| 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: |
| Spinosaurus aegyptiacus v Tyrannosaurus rex | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM (459,157 Views) | |
| Wolf Eagle | Jan 7 2012, 02:16 AM Post #1 |
![]()
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. ![]() 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).
Edited by Taipan, Apr 24 2015, 10:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 1 2014, 11:10 AM Post #3361 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you know it is wrong why bring it up? It's not relevant. And look back at your posts, they show everything. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 1 2014, 11:11 AM Post #3362 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
before you accuse Me of baseless speculation, you should know i study extensively in the realm of tyrannosaurs, and other theropods. |
![]() |
|
| Hatzegopteryx | Mar 1 2014, 11:12 AM Post #3363 |
|
Unicellular Organism
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yet you act like you don't know we have no evidence of sexual dimorphism on this species? Come on dude, you aren't that credible after that |
![]() |
|
| spinosaurus rex | Mar 1 2014, 11:15 AM Post #3364 |
![]()
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
and to state that the abillity for spinosaurus sail to change color without any evidence kind of contredicts that. plus the fact you said you belive that spinosaurus had a sail, dispite it now being one of the least assepted beleifs on the physiology of its back heck, your vast wisom should have sniffed out bs from the post about the acounter before you even posted Edited by spinosaurus rex, Mar 1 2014, 11:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 1 2014, 11:26 AM Post #3365 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
man, can you guys really not put two and two together? no? ok, i'll put it all under one reply... Here's a list of specimens that are about 40 ft or more.... The Holotype- 11.9 meters(39 ft) AMNH 5027- 12 meters(41 ft) Thomas- 12 meters(40 ft)* Devil Rex- 11.6 meters(38 ft) Sue- 12-13 meters(40-43 ft)** Stan- 12 meters(40.1 ft) Scotty- 12 meters(40 ft) Samson- 11.9 meters(39 ft) Possible Tyrannosaurus' rivaling Sue- C. Rex- 13-14 meters(43-45 ft) F. Rex- 12-13 meters(40-43 ft) *Projected adult size for Thomas Thomas the T-rex is about 34 ft long and 7,000-8,000 lbs at 17 years of age. This length and weight are close to what many say an adult Rex would average. However, at 17, Thomas still has a full year of rapid growth yet to come. Since T-rex put on nearly 10 lbs a day during this growth, Thomas would have gained over 3,650 pounds. So, at age 18, he would be 10,650-11,650 lbs. Probably would have been about 36-38 ft in length. That's comparable to what they say an adult Rex would average. But, Thomas would have had about 12 years of life before he died at about age 30. Tyrannosaurus rex grew throughout it's life. During those 12 years or so, Thomas probably could have put on over 2,000 lbs at least, probably more.With that, he would at least be over 13,650-14,650 lbs by the time he died with a length of over 40 ft. ![]() Other tyrannosaurus specimens died at a rather young age (18 or below) but were large for their age (mor 008). Here's a scale of tyrannosaur specimens.. ![]() now onto sexual dimorphism As the number of known specimens increased, scientists began to analyze the variation between individuals and discovered what appeared to be two distinct body types, or morphs, similar to some other theropod species. As one of these morphs was more solidly built, it was termed the 'robust' morph while the other was termed 'gracile'. Several morphological differences associated with the two morphs were used to analyze sexual dimorphism in Tyrannosaurus rex, with the 'robust' morph usually suggested to be female. For example, the pelvis of several 'robust' specimens seemed to be wider, perhaps to allow the passage of eggs. It was also thought that the 'robust' morphology correlated with a reduced chevron on the first tail vertebra, also ostensibly to allow eggs to pass out of the reproductive tract, as had been erroneously reported for crocodiles. In recent years, evidence for sexual dimorphism has been weakened. A 2005 study reported that previous claims of sexual dimorphism in crocodile chevron anatomy were in error, casting doubt on the existence of similar dimorphism between Tyrannosaurus rex sexes. A full-sized chevron was discovered on the first tail vertebra of "Sue", indicating that this feature could not be used to differentiate the two morphs anyway. As Tyrannosaurus rex specimens have been found from Saskatchewan to New Mexico, differences between individuals may be indicative of geographic variation rather than sexual dimorphism. The differences could also be age-related, with 'robust' individuals being older animals. Only a single Tyrannosaurus rex specimen has been conclusively shown to belong to a specific sex. Examination of "B-rex" demonstrated the preservation of soft tissue within several bones. Some of this tissue has been identified as a medullary tissue, a specialized tissue grown only in modern birds as a source of calcium for the production of eggshell during ovulation. As only female birds lay eggs, medullary tissue is only found naturally in females, although males are capable of producing it when injected with female reproductive hormones like estrogen. This strongly suggests that "B-rex" was female, and that she died during ovulation. Recent research has shown that medullary tissue is never found in crocodiles, which are thought to be the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, aside from birds. The shared presence of medullary tissue in birds and theropod dinosaurs is further evidence of the close evolutionary relationship between the two.* * this is why i doubt my sexual dimorphism theory now, i dug into it a bit more...so i retract that. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 1 2014, 11:29 AM Post #3366 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
never stated spinosaurus could change its sail color it was in the story i posted on here, not from me XDAlso, i hadn't really studied sexual dimorphism in tyrannosaurs. Mostly stick to Paleoecology.. edit: a simple glance at my first post will show you that Edited by Ceratodromeus, Mar 1 2014, 11:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| blaze | Mar 1 2014, 01:53 PM Post #3367 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok, lets start. @Carnosaur18 CMN 9380, the holotype, is estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.8m long AMNH 5027 was estimated by Scott Hartman at 11.9m long, the skeletal mount is shy of 11.9m long too according to the laser scanned model from Hutchinson et al. (2011) LACM 7509/10167 (Thomas) has a dentary 732mm long according to figure 1.27 in the book The Tyrant King, this is 96% that of B-rex (MOR 1125), which is itself less than 90% the size of Stan, so considering its age, lengths much over 9.8m (32ft) are probably out of the question (so no 34ft), I'll talk about the speculated adult size in short notice. MOR 555 (devil rex), the mounted skeleton is shy of 11.9m long according to the laser scans by Hutchinson et al. (2011), cranial and limb bone measurements along with comparison of orthographic images of the 3D models by Hutchinson et al. (2011) revels similar size to Stan and AMNH 5027 and the holotype, similarly sized specimens whose differing lengths of 11.3m-11.9m (by Scott Hartman) are the result of Stan possessing a proportionally shorter neck and tail, they are the same size otherwise, what length is more appropriate for MOR 555 will probably depend on its age, if closer to Stan, its proportions (and length) will be more appropriate. Sue 12.3m estimated by Scott Hartman and is also the measurement of the laser scan of the mounted skeleton by Hutchinson et al. (2011), giving its completeness, this is the most accurate estimate/measurement for any specimen, any increase in length will be nothing more than a longer tail. RSM 2523.8 (Scotty) femur length of 129cm according to the book The Tyrant King, citing a personal communication with P. Currie, again, similar to size to Stan, AMNH 5027, the holotype and MOR 555, at least based on that single measurements, it could be anything between 11.3 to 11.9m. Samson, same as Scotty. MOR 1126 (C-rex), supposed 10% bigger than Sue is Horner's in the field guess, known from a prearticular, a surungular, 20 fragmentary ribs, a chevron and 3 partial vertebrae, 9% complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual measurements unknown. MOR 1152 (F-rex), known from a leg (whole leg?) a pelvis, some ribs, some dorsal vertebrae, all heavily eroded, a metatarsal, 7 caudals and 4 chevrons, 8% complete by bone count (Larson 2008), classified under XL (extra large) class in the supporting information of Horner et al. (2011), actual measurements unknown For comparison, MOR 555 is classified as large in Horner et al. (2011), is possible that MOR 1126 and MOR 1152 are Sue sized, if they were bigger than Sue, Horner would have already made it public by now, they were excavated 13 years ago and preparation was complete at least 6 years ago, in fact Horner and Padian (2004) use cross sections of several limb bones of F-rex in their T. rex growth study and never is it mentioned it being of exceptionally big size. Now into the growth of Thomas, we already established that it was 96% the size of B-rex, which the soft tissue findings say it was already an adult. B-rex was estimated to be 19 years old by Erickson et al. (2006) and according to them, the source of that table that you have posted several times, the end of the rapid growth phase of T. rex occurs between 16 and 20 years of age, citing Schweitzer et al. (2005). Of course, this is according to their growth curve which is not definitive nor is the only one, Horner and Padian (2004) estimate a younger age for the end of rapid growth, between 15 to 18 years old, they also estimate the age of B-rex at 18 years old (standard deviation of 2 years) and estimate that its phase of rapid growth had already ended for at least 2 years before it died, they also estimate MOR 555 to be 14 years old (standard deviation of 2 years), 6 years younger than what Erickson et al. (2006) estimates it at, and that it had already stopped actively growing for 2 or 3 years, note the great size disparity between this two specimens (femur length of ~115cm vs 128cm), based on the disparate results and the different estimates of age between several studies you can't accurately know right now, how much, if anything, would have Thomas grown had it died later than it did, what if it had already stopped actively growing? from where is that 17 years of age? neither Horner and Padian (2004) nor Erickson et al. (2006) mention it and I am not aware of any other study of this sort, can you cite it? btw MOR 008 was neither very young nor very large, ridiculous claims by the MOR based on a badly reconstructed skull notwithstanding, Erickson et al. (2006) estimate its age at 22 years and based on its cranial measurements (from Larson 2008) none of which are bigger than those of Stan or MOR 555, it was rather "normal" sized.
With all due respect but I have yet to see you post with citations to back up you words, nor you corrected any of the bad information of that "guest post" you posted earlier (I'm not saying that is your opinion though) nor where you very rigorous on your data gathering of those length estimates of T. rex specimens nor where you cautious in engaging in the speculation of Thomas' "adult size", do you have a library of pdfs of paleontology papers at least? if you study them extensively I would expect you to have one and have been less careless in your previous posts, anyway, none of this I say I meant it with the intention of being rude, so I'll give you the welcome to the forum, Edited by blaze, Mar 1 2014, 02:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Drift | Mar 1 2014, 02:05 PM Post #3368 |
|
High Spined Lizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Why justify your bull analogy further by delving into this idea that vegetation could possibly considered prey? I think you might have "diet" and 'prey' confused, Prey-an animal that is hunted and killed by another for food Diet-the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats. Actually, yes. If one eats primarily fish and the other took on animals that could hold their own against said predator or even kill it than i think that's all the proof you need.Then again you're not too fond of proof considering you don't believe spinosaurus has a spine. I realize you don't wish to see it was a bad analogy but obviously a bull is no pushover, using this animal as an example that justifies your other views isn't the right way to go about it at all.Comparing a herbivore that can defend itself that happens to eat defenseless grass,is in no way the same as a carnivore preying on defenseless fish.We know bulls are dangerous if confronted and the same cannot be said for spinosaurus due to its preferred prey also being as helpless as the vegitation.You are comparing an animal we know can defend itself (bull) with an animal surrounded by sensationalism in terms of its killing capabilities (spino).There is no evidence it used its arms in the fashion some claim,no evidence it had a hump, no evidence of its actual size.And yet so many are so sure it would win? Speculation is a dangerous mistress one shouldn't be tempted by. |
![]() |
|
| Ceratodromeus | Mar 1 2014, 03:51 PM Post #3369 |
|
Aspiring herpetologist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
yeah, i actually have a few PDFs....sited a few earlier....too disturbed by the lack of scientific discussion by the other two members to post them though |
![]() |
|
| spinosaurus rex | Mar 1 2014, 04:00 PM Post #3370 |
![]()
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
please, enlighten me with your pdf's. isn't the entire pourpous of this sight is to debate and discuss? so far, i haven't seen one post you posted that provided any substantial evidence on a 14 meter tyrannosaurus. if you have a specific study for it, not a growth chart that taken the conservative lengths of fragmentary specimens, i would very much appriciat it. also you may want to watch the disrespect of your posts. i admitt i have gone their too, so lets be civilized and put that behind us. and i very much appriciate the post blaze. very informative |
![]() |
|
| TheMechaBaryonyx789 | Mar 1 2014, 05:38 PM Post #3371 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Those PDFs do not show any bloody evidence of a 14 metre long Tyrannosaurus specimen. They only provide information about the growth rate of Tyrannosaurus. While the growth rate seems particularly large, we just CANNOT speculate that certain Tyrannosaurus specimens would of grown to gargantuan sizes at adulthood. You're the one who brought up a fictional fight scenario from another forum to use in this scientific discussion, so I very much doubt they are the ones causing lack of scientific debate. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Mar 1 2014, 06:01 PM Post #3372 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Carnosaur18 Yeah, I also looked up other earlier posts, your username didn't stuck in my head sorry, anyway, I feel that we should cite them if we can, people can dismiss you if the only thing one is showing is ones own word, so making clear that what you are saying is actually said in a scientific paper does help. |
![]() |
|
| Canadianwildlife | Mar 1 2014, 06:03 PM Post #3373 |
![]()
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh good grief, are you guys still debating about this one? I guess you guys wan't to get it to 300, but anyway. I just find dinosaurs quite boring, I would rather have a fact than a speculation or a guess, don't take any offense to that please. And Blaze, I just want to say I'm sorry for calling you a pathetic debater on the loch ness monster thread. I didn't mean it, and I said it out of the heat of anger. I apologize. |
![]() |
|
| blaze | Mar 1 2014, 06:10 PM Post #3374 |
|
Carnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Apology accepted Canadianwildlife, no problem.
|
![]() |
|
| Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex | Mar 1 2014, 10:00 PM Post #3375 |
![]()
Heterotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hate to disagree but skill and experience are very important. And comparing prey items gives you an idea of what they bring to the fight. But that's just my opinion. Edit: i'm finally leaving this debate. I don't think there's anything more to discuss. Edited by Tyrannoceratospinosaurus Rex, Mar 1 2014, 10:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Dinosauria Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
2:23 AM Jul 14
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)



![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







it was in the story i posted on here, not from me XD



2:23 AM Jul 14