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 (459,171 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
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ah, but Spinosaurus is not a heron. It has some of the biggest teeth of all theropods, a bite force of a couple of tons and a fairly massive, albeit slender rostrum. And don't forget to put the arms into the equation, that would help with controlling the fish once aprehended. Look at false gharials or freshwater crocs and the prey they can take (definitely bigger than what they can swallow whole).

It is even conceivable how its bite could cause fatal damage to decent-sized dinosaurs (as long as their necks weren't too thick) while avoiding great stresses.

Spinosaurus’ skull is still quite impressive, and if only due to its size. saying its amopng the least impressive of all theropods is like saying this:Posted Image

was less impressive than this:
Posted Image

Size matters!
Edited by theropod, Jan 29 2014, 04:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Jan 29 2014, 12:48 AM
The power of Tyrannosaurus bite and its effectiveness should not be questioned... Its an important advantage that can end Spinosaurus's life with a single hit to the neck or head.
I agree. One powerful, well -placed bite from the t-rex would do a lot of damage to the spino, probably even kill it. But the only problem is that the t-rex will probably have a hard time reaching the spinosaurous to bite it. As long as the rex bites the spino somewhere, it could be anywhere, those bone crushing jaws will still take a major toll on the spino. Even if it bites it on the arms, legs, or whatever, all it has to do is hang on, and let its jaws do the work, i.e. crush. But hazer- is right, I'm just speculating how the fight would go. But the way I see it is that all the t-rex has to do is injure a certain part of the spino, which will weaken it, making it easier for the rex to kill it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Rhino sized fish still aren't as impressive as the prey that the t-rex took though, the rex still takes more powerful, impressive prey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 29 2014, 04:10 AM
Ah, but Spinosaurus is not a heron. It has some of the biggest teeth of all theropods, a bite force of a couple of tons and a fairly massive, albeit slender rostrum. And don't forget to put the arms into the equation, that would help with controlling the fish once aprehended. Look at false gharials or freshwater crocs and the prey they can take (definitely bigger than what they can swallow whole).

It is even conceivable how its bite could cause fatal damage to decent-sized dinosaurs (as long as their necks weren't too thick) while avoiding great stresses.

Spinosaurus’ skull is still quite impressive, and if only due to its size. saying its amopng the least impressive of all theropods is like saying this:Posted Image

was less impressive than this:
Posted Image

Size matters!
What was the longest skull they ever found for spinosaurous? Just curious. I thought I heard 8 feet, but I'm probably wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Indeed, Spinosaurus skull is more impressive than that of Velociraptor, becouse size matters, in fact I said relatively to body size. Its jaws are clearly the less damaging of all giant theropods, it lacks both serration and biteforce, not to talk about the lack of a specialized muscolature in its neck and the lack of reinforcements such as fused bones on its mouth (something that, instaed, every tyrannosaurid clearly have, with Tyrannosaurus being the strongest and most robust of all, of course).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drift
Member Avatar
High Spined Lizard
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
@therapod By the same logic that is used by paleontologists? There's a large difference between using your limbs for karate dinosaur fighting as some may think they are able to do,and seizing defenseless wriggling fish.Seeing as how you took the liberty of assuming i literally meant to "gut" the fish,i'll be sure to be more clear in the future. I'm using information not speculation, it's not a "maybe" whether or not that is true.The same cannot be said for this idea their arms were used to fend off an attack. As stated before, when there is proof that they could be used on animals other than it's preferred prey.Then and only then will it seem palpable as an theory
Edited by Drift, Jan 29 2014, 04:57 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 29 2014, 03:49 AM
I find higly questionable that Spinosaurus hunted rhino sized fishes. First, the osteology of its skull doesn't exacly screm "macrophagy"; relatively to its body size, its skull is one of the less impressive in the whole theropoda. Dal Sasso and Maganuco compared it to a gian heron, and given what we know of Spinosaurus, I find the imagine quite appropriate. So that, it is worth noting that such extant, fish-eating theropods aren't exacly suited in taking down big animals. They eat fish, fishes which can be swallowed whole, so just a fraction of their body size. There is nothing like a "big predator than big preys" rule. Think about anteaters, or about the differences on the prey hunted by the maned wolf, and those taken down by other similar sized (or even smaller) members of the order Carnivora. There is incredible variability in this matter...

To be precise, I guess Spinosaurus would have been able to kill animals of decent size after all, struggling a lot and risking a lot of failure, but I'm confident that it would fail very much in attemping to hunt the armoured prey of T. rex. But Hatzegopteryx is right, to compare preys matters only to a certain extant.
Last note about Spino vs rhino sized fishes: where they would meet? Just look here:

Posted Image
(Curtesy of SpinoinWonderland from the Baryonyx vs GWS thread)

Unless Spinosaurus was a specialized swimmer (and then some fantastic reconstructions come to my mind...), I don't see it walking in waters deep enough to kill any fish above some hundreds of kilograms, and only this may be a stretch.
There is evidence that Spinosaurus hunted rhino sized fish such as Onchopristis. Spinosaurus had some of the largest teeth of all theropods, along with a bite force of around a couple tons (as theropod stated). Spinosaurus is far more lethal than a 'giant heron'. Spinosaurids in general were capable of taking down large prey, there are examples from around the globe.
Why are you trying to disprove evidence?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Jan 29 2014, 04:46 AM
Indeed, Spinosaurus skull is more impressive than that of Velociraptor, becouse size matters, in fact I said relatively to body size. Its jaws are clearly the less damaging of all giant theropods, it lacks both serration and biteforce, not to talk about the lack of a specialized muscolature in its neck and the lack of reinforcements such as fused bones on its mouth (something that, instaed, every tyrannosaurid clearly have, with Tyrannosaurus being the strongest and most robust of all, of course).

Spinosaurid teeth did in fact have serrations, and their bite forces were still pretty powerful (Spinosaurus in particular). Their jaws were not useless (which is what you seem to imply).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@Mecha

Regarding your evidence:
http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9746311/8/#post8596030

As for Vobby's argument, you have to consider that Spinosaurus was larger than it's relatives and therefore could've went into deeper water. Secondly, it is possible to kill huge fish in the water, see the jaguar v big fish video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_MjHVgzdbk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canadianwildlife
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Maybe spinosaurous could swim underwater?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
@canadianwildlife: 8ft is BS. the largest known Spinosaurus, MNHM V4047 is known from cranial remains (and is also the most complete cranium known), and would have probably had a cranium somewhere around 1.6-1.8m long (though extreme estimations have gone from 1.4 to 1.9m and above).

@vobby: of course, but it is the absolute killing power we are trying to evaluate. Fact remains that Spinosaurus had what were perhaps the largest teeth of any theropod (but surely they were AMONG the largest), considering Stromer describes an upper tooth that he estimates must have been "over 235mm long", and that those would have made amazing puncturing tools.
How deadly an animal’s bite is is not decided by whether it has fused nasals. Of course, being adapted for piscivory and oppurtunistic feeding spinosaurus’ jaws happen to be less built for inflicting large-scale damage on large game than, say, T. rex’ or C. saharicus’, but that doesn’t mean this was default because it had a weaker bite force.

something I forgot about in my last response:
Concerning how they’d encounter each other. First of all, Spinosaurus is considerably bigger (at least that’s what Hartman and more or less every other palaeontologist states, and what I think I demonstrated nicely with that scale chart of Spinosaurid fragments) than Baryonyx and Suchomimus, which would also mean it could walk into deeper water, to encounter accordingly bigger fish.
Furthermore, the fish in question (at least those we have been talking about so far) are not great white sharks, which cruise in relatively deep (though still coastal) waters. They are giant sawfish, which have flat, elongated bodies and are adapted for swimming in rivers, and sarcopterygians (an explanation of the term will hardly be necessary). Those would be fairly confortable in shallow water, at least shallow enough for Spinosaurus to prey on them there.

@drift: Science is about parsimony. If you want to speculate that Spinosaurus’ forelimbs were specialized for the purpose of doing whatever you propose to fish (remember, rhino-sized fish with skin that resists being hit multiple times by an axe!), and absolutely incapable of doing anything else, then bring evidence.
Until then, I am going to assume that what appear (by virtue of their overall size, osteology, the claws, and the animal’s ecology requiring this) to be general-purpose gripping tools would also be a powerful augmentation to its bite in a situation other than predation on an Onchopristis.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://fragillimus335.deviantart.com/journal/Spinosaurus-not-so-small-after-all-430164125
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
According to Rothschild & Tanke, the "unilateral loss of the occipital crest" in BHI 3033 is attributed to a "love bite". I could find no note of a punctured braincase (let alone brain) anywhere in the literature. Does anyone know one?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7Alx
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spinosaurid teeth did in fact have serrations, and their bite forces were still pretty powerful (Spinosaurus in particular). Their jaws were not useless (which is what you seem to imply).[/quote]Not all. Dal Sasso et al. said Spinosaurinae are unserrated.
So before posting please check informations about spinosaurinae's teeth rather than guessing.

@Theropod
Maybe i sound like idiot, but it's "MSNM" not MNHM like you spell several times.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
theropod
Jan 29 2014, 06:40 AM
This is interesting, especially becouse it is completely different from what both a paleontologist and a specialized artist drawed. Something must necessarily be wrong somewhere (between Harman, Cau and fragillimus335 I would bet on the last being wrong, but I have no data to judge right now, let's control...).

Thanks Jinfengopteryx and Theropod for correcting me about the chances of meeting such fishes. The video with the jaguar is just awesome.

@mechabaryonyx: Spinosaurus skull wasn't useless at all, neither were its teeth. I'd never say such a thing. But they were highly specialized, more than any other spinosaurid, towards piscivory. Its osteology doesn't suggest the habit of preying on big animals, since Spinosaurus has the thinnest, and therefore frailest, skull of every theropod of comparable size, and it lacked both serration and biteforce showed by the other giant theropods.

That said, those thing with the vertebrae is much more intriguing, I really have to control it better.

Edit: in the previous posts I forgot posting the comparison of cervical vertebrae of the two by the way:

Posted Image
Edited by Vobby, Jan 29 2014, 08:18 AM.
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.