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 (459,167 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:
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 6 2014, 04:29 AM
A 15 metre Spinosaurus is no less than 9 tons, scaling from the (gracile) immature Baryonyx specimen.
Which Baryonyx weight estimate have you used? Anyway, the two animals have different proportions and don't scale isometrically at all, these are the proportions of their vertebrae:



rim to rim length: 154 mm vs. 110 mm. Spinosaurus is 1.4 times Baryonyx.
Front Height: 115 mm vs. 96 mm: Spinosaurus is 1:19 Baryonyx times.
front width: 100 mm vs. 104 mm: Spinosaurus is 0.96 times Baryonyx.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//theropoda.blogspot.it/search%3Fq%3Dspinosaurus+baryonyx&hl=en&langpair=it|en&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

Spinosaurus seems to significantly surpass Baryonyx only in lenght, if they were the same lenght Baryonyx would have weighted more.
Edited by Vobby, Feb 6 2014, 06:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes though Spinosaurus is weird in the size of the anterior face (or whatever is called) of the centrum is noticeably smaller than the posterior one (14cm vs 11.5cm and 10cm in Baryonyx) but yeah, the centrum of the vertebra of spinosaurus are elongated but they are not very tall nor very wide.
Edited by blaze, Feb 6 2014, 07:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megalosauroid
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 05:26 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 6 2014, 04:29 AM
A 15 metre Spinosaurus is no less than 9 tons, scaling from the (gracile) immature Baryonyx specimen.
Can you teach me how to scale isometrically?
It depends in what you want to scale:
Mass or proportions.
To scale proportions here is an example:
If a T.rex that measures 12.3 m has a 1.52 m long skull, then how long would the skull of a 13 m T.rex would be?
One method is to divide the mayor length (13) between the minor length (12.3) and then multiply it for the skull length.
13/12.3 = 1.0569105691 (1.52) = 1.60 m.
Or you just can divide the skull length between the body length and then multiply it by the larger body length.
1.52/12.3 = 0.1235772358 (13) = 1.60 m.
Same with vertebrae.
For mass, you divide the second length (15) between the first (10) and then muliply it by the cube, then multiply what results per the original mass of the object.
15/10 = 1.5(1.5)(1.5) = 3.375 (original mass 1,700-2,700 kg) the result is 5,737 to 9,112 kg.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Megalosauroid
Feb 6 2014, 08:39 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 05:26 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 6 2014, 04:29 AM
A 15 metre Spinosaurus is no less than 9 tons, scaling from the (gracile) immature Baryonyx specimen.
Can you teach me how to scale isometrically?
It depends in what you want to scale:
Mass or proportions.
To scale proportions here is an example:
If a T.rex that measures 12.3 m has a 1.52 m long skull, then how long would the skull of a 13 m T.rex would be?
One method is to divide the mayor length (13) between the minor length (12.3) and then multiply it for the skull length.
13/12.3 = 1.0569105691 (1.52) = 1.60 m.
Or you just can divide the skull length between the body length and then multiply it by the larger body length.
1.52/12.3 = 0.1235772358 (13) = 1.60 m.
Same with vertebrae.
For mass, you divide the second length (15) between the first (10) and then muliply it by the cube, then multiply what results per the original mass of the object.
15/10 = 1.5(1.5)(1.5) = 3.375 (original mass 1,700-2,700 kg) the result is 5,737 to 9,112 kg.
Ok thanks.
The immature Baryonyx specimen is actually 9.5 metres in length and 2.6 tons, so I will scale the mass of a 15.6 metre Spinosaurus:
15.6/9.5= 1.6 (rounded to one decimal place) (1.6) (1.6)= 4 (2,600 kg) = 10,400 kg for a 15 metre Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vobby
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 08:56 AM
Megalosauroid
Feb 6 2014, 08:39 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 05:26 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 6 2014, 04:29 AM
A 15 metre Spinosaurus is no less than 9 tons, scaling from the (gracile) immature Baryonyx specimen.
Can you teach me how to scale isometrically?
It depends in what you want to scale:
Mass or proportions.
To scale proportions here is an example:
If a T.rex that measures 12.3 m has a 1.52 m long skull, then how long would the skull of a 13 m T.rex would be?
One method is to divide the mayor length (13) between the minor length (12.3) and then multiply it for the skull length.
13/12.3 = 1.0569105691 (1.52) = 1.60 m.
Or you just can divide the skull length between the body length and then multiply it by the larger body length.
1.52/12.3 = 0.1235772358 (13) = 1.60 m.
Same with vertebrae.
For mass, you divide the second length (15) between the first (10) and then muliply it by the cube, then multiply what results per the original mass of the object.
15/10 = 1.5(1.5)(1.5) = 3.375 (original mass 1,700-2,700 kg) the result is 5,737 to 9,112 kg.
Ok thanks.
The immature Baryonyx specimen is actually 9.5 metres in length and 2.6 tons, so I will scale the mass of a 15.6 metre Spinosaurus:
15.6/9.5= 1.6 (rounded to one decimal place) (1.6) (1.6)= 4 (2,600 kg) = 10,400 kg for a 15 metre Spinosaurus.
Mechabaryonyx, Baryonyx and Spinosaurus doesn't scale isometrically, read what I said about their vertebrae, the body proportions of these two animals are quite different, such a scaling is misleading. "Allometry matters"!

And 15,6 metres refers to a specimen based on a rostrum which probably didn't belong to a Spinosaurus, but to another unknown spinosaurine, as Headden showed and Cau seems to agree with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retic
Member Avatar
snake and dinosaur enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Feb 6 2014, 09:52 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 08:56 AM
Megalosauroid
Feb 6 2014, 08:39 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 05:26 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 6 2014, 04:29 AM
A 15 metre Spinosaurus is no less than 9 tons, scaling from the (gracile) immature Baryonyx specimen.
Can you teach me how to scale isometrically?
It depends in what you want to scale:
Mass or proportions.
To scale proportions here is an example:
If a T.rex that measures 12.3 m has a 1.52 m long skull, then how long would the skull of a 13 m T.rex would be?
One method is to divide the mayor length (13) between the minor length (12.3) and then multiply it for the skull length.
13/12.3 = 1.0569105691 (1.52) = 1.60 m.
Or you just can divide the skull length between the body length and then multiply it by the larger body length.
1.52/12.3 = 0.1235772358 (13) = 1.60 m.
Same with vertebrae.
For mass, you divide the second length (15) between the first (10) and then muliply it by the cube, then multiply what results per the original mass of the object.
15/10 = 1.5(1.5)(1.5) = 3.375 (original mass 1,700-2,700 kg) the result is 5,737 to 9,112 kg.
Ok thanks.
The immature Baryonyx specimen is actually 9.5 metres in length and 2.6 tons, so I will scale the mass of a 15.6 metre Spinosaurus:
15.6/9.5= 1.6 (rounded to one decimal place) (1.6) (1.6)= 4 (2,600 kg) = 10,400 kg for a 15 metre Spinosaurus.
Mechabaryonyx, Baryonyx and Spinosaurus doesn't scale isometrically, read what I said about their vertebrae, the body proportions of these two animals are quite different, such a scaling is misleading. "Allometry matters"!

And 15,6 metres refers to a specimen based on a rostrum which probably didn't belong to a Spinosaurus, but to another unknown spinosaurine, as Headden showed and Cau seems to agree with.
i thought Headden only suggested that the rostrum didn't belong to spinosaurus aegyptiacus? it still could of belonged to another species of spinosaurus, couldn't it? also, where did Cau agree with Headden's hypothesis?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Vobby
Feb 6 2014, 09:52 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 08:56 AM
Megalosauroid
Feb 6 2014, 08:39 AM
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 6 2014, 05:26 AM
Hatzegopteryx
Feb 6 2014, 04:29 AM
A 15 metre Spinosaurus is no less than 9 tons, scaling from the (gracile) immature Baryonyx specimen.
Can you teach me how to scale isometrically?
It depends in what you want to scale:
Mass or proportions.
To scale proportions here is an example:
If a T.rex that measures 12.3 m has a 1.52 m long skull, then how long would the skull of a 13 m T.rex would be?
One method is to divide the mayor length (13) between the minor length (12.3) and then multiply it for the skull length.
13/12.3 = 1.0569105691 (1.52) = 1.60 m.
Or you just can divide the skull length between the body length and then multiply it by the larger body length.
1.52/12.3 = 0.1235772358 (13) = 1.60 m.
Same with vertebrae.
For mass, you divide the second length (15) between the first (10) and then muliply it by the cube, then multiply what results per the original mass of the object.
15/10 = 1.5(1.5)(1.5) = 3.375 (original mass 1,700-2,700 kg) the result is 5,737 to 9,112 kg.
Ok thanks.
The immature Baryonyx specimen is actually 9.5 metres in length and 2.6 tons, so I will scale the mass of a 15.6 metre Spinosaurus:
15.6/9.5= 1.6 (rounded to one decimal place) (1.6) (1.6)= 4 (2,600 kg) = 10,400 kg for a 15 metre Spinosaurus.
Mechabaryonyx, Baryonyx and Spinosaurus doesn't scale isometrically, read what I said about their vertebrae, the body proportions of these two animals are quite different, such a scaling is misleading. "Allometry matters"!

And 15,6 metres refers to a specimen based on a rostrum which probably didn't belong to a Spinosaurus, but to another unknown spinosaurine, as Headden showed and Cau seems to agree with.
I know, I was just testing myself with isometric scaling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The "lenght of centrum below: rim to rim" from Charig & Milner seems to be measured along the curve, at least when scaling by posterior centrum width, that measurement is considerably closer to the figure (114mm vs 95mm) than the straight-line lenght. I’ll measure with a higher resolution version ASAP.

Anyway, has it ever occurred that there may simply be a reason for Spinosaurus’ centra to be so elongate, and that it is not that this creature was a snake with a sail on its back, much more gracile than even other spinosaurs?

So T. rex is "the biggest and strongest theropod" now? And Spinosaurus again a weak fish eater? I thought we were long over this...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is not about being over it or not, but what the fossils say and they say that Spinosaurus was fairly gracile, you know snake with a sail is hyperbole, no one is claiming that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
theropod
Feb 7 2014, 04:07 AM
So T. rex is "the biggest and strongest theropod" now? And Spinosaurus again a weak fish eater? I thought we were long over this...
No one said that Tyrannosaurus is ''the biggest and strongest theropod''. That's crazy talk lol And no one said Spinosaurus is weak. It just seems that Tyrannosaurus was bulkier than Spinosaurus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Feb 5 2014, 07:44 AM
I bet you will jump for joy if all other large theropods (such as Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus) turn out to be larger than Spinosaurus...
Well, not so much, since they've already turned out to be larger than Spinosaurus (Tyrannotitan and Tyrannosaurus at least), since there is nothing wrong in Cau's comparisons. And it's not that I hate Spinosaurus or something like this, actually, I suffer of some kind of zoological chauvinism, so that I normally prefer animals found around Mediterranean sea. It's just that a slender fish eater isn't going do kill the biggest and strongest theropod. You can't imagine how much I suffer for it being a yankee lol

Since you know those posts from Cau (sorry for having thought otherwise), may I ask what of them doesn't convince you?

Nobody?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I meant that in the sense that no one is saying Spinosaurus was crazy gracile as to warrant "snake with a sail" but yeah, based on sufficiently good remains, Sue is the biggest, most heavily built known theropod, just like HMN SII is the is the biggest sauropod.

You just can't ignore the size of the centra.

Spinosaurus is still among my favorite taxa, I don't care if it's not a super giant.
Edited by blaze, Feb 7 2014, 06:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theropod
Member Avatar
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Titanoboa is roughly similar subequal to Spinosaurus in lenght and has an asserted diameter of 1m, and people are proposing T. rex could easily close its ~1m gape around Spinosaurus torso (which would of course be ridiculous regardless of its width, but still)...

I never doubted sue was the biggest close to complete theropod skeleton known. Unfortunately, that’s a far call from being the "biggest and strongest theropod" in general. and being bulky does not mean that either.

In science, we mustn’t ignore anything. But it is still very well possible to overrate something. Spinosaurus’ centra are strongly opistocoelous, the neural spines are extremely long, the animal is semi-aquatic, and it is not even an avetheropod. The mechanics involved are not the same. Also, regardless of whether IPGH and MSNM are the same species or not, that does not mean they were the same size.
Is it for some reason necessary that the MSNM taxon had a proportionally much shorter dentary than other spinosaurids, just because it may not fit together with the mandible of the S. aegyptiacus holotype?
Edited by theropod, Feb 8 2014, 04:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blaze
Carnivore
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Titanoboa is not said to be 1m in diameter anywhere other than news articles, such diameter is ridiculous when you take into account that it's vertebra is only 12cm wide at most, a diameter between 40 to 50cm at the widest point is more realistic. I made my own reconstruction of it some time ago and tried to make it have the proper dimensions for a GDI to give a weight of 1.1 tonnes, still Spinosaurus might be 90-100cm wide at the point of the last dorsals but that is the most narrow point of the torso along with the very front and ignores its depth so I don't agree with that comment either (biting Spinosaurus torso whole)

Headden argued for the MSNM taxon to have a proportionally longer more gracile snout that S. aegyptiacus proper, that's why scaling up the holotype dentary to fit in length oversizes it everywhere else, so the opposite of what you said.
Edited by blaze, Feb 7 2014, 07:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BITEFORCE MASTER
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
I
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.