Rex was dealing with deadly opponents on a regular bases so In my mind it would have a better chance in a fight like this then a animal like Spinosaurus. But that not to say that T Rex would walk away from this fight unscathed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hatzegopteryx
Unicellular Organism
[ * ]
theropod
Jan 28 2014, 03:16 AM
BHI 3033 is "under average"? seems to be a decent-sized specimen to me. Not particularly long (11.3m) when going by Hartman’s restoration, but not exceptionally short either, and quite robust in built.
Last time I talked to someone about BHI 3033, it was 11 metres and 5.5 tons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
A thing regarding Hartman's reconstruction: It doesn't prove that Spinosaurus was bigger, it shows us that is very very likely that Spinosaurus was longer and looked bigger in lateral view and that's it, we need to know more about its width before declaring that Hartman's reconstruction truly shows one being bigger than the other. And on that note, where's Suchomimus osteology?!

edit
@Hapzegopteryx
Stan has a torso, head and limbs similar in size to those of Tyrannosaurus estimated to be 11.8-11.9m long, the reason why is shorter is an estimated slightly shorter tail and its shorter neck, this could be due to ontogeny or, in the case of the neck, pathological or a mixture of both.
Edited by blaze, Jan 28 2014, 04:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
its 11.3m at the very least (The 10.9m you can read in Scott Hartman’s comparison are for standing lenght, not axial, even thought he figure for sue is axially measured). Actually its mount is even longer (stated to be 11.5m in Currie & Carpenter 2000, and 11.78m in Hutchinson et al 2011). Its pretty much an average-sized T. rex, perhaps even a bit above average (estimated at 5.9t in Hutchinson et al and 7.65t in bates et al, though I strongly presume the latter is too high, for obvious reasons).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.